Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Planetary systems in a star cluster I: the Solar system scenario

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Model open clusters eject 0.3%–5.3% of planets from Solar-system-like hosts within 50 Myr, while Jupiter shields the inner planets unless a star hits it directly.

desk verdict Solid simulation study with new Solar-system escape fractions; dense-cluster numbers rest on a nearest-neighbor-only approximation that should be tested, and conclusion (vi) needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07747 v1 pith:MFAR25HR submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Francesco Flammini Dotti , M.B.N. Kouwenhoven , Maxwell Xu Cai , Rainer Spurzem This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords planetarydynamicsstarclustersstellarencountersN-bodysimulationsSolarsystemanaloguesfree-floatingplanetshabitablezonedynamicalevolution
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

This paper asks what happens to a Solar-system-like planetary system when its host star spends its youth inside an open star cluster, and answers with a numerical census. Simulating hundreds of copies of a six-planet system (Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) around Solar-mass stars in clusters of 500–10,000 stars for 50 Myr, it finds that most systems survive but a measurable minority do not: between 0.3% and 5.3% of planets are ejected from their host stars, with Uranus and Neptune the most vulnerable and Jupiter the most resilient. The paper's central insight is that Jupiter acts as a dynamical barrier: it absorbs perturbations aimed at the inner system and protects the terrestrial planets, unless a passing star hits Jupiter itself. If correct, this means the Solar system's survival is not simply a matter of isolation but a consequence of its architecture, and that star-cluster processing can generate the wide diversity seen among exoplanet systems.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the dimensionless encounter strength $k_p \approx (p/a_p)^{3/2}$, which compares a passing star's periastron distance $p$ to a planet's semi-major axis $a_p$: smaller $k_p$ means a stronger perturbation. Because the stellar tide falls as $r^{-3}$, the paper models each planetary system under the tidal force of only its nearest neighbouring star, while the cluster itself is evolved separately and the planets interact with each other through a full N-body integration. The encounter-strength scale converts cluster dynamics into per-planet perturbation rates, and it is what makes Jupiter (massive, moderately close in) a barrier while Uranus and Neptune (light, far out) are the first to go.

What would settle it

Re-run the densest model (10,000 stars, $r_{\rm vir}=1$ pc, $Q=0.5$) with the tidal force of every cluster star included instead of only the nearest neighbour, and compare the total escape fraction and the per-planet escape rates. If the 5.3% all-planet escape fraction shifts by more than the stated $0.6\%$ uncertainty, or if terrestrial ejections no longer require a prior Jupiter perturbation, the paper's central mechanism is contradicted by the simulation design itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in clusters with initial virial radii of 1 pc and 500–10,000 stars, the fate of a Solar-system analogue over 50 Myr is set mostly by rare close stellar encounters, and that the response splits along mass and semi-major axis. Uranus and Neptune escape most often, either directly when an encounter throws an ice giant out, or indirectly when a flyby excites their eccentricities and planet-planet scattering finishes the job tens of millions of years later. Jupiter escapes least often because it is massive enough that only a direct stellar encounter can eject it, and while Jupiter stays on a quiet orbit it shields Earth and Mars. In low-density clusters this shielding protects habitable-zone planets; in high-density clusters, a perturbed Jupiter becomes the agent that destabilizes and ejects the terrestrial planets. Systems that leave the cluster at low speed typically leave intact, while fast escapes are preceded by disruption, which the paper reads as a hint that the Solar system, if it formed in a cluster, left it slowly.

