Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Fast Radio Bursts and Interstellar Objects

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Interstellar objects colliding with neutron stars are a feasible source of one-off fast radio bursts.

desk verdict A useful feasibility study with an overstated headline rate: the energy-threshold mismatch cuts the predicted observable FRB rate by roughly two orders of magnitude, though the paper openly flags it in Section 4. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09135 v1 pith:2VXJVDVU submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Dang Pham , Matthew J. Hopkins , Chris Lintott , Michele T. Bannister , Hanno Rein This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords fastradioburstsinterstellarobjectsneutronstarsplanetesimalstidaldisruptioncollisionratesFRBprogenitorstransientevents
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 argues that collisions between interstellar objects (ISOs), planetesimals ejected from their home planetary systems, and neutron stars occur often enough, and with the right burst properties, to be a feasible source of the observed one-off fast radio bursts (FRBs). The expected cosmological collision rate is $\sim 10^7\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ after beaming, within an order of magnitude of the observed rate of $(7^{+9}_{-6})\times 10^7\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. The paper also matches observed FRB durations to planetesimal radii of roughly $0.4$–$10\,\mathrm{km}$, consistent with the two known ISOs, and shows the FRB energy distribution is consistent with Solar System planetesimal size distributions. If right, FRBs would become a way to study interstellar objects far beyond the Solar System, and the FRB rate's cosmic evolution would trace accumulated neutron-star and ISO populations rather than star formation.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three linked pieces. (1) Gravitational focusing inflates the neutron-star collision cross-section to $\sigma\sim10^9\,\mathrm{km}^2$, giving a per-star rate $\Gamma=n_{\rm ISO}v_\infty\sigma\sim10^{-7}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. (2) The Dai et al. (2016) emission model translates a planetesimal's radius $R$ into a burst: duration $\Delta t\propto R^{4/3}$ and isotropic energy $E_{\rm iso}\propto R^4$, with beaming $f\sim10^{-2}$, so observed millisecond bursts correspond to $0.4$–$10\,\mathrm{km}$ bodies. (3) The assumption that ISOs are weak rubble-pile material (tensile strength $\sim500\,\mathrm{Pa}$) means they fragment into a homogeneous stream during infall, yielding single pulses; sub-burst FRBs are then attributed to binary ISOs.

What would settle it

Measure the volumetric rate of single-pulse FRBs with a sample that cleanly excludes repeaters and compare it with $f\,\Gamma\,N_{\rm NS}\,n_{\rm Gal}$: if the observed rate exceeds the prediction even when every collision is assumed to produce a beamed burst ($f=1$), then ISO-neutron-star collisions cannot supply the FRB population. Alternatively, a precise measurement of the local ISO number density more than an order of magnitude below $10^{15}\,\mathrm{pc}^{-3}$ would remove the rate match, since $R_{\rm obs}\propto n_{\rm ISO}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that interstellar objects are a viable reservoir of planetesimals for the proposed planetesimal–neutron-star FRB mechanism. Using a local ISO number density of $n_{\rm ISO}\sim10^{15}\,\mathrm{pc}^{-3}$, a relative speed of $v_\infty\sim100\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, and a gravitational-focusing cross-section of $\sim10^9\,\mathrm{km}^2$, the per-neutron-star encounter rate is $\Gamma\sim10^{-7}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. Extrapolating to $\sim10^9$ neutron stars per Milky-Way-type galaxy and $\sim10^7$ galaxies per Gpc$^3$, and applying a beaming factor $f\sim10^{-2}$, gives an observable rate $R_{\rm obs}\sim10^7\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, comparable to the observed FRB rate. With updated tensile strength $s\sim500\,\mathrm{Pa}$, the emission model maps the observed FRB duration distribution to planetesimal radii $\sim0.4$–$10\,\mathrm{km}$, and the observed isotropic-energy power-law index $\gamma\approx1.3$ is consistent with known planetesimal size distributions via $\gamma=(3+q)/4$ for $q\approx2.5$–$3.5$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the interstellar-object density measured near the Sun, about $10^{15}\,\mathrm{pc}^{-3}$, also applies around neutron stars across the Universe; the predicted collision rate is directly proportional to this number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, one-off FRBs can be produced by ordinary interstellar debris hitting neutron stars, so the FRB population need not be dominated by exotic magnetar-like engines.
  • The observed duration range of CHIME FRBs implies impacting planetesimals with radii between roughly 400 m and 10 km, sizes consistent with 'Oumuamua and Borisov.
  • The energy distribution of FRBs, with index $\gamma\approx1.3$, matches the size distributions of Solar System asteroid and trans-Neptunian populations through $\gamma=(3+q)/4$.
  • ISO-neutron-star collisions cannot explain repeating FRBs, and the mechanism cannot be the only FRB source; the paper expects a one-off subset.
  • Because neutron stars and ISOs accumulate over cosmic time, the collision rate should rise with time rather than track the star-formation rate, matching the observed redshift evolution of the FRB rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the predicted observable rate scales linearly with $n_{\rm ISO}$, a future, well-characterised measurement of the local interstellar-object number density from a wide-field survey would tighten or overturn the rate matching directly.
  • Editorial inference: if $E_{\rm iso}\propto R^4$, then the high-energy tail of the FRB energy distribution can be inverted to measure the size distribution of ejected planetesimals over a much larger size range than any direct Solar System census.
  • Editorial inference: the binary-ISO interpretation of two-subburst FRBs predicts that the subburst multiplicity distribution should fall sharply after two subbursts; counting subbursts in new CHIME catalogs offers a direct test, and the 29 ms gap in FRB 200428 can be used to estimate binary separation.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's cosmic-time argument implies FRBs from this channel should be hosted by older, more massive stellar populations than magnetar-driven FRBs, a distinction host-galaxy samples can test.
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. The paper proposes that collisions between interstellar objects (ISOs) and neutron stars (NS) could produce a subset of one-off fast radio bursts (FRBs). The authors calculate the ISO-NS collision rate using a Solar-neighborhood ISO number density, gravitational focusing, and counts of neutron stars and galaxies, obtaining a beaming-corrected rate of ~10^7 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, which they compare to the observed FRB rate. They then use the Dai et al. (2016) emission model with updated material strengths to show that observed FRB durations and energies correspond to planetesimal sizes of roughly 0.4–10 km, that the FRB energy distribution is consistent with a size distribution exponent q = 2.5–3.5, and that sub-bursts like those in FRB 200428 could be explained by binary ISOs. Finally, they argue that the ISO-NS collision rate should increase with cosmic time, matching the claimed redshift evolution of the FRB rate.

