Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Dust growth and planet formation by disc fragmentation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Dust growth can pull disc fragmentation inward to 30 au, producing gas-giant-mass clumps.

desk verdict A clean analytic demonstration that dust growth can move GI fragmentation inward, but the headline R~30 au / M~5 M_J result rests on the optimistic St=0.1 case. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09305 v1 pith:7YVZTRVD submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.EP

Hans Lee , Sergei Nayakshin , Richard A. Booth This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords gravitationalinstabilityprotoplanetarydiscsdustgrowthopacitydiscfragmentationgiantplanetformationRosselandmeanToomreQ
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that dust grains growing beyond about a millimeter markedly lower the Rosseland mean opacity of protoplanetary discs. With this lower opacity, a marginally stable self-gravitating disc can radiate heat efficiently enough to fragment at radii as small as ~30 au, instead of the usual ~60 au limit for unprocessed interstellar dust. The inward shift lowers the critical disc mass and accretion rate and brings the initial fragment mass down to a few Jupiter masses, suggesting that gravitational instability may form gas giants more readily than previously concluded. The authors stress that their analytic framework needs confirmation by numerical simulations that track dust dynamics and fragment evolution.

What carries the argument

A piecewise power-law Rosseland mean opacity fit κ(amax, T) based on DIANA opacities, with sublimation corrections, is embedded in the standard pseudo-viscous model of a marginally stable disc (Toomre Q ≈ 1). Thermal balance between gravitoturbulent heating and radiative cooling is imposed at the critical viscosity parameter α ≈ 0.06 (β ≈ 7), yielding critical temperature, surface density, accretion rate, and initial fragment mass M_frag = 57 Σ_crit H_crit^2 as functions of radius for four grain-size scenarios.

What would settle it

A radiation-hydrodynamic simulation of a self-gravitating disc that includes cm-sized dust growth and finds no fragments inside 60 au would refute the inward shift; likewise, observations showing that discs at 20–30 au are too optically thick despite the presence of large grains would do so.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper finds that opacity reduction from dust growth enables disc fragmentation in colder, less massive discs at smaller radii. Using a new analytic opacity fit that depends on maximum grain size, the authors show that for grains grown to a Stokes number of 0.1, the minimum fragment mass is about 5 Jupiter masses and occurs near 30 au, compared to about 60 au for ISM-like dust. Even for a conservative 1 cm maximum grain size, the fragmentation radius shifts inward to ~40 au, and planet-mass clumps remain possible at 20–30 au. The critical accretion rate threshold for fragmentation is met at R ~ 20 au in the most favorable case, versus R > 40 au without dust growth.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that dust grains actually reach the assumed large sizes—most critically the optimistic Stokes-number-0.1 limit—before the disc fragments; if grain growth is stalled at smaller sizes by fragmentation barriers, radial drift, or settling, the opacity remains high and the fragmentation radius stays near 60 au.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Disc fragmentation can occur inside 30 au, within the typical observed extent of protoplanetary discs, rather than only in the outer regions beyond 50–60 au.
  • Critical disc masses and accretion rates required for fragmentation are lower, making gravitational instability a more viable channel for giant planet formation in less extreme discs.
  • Initial fragment masses drop into the gas giant regime, with a minimum near 5 Jupiter masses for optimistic grain growth.
  • In the 1 cm grain case, the smallest fragments form at 20–30 au, although the radius of minimum mass is about 40 au.
  • Fragmentation is further favored around lower-mass stars, in metal-poor discs, and in regions of reduced stellar irradiation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If correct, the model predicts a population of directly imaged giant planets on ~30 au orbits—closer than the >50 au orbits usually attributed to gravitational instability—which future surveys could look for.
  • The spatial variation of grain growth implies that opacity, and hence fragmentation likelihood, is not uniform; spiral arms with concentrated dust may fragment differently than the disc average, producing a patchy distribution of clump formation sites.
  • The same opacity effect would alter gas accretion onto the newly formed clumps, potentially changing the final planet mass and multiplicity, an extension the paper notes but does not model.
  • Observations measuring grain sizes in young discs (e.g., via millimeter spectral indices) could directly test the predicted correlation: discs with evidence of centimeter-sized grains should be more prone to fragmentation and to hosting massive wide-orbit companions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter develops an analytic Rosseland-mean opacity parameterization as a function of maximum grain size, fit to DIANA opacity tables, and couples it to a standard pseudo-viscous Q=1 gravitoturbulent disc model to derive critical temperature, surface density, accretion rate, and initial fragment mass at the fragmentation boundary. The authors consider four dust scenarios: fixed 10 µm grains, fixed 1 cm grains, a fragmentation-limited case with v_frag=10 m/s, and an optimistic St=0.1 case. They find that if grains grow to cm sizes, fragmentation can occur at radii as small as ~30 au, with a minimum fragment mass of ~5 M_J near that radius, compared with ~60 au and higher masses for ISM-like dust. The paper concludes that GI may form gas giants rather than only brown dwarfs, while cautioning that numerical simulations are required to assess dust dynamics and fragment evolution.