Load-bearing premise

The entire calculation hangs on the assumption that the only stellar influence worth modeling is the tidal force of the nearest neighbouring star; if the accumulated pulls of many distant cluster stars, or the cluster's smooth potential, matter in the densest clusters, the quoted escape fractions and the Jupiter-barrier picture could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Solar-system analogue that forms in a low-density cluster will usually keep all six planets for at least 50 Myr, with the outer ice giants as the dominant loss channels.
  • Terrestrial-planet survival is tied to Jupiter: if a stellar encounter leaves Jupiter's orbit intact, Earth and Mars are protected even when Uranus and Neptune are ejected.
  • Escape events can be delayed by tens of millions of years, so a cluster that has already dispersed can still be the source of free-floating planets from systems that were perturbed long before.
  • Clusters that start in virial equilibrium are the harshest for planetary survival, while sub- and super-virial clusters expand quickly and reduce encounter rates.
  • Identical initial planetary systems become observably diverse after 50 Myr of cluster processing, offering a dynamical explanation for the spread of exoplanet architectures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The nearest-neighbour-only approximation leaves a numerical avenue open: including all cluster-member tidal forces in the densest models could raise escape fractions and weaken the Jupiter-barrier effect; this is a test the paper does not perform.
  • A testable extension of the barrier picture is that exoplanet systems without a gas-giant shield should show systematically different inner-planet loss rates in cluster environments than Solar-system analogues.
  • The delayed-ejection channel implies that free-floating planets can appear around a cluster long after the encounter that destabilized them, so the age of a free-floating planet need not match the age of the last close encounter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the dynamical evolution of Solar-system-like planetary systems (Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) embedded in star clusters with N=500, 5,000, and 10,000 stars, virial ratios Q=0.4, 0.5, and 0.6, evolved for 50 Myr. Cluster dynamics is computed with NBODY6++GPU and planetary dynamics with REBOUND, coupled by interpolating the nearest neighbouring star as the only external perturber of each planetary system. The main quantitative results are per-planet escape fractions (e.g., 1.5%-8.5% in the reference model C051E4, Table 3), the overall range 0.3%-5.3%, the observation that Jupiter is the least likely planet to escape and often acts as a dynamical barrier for the terrestrial planets, and the conclusion that planetary systems escaping the cluster at low speed tend to remain intact. The paper also characterises most encounters as tidal, hyperbolic, and adiabatic, and reports delayed planetary ejections occurring up to tens of Myr after a stellar encounter.