Significance. The paper is valuable as a concrete, quantitative exploration of a progenitor channel that is often mentioned but rarely calculated. It assembles independent inputs (ISO density, NS kick velocities, updated tensile/compressive strengths, power-law size distributions) rather than fitting to the FRB data, and it makes several testable predictions: lack of sub-burst structure from monolithic ISOs, a limit of two sub-bursts if binaries are the cause, a host-galaxy morphology dependence, and a cosmic evolution that decouples from the star formation rate. If the central rate comparison can be corrected for the energy threshold (a fix that is well within the paper's scope), the mechanism remains a plausible contributor to one-off FRBs. The paper is also transparent about the dominant uncertainty in the ISO number density, although it does not propagate uncertainties into the headline comparison.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2 (Eq. 4) and §4] The central rate comparison is not apples-to-apples. R_col in Eq. (3) counts collisions with all ISOs larger than 1I/'Oumuamua (R ≳ 0.1 km), while the Bochenek et al. (2020) rate used for comparison is for bursts with isotropic-equivalent energy ≥ 2×10^35 erg. Using the paper's own scalings (E ∝ L Δt ∝ R^4 from Eq. (6) and the text preceding it), a burst of 2×10^35 erg requires R ≳ 0.5 km at typical pulsar field strengths. For the size distributions in Table 1 (q = 2.5–3.5), the fraction of ISOs with R > 0.5 km relative to those with R > 0.1 km is (0.1/0.5)^(q-1) ≈ 0.02–0.09. Applying this to Eq. (4) reduces the predicted observable rate to roughly 2×10^5–9×10^5 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, about two orders of magnitude below the observed (7+9−6)×10^7 Gpc^-3 yr^-1. The paper explicitly acknowledges this mismatch in Section 4 ('not directly comparable... beyond the scope of this work'), yet the abstract and conclusion still state that the ISO-NS collision rate is 'comparable with' or 'consistent with' the observed FRB rate. This is a systematic overcount, not a random uncertainty. The authors should either perform a threshold-corrected rate calculation (even with a broad range of assumptions on the size distribution and magnetic field distribution) or carefully restrict the claim to the raw collision rate and state explicitly that the predicted observable FRB rate is substantially lower.
  2. [§2 (Eq. 3)] The rate estimate in Eq. (3) stacks several factors (nISO, f, NNS, nGal, v∞) as point values, and the conclusion of 'within order-of-magnitude uncertainties' is never quantified. The dominant input, nISO ~ 10^15 pc^-3, is derived from a single detection and is acknowledged to carry an order-of-magnitude uncertainty, but no sensitivity analysis is presented. Since the headline claim is a rate comparison, the paper should show how R_obs varies when nISO is varied by 1–2 orders of magnitude, and when f is varied over a plausible range (e.g., 10^-3–10^-1). Without such a propagation, the reader cannot assess whether the central claim is robust even after the threshold correction in the first major comment is applied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, Fig. 1] The conversion from CHIME pulse width to planetesimal radius assumes s = 500 Pa and ρ = 3 g cm^-3 without displaying the sensitivity to these values; a brief demonstration that the inferred size range 0.4–10 km is robust to a factor of a few in these parameters would strengthen the figure.
  2. [§3, Table 1] The comparison of the predicted energy-distribution exponent γ = (3+q)/4 with the observed γ = 1.3+0.7−0.4 from Shin et al. (2023) is made using a sample that includes repeating FRBs and summed multi-pulse energies. The text acknowledges this but states without quantitative support that 'we do not expect this to change the value of γ by a significant amount.' Please either justify this expectation or cite an analysis that isolates non-repeating single pulses.
  3. [§4] The argument that the FRB rate increases with cosmic time is based on a set of references, but the literature is mixed, with some analyses finding consistency with the star formation rate at low redshift. Please acknowledge the ongoing debate and clarify what is required for the ISO-NS scenario to match the observed evolution (e.g., a specific delay-time distribution or ISO production history).
  4. [§3, Eq. (5)] The duration expression is quoted from Colgate & Petschek (1981) with updated parameters, but it would be helpful to include a one-sentence derivation or a reference to the equation number in that paper, as the functional form (Δt ∝ R^4/3) is non-trivial and central to the duration-size mapping.
  5. [§2] The assumption that ISOs retain the same spatial distribution as their parent stars is cited to Hopkins et al. (2024, arXiv:2402.04904). It may be worth noting that this is a preprint at the time of writing, so that the reader can weigh the strength of the assumption accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central rate comparison is built from independent observational inputs, and the only self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain uses external inputs at every step: the ISO number density from Do et al. (2018), the neutron star natal kick from Lyne & Lorimer (1994) and Hobbs et al. (2005), the gravitational-focusing cross-section from first principles, the neutron star and galaxy counts from Heger et al. (2003) and Blanton et al. (2003), and the beaming fraction from Dai (2020). The observed FRB rate, durations, and energy distribution are independent datasets (Bochenek et al. 2020; CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. 2021; Shin et al. 2023). No parameter is fitted to the FRB data before the comparison; Eq. (4) is arithmetic once the inputs are adopted. The two papers by overlapping authors (Hopkins et al. 2023, 2024) provide supporting assumptions about ISO velocity dispersion and spatial distribution, but neither is load-bearing: the rate calculation uses a 100 km/s natal-kick velocity rather than the cited ISO velocity width, and the spatial-distribution statement only enters a qualitative caveat about natal kicks. The energy-threshold mismatch raised by the skeptic is real and acknowledged in Section 4, but it is a question of comparing the same quantity at different energy thresholds, not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs. Thus the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central rate and duration calculations depend on adopted values from single-detection estimates and literature material properties; the paper is transparent about the order-of-magnitude uncertainty in nISO. No new physical entities are introduced; the speculative binary-ISO explanation for FRB 200428 is a hypothesis about existing object classes, not an invented entity.