Significance. If the central result is robust, the paper is significant: it challenges the widespread claim that GI operates only beyond ~50 au and that it mostly produces brown-dwarf-mass objects. The strengths are a transparent analytic framework, an opacity fit tested directly against DIANA tables, sensitivity checks against alpha_crit, stellar mass, irradiation, and metallicity, and public code/data. The main weakness, which the authors themselves acknowledge, is that the quantitative headline (R~30 au, M_min~5 M_J) is produced by the St=0.1 case that is explicitly labelled an optimistic upper limit, while the more conservative v_frag=10 m/s model does not show the same inward shift. This is a load-bearing uncertainty rather than a routine parameter variation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1 and §3.2, Figs. 4-5] The central quantitative result (fragmentation at R_min ~ 30 au with M_min ~ 5 M_J) is generated by the St_max = 0.1 case, which the text itself calls an 'optimistic upper limit'. In the alternative v_frag = 10 m/s case (orange curves, Fig. 4 lower right), amax remains below ~1 mm across the relevant radii, so the opacity is close to the ISM-like case and the fragment-mass minimum stays near ~50 au with M_frag > 10 M_J, as seen in Fig. 5. Since the paper states in §4 that the opacity reduction is significant only for amax > ~1 mm, the inward shift to 30 au does not occur in the conservative growth model. The abstract and §3.2 present the R~30 au result without this caveat. Please either make the v_frag = 10 m/s case the headline and treat the St = 0.1 case explicitly as a speculative upper limit, or provide a quantitative justification that St ~ 0.1 is reached before fragmentation, given
  2. [§3.1, St=0.1 model] The St=0.1 maximum grain size is imposed via amax = 2 Sigma St / (pi rho_s) rather than derived from a coagulation/fragmentation calculation. The authors correctly state that amax is a non-local quantity, but the paper's main claim effectively assumes that grain growth to cm sizes has already occurred in a marginally stable disc. The cited work (Booth & Clarke 2016; Riols et al. 2017; Booth & Clarke 2019) indicates that correlated motions may suppress collision velocities, but the small-scale turbulence contribution has not been quantified. Without such a quantification, or at least a clear statement that the St=0.1 case is a deliberately best-case scenario, the conclusion 'dust growth may promote fragmentation at ~30 au' is better characterized as a conditional result than as a finding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] For amax >= 10^3 um the table states that pl and ph are constant, but the cells are blank. Please give the constant values explicitly in the table or in the text.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption does not state the range/units of the ratio plotted. Please add the color-bar range or state the plotted interval so the deviation values are interpretable.
  3. [Data availability] The GitHub URL contains a space ('dust growth opacity'); this should be properly encoded or hyphenated so the link is accessible.
  4. [Footnote 1] The footnote is a long parenthetical fragment that interrupts the main text; consider splitting it into a complete sentence or integrating it into the discussion.
  5. [§2.2] The sublimation-factor expression is presented with ambiguous parentheses/ spacing; a clearer formulation (e.g., explicitly showing multiplication by f_i + (1-f_i) exp((T-T_i)/10 K)) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the fragmentation results are computed from independently fit opacity tables and explicitly declared grain-size scenarios.