The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unconvergence of very-large-scale giant impact simulations
Abstract
The giant impact (GI) hypothesis is one of the most important hypotheses both in planetary science and in geoscience, since it is related to the origin of the Moon and also the initial condition of the Earth. A number of numerical simulations have been done using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method. However, GI hypothesis is currently in a crisis. The “canonical” GI scenario failed to explain the identical isotope ratio between the Earth and the Moon. On the other hand, little has been known about the reliability of the result of GI simulations. In this paper, we discuss the effect of the resolution on the results of the GI simulations by varying the number of particles from 3 × 103 to 108. We found that the results does not converge, but show oscillatory behaviour. We discuss the origin of this oscillatory behaviour.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Most previous Moon-formation simulations have used around 10 5 -10 6 particles, but these resolutions can fail to converge on even largescale outcomes of giant impacts, such as the planet's rotation period or the mass of ejected debris (Genda et al. 2015;Hosono et al. 2017;Kegerreis et al. 2019).”
From Immediate Origin of the Moon as a Post-impact Satellite (2022) · cites this paper as Hosono et al. 2017
In the citing paper
“The sets described above all use ∼10 7 SPH particles, compared with the 10 5 -10 6 typically used in the current literature, which can be insufficient to resolve or converge on both small-and large-scale outcomes of giant impacts (Genda et al. 2015;Hosono et al. 2017;Kegerreis et al. 2019).”
From Immediate Origin of the Moon as a Post-impact Satellite (2022) · cites this paper as Hosono et al. 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Origin of the Moon in a giant impact near the end of the Earth's formation
Canup, R. M., & Asphaug, E. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35089010 · Cited by 1,094 · cited 3×
“…the results of runs with different numbers of particles quantitively, we use the predicted moon mass (e.g., Ida et al. 1997; Kokubo et al. 2000; Canup and Asphaug 2001) defined as MM = 1.9 Ldisc√ GM⊕RRoche − 1.1Mdisc − 1.9Mescape, (1) whereLdisc,RRoche,Mdisc andMescape are the disc angular…”
MethodInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Balsara, 1995, J. Comput. Phys., 121, 357, 10.1016/S0021-9991(95)90221-X · DOI · Paper page
- Barnes, 1986, Nature, 324, 446, 10.1038/324446a0 · DOI · Paper page
- Benz, 1986, Icarus, 66, 515, 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90088-6 · DOI · Paper page
- Cameron, 1976, 7th Lunar Science Conf., 1041
- Canup, 2013, Icarus, 222, 200, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.10.011 · DOI
- Georg, 2007, Nature, 447, 1102, 10.1038/nature05927 · DOI · Paper page
- Gingold, 1977, MNRAS, 181, 375, 10.1093/mnras/181.3.375 · DOI · Paper page
- Hartmann, 1975, Icarus, 24, 504, 10.1016/0019-1035(75)90070-6 · DOI · Paper page
- Hosono, 2016, Icarus, 271, 131, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.01.036 · DOI
- Ida, 1997, Nature, 389, 353, 10.1038/38669 · DOI · Paper page
- Iwasawa, 2015, WOLFHPC’15: Proc. 5th International Workshop on Domain-Specific Languages and High-Level Frameworks for High Performance Computing, 1
- Iwasawa, 2016, PASJ, 68, 54, 10.1093/pasj/psw053 · DOI
- Kokubo, 2000, Icarus, 148, 419, 10.1006/icar.2000.6496 · DOI
- Lucy, 1977, AJ, 82, 1013, 10.1086/112164 · DOI · Paper page
- Melosh, 1989, Impact Cratering: A Geological Process
- Monaghan, 1992, ARA&A, 30, 543, 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551 · DOI · Paper page
- Monaghan, 1994, J. Comput. Phys., 110, 399, 10.1006/jcph.1994.1034 · DOI · Paper page
- Monaghan, 1997, J. Comput. Phys., 136, 298, 10.1006/jcph.1997.5732 · DOI · Paper page
- Nakajima, 2014, Icarus, 233, 259, 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.01.008 · DOI
- Teodoro, 2014, 45th Lunar and Planetary Science Conf., 2703
- Touboul, 2007, Nature, 450, 1206, 10.1038/nature06428 · DOI · Paper page
- Wada, 2006, ApJ, 638, 1180, 10.1086/499032 · DOI
- Wiechert, 2001, Science, 294, 345, 10.1126/science.1063037 · DOI · Paper page
- Zhang, 2012, Nature Geosci., 5, 251, 10.1038/ngeo1429 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Immediate Origin of the Moon as a Post-impact Satellite
Kegerreis, J. A., Ruiz-Bonilla, S., Eke, V. R., Massey, R. J., Sandnes, T. D., & Teodoro, L. F. A. (2022) · The Astrophysical Journal Letters · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8d96 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Hosono, N., Iwasawa, M., Tanikawa, A., Nitadori, K., Muranushi, T., & Makino, J.
- Venue
- Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-02-08
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0004-6264
- 2053-051X
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Funders
- RIKEN (ra000008)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unconvergence of very-large-scale giant impact simulations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pasj/psw131
- The paper
- Hosono, N., Iwasawa, M., Tanikawa, A., Nitadori, K., Muranushi, T., & Makino, J. (2017). Unconvergence of very-large-scale giant impact simulations. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan. https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psw131
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