Significance. If the results survive the methodological checks below, the paper provides useful quantitative predictions for the dynamical processing of Solar-system analogues in star clusters: per-planet escape fractions, delayed ejections, and a falsifiable 'Jupiter barrier' mechanism that can be compared with exoplanet surveys and cluster observations. Strengths include the use of well-established integrators (REBOUND, NBODY6++GPU), an isolated-system control run (Figure 6) showing that internal dynamics alone does not produce ejections, well-specified Plummer/Kroupa initial conditions, and explicit binomial error bars on escape statistics. The escape fractions are direct simulation outputs rather than results of fitting to target outcomes, which is a further strength. The paper also clearly acknowledges the omission of primordial binaries and of Mercury and Venus as simplifying assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Tables 3–4, and Conclusion (vii)] The central escape fractions and the Jupiter-barrier conclusion rest on modelling only the instantaneous nearest neighbouring star as an external perturber of each planetary system. The r^-3 scaling of the tidal acceleration makes this plausible in sparse environments, but in the N=10,000, rvir=1 pc models the smooth cluster tidal field and the second and third neighbours can jointly contribute a substantial fraction (tens of per cent) of the nearest-neighbour tidal term. The assertion in §3.2.1 that the three-body assumption is good 'in the majority of cases' is not quantified, and no control calculation is provided with the full cluster tidal field or with several neighbours included. Because the quoted escape fractions are small (Table 3: 1.5%-8.5% per planet), unmodelled perturbations of this order could change individual planet escape counts by factors of order two and alter the inferred protective role of Jupiter. I request either a control run with a full cluster tidal field (or at least the first few neighbours) or a quantitative estimate of the neglected terms in the dense models.
  2. [§2.3 and Table 3] A planet is counted as an escaper when its eccentricity relative to the host star exceeds 0.995, which is below the parabolic limit e=1 and does not verify that the planet is actually unbound. A planet with 0.995<e<1 is formally bound and could return to pericentre, yet it would already be counted as an escaper and removed from the bound population. Since the per-planet escape fractions are small (e.g., Jupiter 1.5%, Uranus 8.5%), this threshold choice can change the reported rates and the relative ordering on which the Jupiter-barrier interpretation is based. Please provide a sensitivity test using e>1 or actual hyperbolic detection, and report how many events have eccentricity in the interval (0.995, 1] at the time of removal.
  3. [§2.1–§2.2, Tables 1–3] The paper refers to an 'ensemble' but does not state the number of independent star-cluster realisations per model. Table 1 lists Nhosts=25, 125, or 200 planet-hosting stars, which appears to be the number of planetary systems within one Plummer realisation of each model. The error bars in Tables 2 and 3 therefore appear to be within-cluster binomial uncertainties and do not include cluster-to-cluster variance from different random realisations of the same (N, Q) model. Given the small number of escape events and the stochastic nature of cluster evolution and encounters, the trends in Figure 7 and the global 0.3%-5.3% range could shift with different cluster realisations. Please state explicitly how many independent cluster simulations were performed; if it is one per model, add several independent realisations for at least a subset of models and quantify the realisation-to-realisation scatter.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The definition of the encounter strength parameter contains an internal inconsistency: the first expression uses (p/ap)^3 while the approximation in the same equation and the subsequent text use (p/ap)^{3/2}, consistent with Eq. (13). Please correct the exponent and check the related expression in Eq. (15).
  2. [Conclusion (vi)] The conclusion states that the retention rate increases with semi-major axis, but §3.4.1 and Figure 7 show that escape rates increase with semi-major axis; the word should presumably be 'decreases'.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract contains a duplicated sentence: 'We investigate the evolution of planetary systems in star clusters' immediately follows 'Here, we numerically explore the evolution of planetary systems similar to our own Solar system in star clusters.'
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The caption does not define the error bars; please state explicitly that they are 1-sigma binomial uncertainties (or describe the statistic used).
  5. [§3.2] The phrase 'a set of seventh-order septic splines' is redundant because 'septic' already means seventh-order; please rephrase.
  6. [Table 3 heading] The heading 'Fraction of escapers among all the planets that were initially present in the planetary systems anymore at time 50 Myr' is ungrammatical; please rephrase for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: escape fractions are simulation outputs, not fitted or definitionally derived quantities.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims, the per-planet escape fractions (Table 3, 1.5% for Jupiter to 8.5% for Uranus in C051E4) and the overall ranges of 0.3%–5.3%, are direct outputs of N-body integrations in REBOUND coupled to NBODY6++GPU through the LonelyPlanets pipeline. No parameter is fitted to the escape fractions, and no analytic expression for the escape rate is derived from an input that already contains the answer. The encounter-strength formalism (kp, v_infinity, tidal/adiabatic boundaries) is taken from the independent literature (Heggie & Rasio 1996; Spurzem et al. 2009; Heggie 2006), and is used to characterise encounters rather than to predict the escape counts. The nearest-neighbour-only tidal model is inherited from Cai et al. (2017), which includes co-authors of the present paper, but this is a methodological choice with stated limitations, not a result that is made true by definition. The paper explicitly acknowledges the approximation and its idealisations: 'we only model the effect of the nearest neighbour, following the approach of Cai et al. (2017)' and notes that 'in the majority of the cases this is a good assumption.' It even brackets the two neglected contributions (other cluster stars and planet-planet forces during the encounter) and runs an isolated-planetary-system control to establish that the cluster perturbations, not internal dynamics, drive the observed evolution. The Jupiter-barrier conclusion (vii) is an interpretation of the ensemble outcomes, supported by the measured correlation between perturbed-Jupiter events and terrestrial-planet ejections; it is not imposed by construction. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted input relabelled as a prediction, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no renaming of a known result presented as new. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and any concerns about the nearest-neighbour approximation belong to modelling accuracy or robustness, not to circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on the chosen simulation geometry (Plummer clusters, Kroupa IMF, no binaries), the nearest-neighbor-only perturbation treatment, and the e>0.995 escape definition. No new physical entities are introduced; the Jupiter-barrier role is an emergent mechanism, not an invented entity.