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The opacity function (Eq. 1) is explicitly fit to DIANA standard opacities from Woitke et al. (2016), with goodness-of-fit quantified in Fig. 2; the grain-size cases are declared inputs or externally motivated scenarios (10 μm, 1 cm, v_frag from Birnstiel et al. 2009, and St=0.1 as an optimistic upper limit motivated by Booth & Clarke 2016). The critical disc properties T_crit, Σ_crit, Mdot_crit, and M_frag are then outputs of the thermal-balance equations (F_cool = F_heat, Q=1, α=α_crit≈0.06) using literature values, not fitted to the target conclusion. The St=0.1 case is explicitly labeled an optimistic upper limit with caveats about small-scale turbulence, so the headline result is a conditional scenario calculation rather than a prediction forced by the inputs. The only self-citation (Booth & Clarke) supports an assumption that the authors themselves flag as unquantified, and it does not reduce the central derivation to the authors' own previous claims. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is merely renamed. The paper's limitations are acknowledged qualitatively, which further confirms that model dependence is not being disguised as independent derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard GI and opacity physics. The free parameters are adopted from prior simulations or calibrated to published opacity tables; none are fitted to the paper's output quantities. The main unproven ingredient is the grain growth to centimeter-to-meter sizes in the fragmenting region.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_crit (disc fragmentation threshold) = 0.06
    Adopted from Rice et al. (2005) simulations; sets the fragmentation boundary. Chosen by hand in this model, not fitted to the paper's data.
  • grain fragmentation velocity v_frag = 10 m/s
    Standard assumption in the Birnstiel et al. (2009) growth model used to compute amax(R) in the third scenario.
  • maximum Stokes number St_max = 0.1
    Optimistic upper limit for grain size in self-gravitating discs based on Booth & Clarke (2016); drives the strongest result.
  • irradiation scaling factor = 0.1
    The fraction of stellar luminosity that heats the disc midplane in T_irr; chosen as a simple estimate, consistent with flaring angle within a factor of order unity.
  • opacity fit parameters kappa0, pl, ph (per amax) = Table 1 values for 17 amax values
    Fitted to DIANA Rosseland mean opacity tables (Woitke et al. 2016) to create eq. (1). These are calibration fits to an external opacity model, not to the target fragmentation result.
  • grain size distribution parameters = p=3.5, amin=0.05 micron, rho_s=3 g/cm3
    Assumed power-law index, minimum grain size, and solid density from standard ISM/dust models (MRN distribution; DIANA).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Marginally stable disc with Toomre Q = 1, giving cs = pi G Sigma / Omega.
    Standard assumption in pseudo-viscous disc models (Rafikov 2005, Levin 2007); used in eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Disc is in thermal balance between gravitoturbulent heating and radiative cooling, with fragmentation when alpha = alpha_crit = 0.06.
    Gammie 2001 critical alpha; used to solve for T_crit.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-viscous disc model accurately captures the fragmentation boundary within a factor of order unity.
    The paper notes consistency with numerical simulations (e.g., Zhu et al. 2012).
  • domain assumption The DIANA opacity tables and the piecewise power-law fit (eq. 1) with sublimation corrections represent realistic disc opacities.
    Opacity is the key input; the fit deviates from DIANA by up to a factor of 2.4, and the choice of DIANA over Zhu et al. (2021) yields higher opacities, which is conservative for the main claim.
  • domain assumption The grain size scenarios (Birnstiel et al. 2009; St_max = 0.1) are representative or upper limits of dust sizes in the fragmenting disc.
    Grain growth is non-local and not modeled; the optimistic St=0.1 case is an upper limit.
  • domain assumption Initial fragment mass is given by M_frag = 57 Sigma H^2 (Xu et al. 2024).
    This factor is order-unity uncertain but the paper uses the larger value from simulations, giving a conservative estimate.
  • domain assumption Stellar irradiation heating is T_irr = (0.1 L* / (4 pi r^2 sigma_B))^(1/4).
    The 0.1 factor is an estimate of non-local irradiation effects; tested in supplementary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dust growth and planet formation by disc fragmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YVZTRVD