free parameters (9)
  • ISO number density n_ISO = 10^15 pc^-3
    Adopted from a single-detection estimate in the Solar neighborhood (Do et al. 2018); assumed uniform around all neutron stars, with order-of-magnitude uncertainty.
  • relative speed v_inf = 100 km/s
    Assumed to equal the NS natal kick speed (Lyne & Lorimer 1994; Hobbs et al. 2005), dominating the ISO velocity dispersion.
  • beaming fraction f = 10^-2
    Taken from Dai (2020); converts intrinsic collision rate to observable FRB rate.
  • tensile strength s = 500 Pa
    Adopted from rubble-pile asteroid and comet constraints (Greenberg et al. 1995; Attree et al. 2018); used in Eqs. (5) and (6).
  • compressive strength P0 = 100 MPa
    Adopted from meteorite and asteroid measurements (Jenniskens et al. 2012; Pohl & Britt 2020); used in Eq. (6).
  • planetesimal density rho = 3 g/cm^3
    Assumed for all ISOs; enters duration and luminosity scalings with weak exponents (1/6 and -2/3).
  • number of neutron stars per galaxy NNS = 10^9
    From stellar IMF and star counts (Kroupa 2001; Licquia & Newman 2015).
  • galaxy number density nGal = 10^7 Gpc^-3
    Milky-Way-mass galaxy density (Blanton et al. 2003).
  • ISO size distribution exponent q = 2.5, 2.8, 3.5 (literature values)
    The ISO size distribution is unconstrained; the paper assumes a power law with q from Solar System populations (Gladman et al. 2009; Simon et al. 2016; Lawler et al. 2018).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Dai et al. (2016) / Colgate & Petschek (1981) tidal-disruption emission mechanism correctly describes FRB production from planetesimal-NS impacts, including the duration and luminosity scalings (Eqs. 5-6).
    The paper adopts this mechanism from prior literature and uses it to map ISO radius to FRB duration and energy; if the mechanism is incorrect, the central consistency claims fail.
  • domain assumption ISOs are present around all neutron stars at densities of the same order as the Solar-neighborhood value.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 2: 'lacking additional constraints we assume the number density ... will be the same order of magnitude as this.'
  • domain assumption Every 1I-sized ISO-NS collision produces an FRB with a fixed beaming factor f.
    Used to convert R_col to Robs in Eq. (4); the paper notes 'if every 1I-sized ISO-NS collision produced an FRB.'
  • domain assumption ISO size distribution follows a power law with exponent q similar to Solar System planetesimal populations.
    Used in Section 3 to derive gamma = (3+q)/4; the ISO size distribution itself is unconstrained.
  • domain assumption The observed FRB energy distribution (Shin et al. 2023) is representative of the non-repeating FRB population without correction for repeaters or detection bias.
    Acknowledged in Section 3: the sample includes repeaters and uses combined energies; the authors argue the effect is minor.
  • standard math Standard gravitational focusing cross-section formula applies (Eq. 1).
    Standard hyperbolic two-body encounter calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast Radio Bursts and Interstellar Objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2VXJVDVU