free parameters (2)
  • Planet escape eccentricity threshold e_esc = 0.995
    Planet counted as escaped when e > 0.995 (Section 2.3). All quoted escape fractions (0.3%-5.3%, Table 3) are measured against this hand-chosen cutoff; a different threshold shifts the numbers.
  • Star cluster escape radius factor = 2 r_tidal
    Stars with cluster-centric distance r > 2 r_tidal are counted as cluster escapers (Section 2.3, after Aarseth 2010). This affects which planet-hosting stars are classified as escaping systems in Table 2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Planetary bodies are test particles; their gravity does not affect stellar dynamics
    Assumed in Section 2.3; enables separate integration of cluster and planetary systems using stored HDF5 snapshots.
  • domain assumption Only the nearest neighboring star perturbs a planetary system at any time
    Stated in Section 3.2, justified by r^-3 tidal decay; ignores simultaneous encounters and the cluster mean-field tide, which could matter in dense models.
  • domain assumption Stellar encounters are isolated hyperbolic orbits; no primordial binaries
    Section 2.1 and 3.2; used to compute p, vp, kp and to justify the encounter classification. Binary formation by capture is assumed rare.
  • domain assumption Cluster initial conditions are idealized Plummer models without gas, rotation, or substructure
    Section 2.1; results may not directly apply to realistic sub-structured star-forming regions.
  • domain assumption The present-day Solar system with Mercury and Venus removed represents the initial planetary configuration
    Section 2.2; assumed that Mercury, Venus, and minor bodies have negligible dynamical effect on the outer planets over 50 Myr.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planetary systems in a star cluster I: the Solar system scenario." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MFAR25HR

@misc{pith2026190807747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planetary systems in a star cluster I: the Solar system scenario},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MFAR25HR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07747}
}
read the original abstract

Young stars are mostly found in dense stellar environments, and even our own Solar system may have formed in a star cluster. Here, we numerically explore the evolution of planetary systems similar to our own Solar system in star clusters. We investigate the evolution of planetary systems in star clusters. Most stellar encounters are tidal, hyperbolic, and adiabatic. A small fraction of the planetary systems escape from the star cluster within 50 Myr; those with low escape speeds often remain intact during and after the escape process. While most planetary systems inside the star cluster remain intact, a subset is strongly perturbed during the first 50 Myr. Over the course of time, 0.3 % - 5.3 % of the planets escape, sometimes up to tens of millions of years after a stellar encounter occurred. Survival rates are highest for Jupiter, while Uranus and Neptune have the highest escape rates. Unless directly affected by a stellar encounter itself, Jupiter frequently serves as a barrier that protects the terrestrial planets from perturbations in the outer planetary system. In low-density environments, Jupiter provides protection from perturbations in the outer planetary system, while in high-density environments, direct perturbations of Jupiter by neighbouring stars is disruptive to habitable-zone planets. The diversity amongst planetary systems that is present in the star clusters at 50 Myr, and amongst the escaping planetary systems, is high, which contributes to explaining the high diversity of observed exoplanet systems in star clusters and in the Galactic field

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07747 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Lagrangian radii evolution containing 0.1%, 1%, 10%, and 50% of the initial star cluster mass for model C051E4. its eccentricity (relative to the host star) is sufficiently large (e > 0.995). Due to current limitations of the code, we do not follow the further evolution of free-floating planets in this study. Physical collisions may occur when two bodies in a planetary system experience a sufficiently close appr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: cumulative distribution of the stars escaping time, for model C051E4. Bottom: velocity-at-infinity distribution of escaping stars for model C051E4. Blue stars indicate escaping planet-hosting stars and red circles indicate other escaping stars. The initial three-dimensional velocity dispersion at the half-mass radius is 3.6 km s−1 for this model. only model the effect of the nearest neighbour, following the app… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal distribution of the instantaneous periastron distance p for stellar encounters with nearest neighbours experi￾enced by planetary system P010 in model C051E4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the instantaneous periastron distance p and periastron velocity vp computed for the nearest neighbour of planetary system P010 in model C051E4. The blue curve sepa￾rates near-parabolic encounters (below the curve) and hyperbolic encounters (above the cu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the semi-major axis and eccentricity of planet Earth under the influence of the other planets, when ignor￾ing the effects of external perturbations, for multi-planet systems with a host star mass of 0.93 M (top), 1 M (middle), and 1.03 M (bottom). in the e…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraction of planets that escapes from their plan￾etary system through an during the first 50 Myr, for star cluster models with different initial masses and different virial ratios. The top, middle, and bottom panels show the results for mod￾els with Q = 0.4, 0.5, a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative distribution of the semi-major axis (top), eccentricity (middle), and inclination (bottom) of all planets in all the planetary systems at 50 Myr, for all cluster models. The different panels represent models with N = 500 (left), N = 5000 (middle), and N = 10…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: evolution of the planetary semi-major axes and distance from the cluster centre (black curve). Right: evolution of the planetary eccentricities and distance to the nearest neighbour star (black curve). Results are shown for planetary systems P194 (top) in star c…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    ]&<h^l+Mu l'