@misc{pith2026250909305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dust growth and planet formation by disc fragmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YVZTRVD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09305}
}
abstract

It is often argued that gravitational instability of realistic protoplanetary discs is only possible at distances larger than $\sim 50$ au from the central star, requiring high disc masses and accretion rates, and that therefore disc fragmentation results in the production of brown dwarfs rather than gas giant planets. However, the effects of dust growth on opacity can be very significant but have not been taken into account systematically in the models of fragmenting discs. We employ dust opacity that depends on both temperature and maximum grain size to evaluate analytically the properties of a critically fragmenting protoplanetary disc. We find that dust growth may promote disc fragmentation at disc radii as small as $\sim 30$ au. As a result, the critical disc masses and accretion rates are smaller, and the initial fragment masses are in the gas giant planet mass regime. While this suggests that formation of gas giant planets by disc fragmentation may be more likely than usually believed, we caution that numerical models of the process are needed to evaluate the effects not taken into account here, e.g., dust grain mobility and fragment evolution after disc fragmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09305 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between dust opacities of Bell & Lin (1994), Semenov et al. (2003), Zhu et al. (2012) at ρ = 10−10 g cm−3 , and Zhu et al. (2021) at amax = 10µm and amax = 1 cm respectively. of frequency-dependent opacity is more nuanced, e.g., see the “opacity cliff” in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between Rosseland mean opacities in Zhu et al. (2021) (at ρ = 10−10 g cm−3 ) and this paper. 3.1 Critically fragmenting discs Pseudo-viscous disc models is a convenient framework to study the disc fragmentation boundary analytically (e.g. Rafikov 2005; Levin 2007; Clarke 2009), with their results be￾ing consistent with numerical simulations within a factor of order unity (e.g. fig. 2 in Zhu et al. 2012). … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Plotted against R: Tcrit (upper left), ΣcritπR2 (up￾per right), M˙ (lower left), amax (lower right). The cases are amax = 10µm (blue, dotted), vfrag = 10 m s−1 (orange, dashed), Stmax = 0.1 (green, solid), and amax = 1 cm (red, dash-dotted). We choose to rescale the critical surface density plot by πR2 to better illustrate the difference between the four cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mfrag plotted against R, for amax = 10µm (blue, dot￾ted), vfrag = 10 m s−1 (orange, dashed), Stmax = 0.1 (green, solid), and amax = 1 cm (red, dash-dotted). 1σ uncertainty is shown around the Stmax = 0.1 case (Xu et al. 2024). source of collisions between dust grains i…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Tcrit, Σcrit, M˙ crit, and amax plotted against R for different values of M∗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mfrag plotted against R for different values of M∗. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Tcrit, Σcrit, M˙ crit, and amax plotted against R for different values of L∗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mfrag plotted against R for different values of L∗. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tcrit, Σcrit, M˙ crit, and amax plotted against R for different values of z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mfrag plotted against R for different values of z. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dust Growth in Binary Systems: Inhibition of dust settling and growth in circumbinary discs

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dust grains in circumbinary discs end up five times smaller than in single-star discs, and the conditions for streaming-instability clumping are not met, arguing against in-situ planet formation there.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Baehr H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.3348B 523, 3348

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1564 2023

  2. [3]

    R., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...526..411B 526, 411

    Bell K. R., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...526..411B 526, 411

    work page doi:10.1086/307988 1999

  3. [4]

