Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparative study of disc-planet interaction

Open access
De Val-Borro, M., Edgar, R. G., Artymowicz, P., Ciecielag, P., Cresswell, P., D'Angelo, G., Delgado-Donate, E. J., Dirksen, G., Fromang, S., Gawryszczak, A., Klahr, H., Kley, W., Lyra, W., Masset, F., Mellema, G., Nelson, R. P., Paardekooper, S.- J., Peplinski, A., Pierens, A., Plewa, T., Rice, K., Schafer, C., Speith, R.·2006·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10488.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We perform numerical simulations of a disc–planet system using various grid-based and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) codes. The tests are run for a simple setup where Jupiter and Neptune mass planets on a circular orbit open a gap in a protoplanetary disc during a few hundred orbital periods. We compare the surface density contours, potential vorticity and smoothed radial profiles at several times. The disc mass and gravitational torque time evolution are analysed with high temporal resolution. There is overall consistency between the codes. The density profiles agree within about 5 per cent for the Eulerian simulations. The SPH results predict the correct shape of the gap although have less resolution in the low-density regions and weaker planetary wakes. The disc masses after 200 orbital periods agree within 10 per cent. The spread is larger in the tidal torques acting on the planet which agree within a factor of 2 at the end of the simulation. In the Neptune case, the dispersion in the torques is greater than for Jupiter, possibly owing to the contribution from the not completely cleared region close to the planet.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10488.x

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 57 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
De Val-Borro, M., Edgar, R. G., Artymowicz, P., Ciecielag, P., Cresswell, P., D'Angelo, G., Delgado-Donate, E. J., Dirksen, G., Fromang, S., Gawryszczak, A., Klahr, H., Kley, W., Lyra, W., Masset, F., Mellema, G., Nelson, R. P., Paardekooper, S. J., Peplinski, A., Pierens, A., Plewa, T., Rice, K., Schafer, C., & Speith, R.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2006-08-01
Volume
370
Issue
2
Pages
529-558
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10488.x
OpenAlex
W1987345881
Cited by
450
References
57
FWCI
9.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: A comparative study of disc-planet interaction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10488.x
The paper
De Val-Borro, M., Edgar, R. G., Artymowicz, P., Ciecielag, P., Cresswell, P., D'Angelo, G., Delgado-Donate, E. J., Dirksen, G., Fromang, S., Gawryszczak, A., Klahr, H., Kley, W., Lyra, W., Masset, F., Mellema, G., Nelson, R. P., Paardekooper, S. J., Peplinski, A., Pierens, A., . . . Speith, R. (2006). A comparative study of disc-planet interaction. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10488.x

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.