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2016

  4. [4]

    J., 1999, @doi [Celest

    Aarseth S. J., 1999, @doi [Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron.] 10.1023/A:1008390828807 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999CeMDA..73..127A 73, 127

    doi:10.1023/a:1008390828807 1999

  5. [5]

    J., 2010, Gravitational N-Body Simulations

    Aarseth S. J., 2010, Gravitational N-Body Simulations . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA

    Adams F. C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130830 2010

  7. [7]

    J., Goodwin S

    Allison R. J., Goodwin S. P., Parker R. J., de Grijs R., Portegies Zwart S. F., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L99 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700L..99A 700, L99

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/l99 2009

  8. [8]

    Belczynski K., Kalogera V., Bulik T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340304 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572..407B 572, 407

    doi:10.1086/340304 2002

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Princeton University Press

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition . Princeton University Press

    2008

  2. [10]

    X., Meiron Y., Kouwenhoven M., Assmann P., Spurzem R., 2015, ApJ, 219, 12

    Cai M. X., Meiron Y., Kouwenhoven M., Assmann P., Spurzem R., 2015, ApJ, 219, 12

    2015

  3. [11]

    X., Kouwenhoven M

    Cai M. X., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Portegies Zwart S. F., Spurzem R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1464 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4337C 470, 4337

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    X., Portegies Zwart S., van Elteren A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3064 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5114C 474, 5114

    Cai M. X., Portegies Zwart S., van Elteren A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3064 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5114C 474, 5114

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    X., Portegies Zwart S., Kouwenhoven M

    Cai M. X., Portegies Zwart S., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Spurzem R., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190302316C

    2019

  6. [14]

    E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.304..793C 304, 793

    Chambers J. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.304..793C 304, 793

    1999

  7. [15]

    X., Spurzem R., Kouwenhoven M

    Flammini Dotti F., Cai M. X., Spurzem R., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., 2018, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181112660F

    2018

  8. [16]

    S., Hori Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.110F 624, A110

    Fujii M. S., Hori Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.110F 624, A110

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Portegies Zwart S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..726F 449, 726

    Fujii M. S., Portegies Zwart S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..726F 449, 726

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Saitoh T

    Fujii M. S., Saitoh T. R., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2012, Apjl, 753, 12

    2012

  11. [20]

    Giersz M., Spurzem R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06717.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.343..781G 343, 781

    2003

  12. [21]

    S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20250.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.3264G 420, 3264

    Girichidis P., Federrath C., Allison R., Banerjee R., Klessen R. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20250.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.3264G 420, 3264

    2012

  13. [22]

    P., Whitworth A

    Goodwin S. P., Whitworth A. P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031529 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  14. [23]

    Gould A., et al., 2014, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1251527 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Sci...345...46G 345, 46

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    V., Gualandris A., Portegies Zwart S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14809.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396..570G 396, 570

    Gvaramadze V. V., Gualandris A., Portegies Zwart S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14809.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396..570G 396, 570

    2009

  16. [25]

    Hao W., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Spurzem R., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt771 , 433, 867

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    C., 2006, Gravitational Scattering

    Heggie D. C., 2006, Gravitational Scattering . University of Turku, p. 20

    2006

  18. [27]

    C., Rasio F

    Heggie D. C., Rasio F. A., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1064

    1996

  19. [28]

    Hester J., Healy K., Desch S., 2004, AAS, 36, 1516

    2004

  20. [29]

    A., 2005, STScI Symposium Series, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.11083H 19, 20