    R., Lin D

    Bell K. R., Lin D. N. C., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174206 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1994ApJ...427..987B&db_key=AST 427, 987

    doi:10.1086/174206 1994

  4. [5]

    Birnstiel T., 2024, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2024ARA&A..62..157B/doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052705 , 62, 157

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052705 2024

  5. [6]

    P., Brauer F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    Birnstiel T., Dullemond C. P., Brauer F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912452 2009

  6. [7]

    Blunt S., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023AJ....166..257B/doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b7 , 166

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b7 2023

  7. [8]

    C., Durisen R

    Boley A. C., Durisen R. H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/618 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..618B 724, 618

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/618 2010

  8. [9]

    C., Hartquist T

    Boley A. C., Hartquist T. W., Durisen R. H., Michael S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512235 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...656L..89B 656, L89

    doi:10.1086/512235 2007

Show all 70 references
  1. [10]

    C., Hayfield T., Mayer L., Durisen R

    Boley A. C., Hayfield T., Mayer L., Durisen R. H., 2010, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.01.015 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2010Icar..207..509B 207, 509

    2010 doi

  2. [11]

    A., Clarke C

    Booth R. A., Clarke C. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw488 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.2676B 458, 2676

    2016 doi

  3. [12]

    A., Clarke C

    Booth R. A., Clarke C. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.3718B 483, 3718

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306036 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...503..923B 503, 923

    Boss A. P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306036 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...503..923B 503, 923

    1998 doi

  5. [14]

    I., Goldreich P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304869 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..368C 490, 368

    Chiang E. I., Goldreich P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304869 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..368C 490, 368

    1997 doi

  6. [15]

    J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14774.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396.1066C 396, 1066

    Clarke C. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14774.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396.1066C 396, 1066

    2009

  7. [16]

    J., Lodato G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00695.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398L...6C 398, L6

    Clarke C. J., Lodato G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00695.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398L...6C 398, L6

    2009

  8. [18]

    Deng H., Mayer L., Meru F., 2017, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170600417D ( @eprint arXiv 1706.00417 )

    2017 arXiv

  9. [19]

    Dorschner J., Begemann B., Henning T., Jaeger C., Mutschke H., 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 300, 503

    1995

  10. [20]

    T., Lee H

    Draine B. T., Lee H. M., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...285...89D 285, 89

    1984 doi

  11. [21]

    P., Dominik C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042080 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2005A

    Dullemond C. P., Dominik C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042080 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  12. [22]

    Forgan D., Rice K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19380.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1928F 417, 1928

    2011

  13. [23]

    F., 2001, , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001ApJ...553..174G&db_key=AST 553, 174

    Gammie C. F., 2001, , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001ApJ...553..174G&db_key=AST 553, 174

    2001

  14. [25]

    G., Mamatsashvili G

    Gibbons P. G., Mamatsashvili G. R., Rice W. K. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu809 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442..361G 442, 361

    2014 doi

  15. [26]

    M., van der Marel N., Williams J

    Guerra-Alvarado O. M., van der Marel N., Williams J. P., Pinilla P., Mulders G. D., Lambrechts M., Sanchez M., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319504G p. arXiv:2503.19504

    2025 arXiv

  16. [27]

    Hall C., Forgan D., Rice K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1244 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2517H 470, 2517

    2017 doi

  17. [28]

    Helled R., et al., 2014, @doi [Protostars and Planets VI, University of Arizona Press, Tucson] 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch028 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014prpl.conf..643H pp 643--665

    2014 doi

  18. [29]

    M., Lodato G., 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160301280K ( @eprint arXiv 1603.01280 )

    Kratter K. M., Lodato G., 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160301280K ( @eprint arXiv 1603.01280 )

    2016 arXiv

  19. [30]

    M., Murray-Clay R

    Kratter K. M., Murray-Clay R. A., Youdin A. N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1375 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1375K 710, 1375

    2010 doi

  20. [31]

    Kubli N., Mayer L., Deng H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2731K 525, 2731

    2023 doi

  21. [32]

    P., 1951, in J

    Kuiper G. P., 1951, in J. A. Hynek ed., 50th Anniversary of the Yerkes Observatory and Half a Century of Progress in Astrophysics. pp 357--+

    1951

  22. [33]

    Kuiper R., Klahr H., Beuther H., Henning T., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2010ApJ...722.1556K/doi:10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1556 , 722, 1556

    2010 doi

  23. [34]

    Levin Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2007MNRAS.374..515L 374, 515

    2007

  24. [35]

    J., 2023a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023MNRAS.519.2017L/doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3653 , 519, 2017

    Longarini C., Lodato G., Bertin G., Armitage P. J., 2023a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023MNRAS.519.2017L/doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3653 , 519, 2017

    2017 doi

  25. [36]

    J., Lodato G., Price D

    Longarini C., Armitage P. J., Lodato G., Price D. J., Ceppi S., 2023b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023MNRAS.522.6217L/doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1400 , 522, 6217

    doi

  26. [37]

    G., Kuiper R., Klahr H., Dullemond C

    Malygin M. G., Kuiper R., Klahr H., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...568A..91M 568, A91

    2014 doi

  27. [38]

    Marois C., Macintosh B., Barman T., Zuckerman B., Song I., Patience J., Lafreni \`e re D., Doyon R., 2008, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1166585 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Sci...322.1348M 322, 1348

    2008 doi

  28. [39]

    M., Macintosh B., Barman T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09684 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.468.1080M 468, 1080

    Marois C., Zuckerman B., Konopacky Q. M., Macintosh B., Barman T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09684 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.468.1080M 468, 1080

    2010 doi

  29. [40]

    R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16867.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.2279M 406, 2279

    Meru F., Bate M. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16867.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.2279M 406, 2279

    2010

  30. [41]

    W., de Koter A., 2005, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041920 , 432, 909

    Min M., Hovenier J. W., de Koter A., 2005, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041920 , 432, 909

    2005 doi

  31. [42]

    P., Kama M., Dominik C., 2011, @doi [Icarus] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2011Icar..212..416M/doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.12.002 , 212, 416

    Min M., Dullemond C. P., Kama M., Dominik C., 2011, @doi [Icarus] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2011Icar..212..416M/doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.12.002 , 212, 416

    2011 doi

  32. [43]

    I., Akimkin V., Skliarevskii A., Wiebe D., G \"u del M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910..153M 910, 153

    Molyarova T., Vorobyov E. I., Akimkin V., Skliarevskii A., Wiebe D., G \"u del M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910..153M 910, 153

    2021 doi

  33. [44]

    Nayakshin S., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.55 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34....2N 34, e002

    2016 doi

  34. [45]

    Nayakshin S., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1351 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2387N 470, 2387

    doi

  35. [46]

    Paardekooper S.-J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20553.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.3286P 421, 3286

    2012

  36. [47]

    B., Hollenbach D., Beckwith S., Simonelli D

    Pollack J. B., Hollenbach D., Beckwith S., Simonelli D. P., Roush T., Fong W., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173677 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/1994ApJ...421..615P 421, 615

    1994 doi

  37. [48]

    B., Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J

    Pollack J. B., Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J. J., Podolak M., Greenzweig Y., 1996, @doi [Icarus] 10.1006/icar.1996.0190 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Icar..124...62P 124, 62

    1996

  38. [49]

    R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428899 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...621L..69R&db_key=AST 621, L69

    Rafikov R. R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428899 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...621L..69R&db_key=AST 621, L69

    2005 doi

  39. [50]

    Rice W. K. M., Lodato G., Pringle J. E., Armitage P. J., Bonnell I. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08339.x , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2004MNRAS.355..543R 355, 543

    2004

  40. [51]

    Rice W. K. M., Lodato G., Armitage P. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00105.x , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005MNRAS.364L..56R&db_key=AST 364, L56