    Hillenbrand L. A., 2005, STScI Symposium Series, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.11083H 19, 20

    2005

  21. [30]

    R., Pols O

    Hurley J. R., Pols O. R., Tout C. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.315..543H 315, 543

    2000

  22. [31]

    R., Tout C

    Hurley J. R., Tout C. A., Pols O. R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.329..897H 329, 897

    2002

  23. [33]

    R., Tout C

    Hurley J. R., Tout C. A., Pols O. R., 2013b, BSE: Binary Star Evolution , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1303.014 )

  24. [34]

    R., Pols O

    Hurley J. R., Pols O. R., Tout C. A., 2013a, SSE: Single Star Evolution , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1303.015 )

  25. [35]

    Khalisi E., Amaro-Seoane P., Spurzem R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11184.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.374..703K 374, 703

    2007

  26. [36]

    L., 2007, ApJ, 670, 747

    Kobulnicky H., Fryer C. L., 2007, ApJ, 670, 747

    2007

  27. [37]

    Kokubo E., Yoshinaga K., Makino J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01581.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.297.1067K 297, 1067

    1998

  28. [38]

    Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Brown A. G. A., Zinnecker H., Kaper L., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20048124 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  29. [39]

    Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Brown A. G. A., Portegies Zwart S. F., Kaper L., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077719 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A

    2007 doi

  30. [40]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    2001

  31. [41]

    J., Lada E

    Lada C. J., Lada E. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA

    2003 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Lamers H. J. G. L. M., Gieles M., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041476 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  33. [43]

    W., 2006, in Backer D

    Looney L. W., 2006, in Backer D. C., Moran J. M., Turner J. L., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 356, Revealing the Molecular Universe: One Antenna is Never Enough. p. 177

    2006

  34. [44]

    B., Church R

    Malmberg D., de Angeli F., Davies M. B., Church R. P., Mackey D., Wilkinson M. I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11885.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378.1207M 378, 1207

    2007

  35. [45]

    B., Heggie D

    Malmberg D., Davies M. B., Heggie D. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17730.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411..859M 411, 859

    2011

  36. [46]

    A., 2008, in Vesperini E., Giersz M., Sills A., eds, IAU Symposium Vol

    Mardling R. A., 2008, in Vesperini E., Giersz M., Sills A., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 246, Dynamical Evolution of Dense Stellar Systems. pp 199--208, @doi 10.1017/S1743921308015615

    2008 doi

  37. [47]

    W., Vanderburg A., et al 2018, ApJ, 136, 25

    Mayo A. W., Vanderburg A., et al 2018, ApJ, 136, 25

    2018

  38. [48]

    453, Advances in Computational Astrophysics: Methods, Tools, and Outcome

    McMillan S., Portegies Zwart S., van Elteren A., Whitehead A., 2012, in Capuzzo-Dolcetta R., Limongi M., Tornamb \`e A., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 453, Advances in Computational Astrophysics: Methods, Tools, and Outcome. p. 129

    2012

  39. [49]

    J., 1993, @doi [Celest

    Mikkola S., Aarseth S. J., 1993, @doi [Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron.] 10.1007/BF00695714 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993CeMDA..57..439M 57, 439

    1993 doi

  40. [50]

    J., 1998, @doi [NewA] 10.1016/S1384-1076(98)00018-9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998NewA....3..309M 3, 309

    Mikkola S., Aarseth S. J., 1998, @doi [NewA] 10.1016/S1384-1076(98)00018-9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998NewA....3..309M 3, 309

    1998 doi

  41. [51]

    Mouri H., Taniguchi Y., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/343851 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580..844M 580, 844

    2002 doi

  42. [52]

    Olczak C., Kaczmarek T., Harfst S., Pfalzner S., Portegies Zwart S., 2012, ApJ, 756, 15

    2012

  43. [53]

    J., Wright N

    Parker R. J., Wright N. J., Goodwin S. P., Meyer M. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2231 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438..620P 438, 620

    2014 doi

  44. [54]

    I., van Elteren A., de Vries N., McMillan S

    Pelupessy F. I., van Elteren A., de Vries N., McMillan S. L. W., Drost N., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2013, VizieR Online Data Catalog, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013yCat..35570084P 355