    2005

  41. [52]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471..317R 471, 317

    Riols A., Latter H., Paardekooper S. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471..317R 471, 317

    2017 doi

  42. [53]

    P., Tazzari M., Booth R

    Rosotti G. P., Tazzari M., Booth R. A., Testi L., Lodato G., Clarke C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.4829R 486, 4829

    2019 doi

  43. [54]

    A., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2024MNRAS.528.2490R/doi:10.1093/mnras/stae167 , 528, 2490

    Rowther S., Nealon R., Meru F., Wurster J., Aly H., Alexander R., Rice K., Booth R. A., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2024MNRAS.528.2490R/doi:10.1093/mnras/stae167 , 528, 2490

    2024 doi

  44. [55]

    Semenov D., Henning T., Helling C., Ilgner M., Sedlmayr E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031279 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  45. [56]

    Stamatellos D., Inutsuka S.-i., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2018MNRAS.477.3110S/doi:10.1093/mnras/sty827 , 477, 3110

    2018 doi

  46. [57]

    P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078628 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2008A

    Stamatellos D., Whitworth A. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078628 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2008A

    2008 doi

  47. [58]

    P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14069.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392..413S 392, 413

    Stamatellos D., Whitworth A. P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14069.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392..413S 392, 413

    2009

  48. [59]

    Toomre A., 1964, , http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1964ApJ...139.1217T&db_key=AST 139, 1217

    1964

  49. [60]

    B., Ackerman T

    Toon O. B., Ackerman T. P., 1981, @doi [Appl Opt] 10.1364/AO.20.003657 , 20, 3657

    1981 doi

  50. [61]

    Trapman L., Rosotti G., Zhang K., Tabone B., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023ApJ...954...41T/doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace7d1 , 954

    2023 doi

  51. [62]

    Vigan A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A..72V 651, A72

    2021 doi

  52. [63]

    I., Basu S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507320 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..956V 650, 956

    Vorobyov E. I., Basu S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507320 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..956V 650, 956

    2006 doi

  53. [64]

    I., Basu S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..115V 805, 115

    Vorobyov E. I., Basu S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..115V 805, 115

    2015 doi

  54. [65]

    I., Elbakyan V

    Vorobyov E. I., Elbakyan V. G., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2018A&A...618A...7V/doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833226 , 618

    2018 doi

  55. [66]

    I., Elbakyan V

    Vorobyov E. I., Elbakyan V. G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A...1V 631, A1

    2019 doi

  56. [67]

    J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90164-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Icar...60..553W 60, 553

    Weidenschilling S. J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90164-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984Icar...60..553W 60, 553

    1984 doi

  57. [68]

    Woitke P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A.103W 586, A103

    2016 doi

  58. [69]

    J., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023ApJ...946...94X/doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e5 , 946

    Xu W., Armitage P. J., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023ApJ...946...94X/doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e5 , 946

    2023 doi

  59. [70]

    W., Stone J

    Xu W., Jiang Y.-F., Kunz M. W., Stone J. M., 2024, Global Simulations of Gravitational Instability in Protostellar Disks with Full Radiation Transport. I. Stochastic Fragmentation with Optical-depth-dependent Rate and Universal Fragment Mass ( @eprint arXiv 2410.12042 ), https...

    2024 arXiv

  60. [71]

    P., Gammie C

    Zhu Z., Hartmann L., Nelson R. P., Gammie C. F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/110 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..110Z 746, 110

    2012 doi

  61. [72]

    N., Armitage P

    Zhu Z., Jiang Y.-F., Baehr H., Youdin A. N., Armitage P. J., Martin R. G., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2021MNRAS.508..453Z/doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2517 , 508, 453

    2021 doi

  62. [73]

    G., Mennella V., Colangeli L., Bussoletti E., 1996, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/282.4.1321 , 282, 1321

    Zubko V. G., Mennella V., Colangeli L., Bussoletti E., 1996, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/282.4.1321 , 282, 1321

    1996 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.