    2013

  45. [55]

    B., Kouwenhoven M

    Perets H. B., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/83 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...750...83P 750, 83

    2012 doi

  46. [56]

    C., 1911, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1911MNRAS..71..460P 71, 460

    Plummer H. C., 1911, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1911MNRAS..71..460P 71, 460

    1911 doi

  47. [57]

    Portegies Zwart S., 2011, AMUSE: Astrophysical Multipurpose Software Environment , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1107.007 )

    2011

  48. [58]

    F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2831 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..313P 457, 313

    Portegies Zwart S. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2831 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..313P 457, 313

    2016 doi

  49. [59]

    AAS, @doi 10.1088/978-0-7503-1320-9

    Portegies Zwart S., McMillan S., 2018, Astrophysical Recipes; The art of AMUSE . AAS, @doi 10.1088/978-0-7503-1320-9

    2018 doi

  50. [60]

    Portegies Zwart S., Pelupessy I., van Elteren A., Wijnen T. P. G., Lugaro M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732060 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  51. [61]

    Portell de Mora J., Garc \' a-Berro E., Estepa C., Casta \ n eda J., Clotet M., 2011, in High-Performance Computing in Remote Sensing. p. 818305, @doi 10.1117/12.898203

    2011 doi

  52. [62]

    Pu B., Lai D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1098 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..197P 478, 197

    2018 doi

  53. [63]

    Rein H., Liu S.-F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  54. [64]

    Roy A., Haddow M., 2003, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003CeMDA..87..411R 87, 411

    2003

  55. [65]

    Sabbi E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L37 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754L..37S 754, L37

    2012 doi

  56. [66]

    Shara M., Hurley J., Mardling R., 2016, ApJ, 816, 8

    2016

  57. [67]

    Shatsky N., Tokovinin A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011542 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  58. [68]

    Princeton University Press

    Spitzer L., 1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters . Princeton University Press

    1987

  59. [69]

    Spurzem R., 1999, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999JCoAM.109..407S 109, 407

    1999

  60. [70]

    Spurzem R., Giersz M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/283.3.805 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283..805S 283

    1996 doi

  61. [71]

    Spurzem R., Takahashi K., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/272.4.772 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.272..772S 272, 772

    1995 doi

  62. [72]

    C., Lin D

    Spurzem R., Giersz M., Heggie D. C., Lin D. N. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/458 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..458S 697, 458

    2009 doi

  63. [73]

    791, Jets From Young Stars V

    Tapamo H., 2009, in Gracia J., de Colle F., Downes T., eds, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag Vol. 791, Jets From Young Stars V. p. 3, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-03370-4_1

    2009 doi

  64. [74]

    Thies I., Kroupa P., Theis C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09644.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364..961T 364, 961

    2005

  65. [75]

    Thompson S., et al., 2018, ApJ, 235, 49

    2018

  66. [76]

    Vinncke K., Pfalzner S., 2018, ApJ, 868, 14

    2018

  67. [77]

    Wang L., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Zheng X., Church R. P., Davies M. B., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv542 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3543W 449, 3543

    doi

  68. [78]

    Wang L., Spurzem R., Aarseth S., Nitadori K., Berczik P., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Naab T., 2015b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv817 , 450, 4070

    doi

  69. [79]

    Wang L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw274 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.1450W 458, 1450

    2016 doi

  70. [80]

    Yoshinaga K., Kokubo E., Makino J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1999.6098 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Icar..139..328Y 139, 328

    1999

  71. [81]

    Zheng X., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Wang L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1832 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2759Z 453, 2759

    2015 doi

  72. [82]

    de Grijs R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-009-0100-0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Ap

    2009 doi

  73. [83]

    P., Kouwenhoven M

    de Grijs R., Goodwin S. P., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Kroupa P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810251 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    2008 doi

  74. [84]

    X., McMillan S

    van Elteren A., Portegies Zwart S., Pelupessy I., Cai M. X., McMillan S. L. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.120V 624, A120

    2019 doi

  75. [85]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.