@misc{pith2026241109135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast Radio Bursts and Interstellar Objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2VXJVDVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09135}
}
read the original abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are transient radio events with millisecond-scale durations, and debated origins. Collisions between planetesimals and neutron stars have been proposed as a mechanism to produce FRBs; the planetesimal strength, size and density determine the time duration and energy of the resulting event. One source of planetesimals is the population of interstellar objects (ISOs), free-floating objects expected to be extremely abundant in galaxies across the Universe as products of planetary formation. We explore using the ISO population as a reservoir of planetesimals for FRB production, finding that the expected ISO-neutron star collision rate is comparable with the observed FRB event rate. Using a model linking the properties of planetesimals and the FRBs they produce, we further show that observed FRB durations are consistent with the sizes of known ISOs, and the FRB energy distribution is consistent with the observed size distributions of Solar System planetesimal populations. Finally, we argue that the rate of ISO-neutron star collisions must increase with cosmic time, matching the observed evolution of the FRB rate. Thus, ISO-neutron star collisions are a feasible mechanism for producing FRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09135 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The CHIME Catalog 1 distribution of FRB box￾car pulse width. On the top axis, we show the equivalent planetesimal size, R, assuming tensile strength s = 500 Pa and density ρ0 = 3 g cm−3 . Dashed vertical lines show the estimated sizes of two observed ISOs, 1I/‘Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov. The apparent sudden cutoff in FRB pulse dura￾tion at 100 ms is due to CHIME’s time resolution (0.983 ms, CHIME/FRB Collaboration et a… view at source ↗

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. The ubiquity of variable radio emission and spin-down rates in pulsars

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Most isolated pulsars show significant spin-down rate variability, with amplitude scaling as spin-down rate to the power 0.85 and little dependence on spin frequency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 683, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348899

    Andama, G., Mah, J., & Bitsch, B. 2024, A&A, 683, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348899

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348899 2024

  2. [2]

    1994, Nature, 370, 120, doi: 10.1038/370120a0

    Asphaug, E., & Benz, W. 1994, Nature, 370, 120, doi: 10.1038/370120a0

    doi:10.1038/370120a0 1994

  3. [3]

    2018, A&A, 611, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732155

    Attree, N., Groussin, O., Jorda, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732155

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732155 2018

  4. [4]

    2017, ApJL, 838, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa65c9

    Bagchi, M. 2017, ApJL, 838, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa65c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa65c9 2017

  5. [5]

    M., Prochaska, J

    Bhandari, S., Sadler, E. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab672e 2020

  6. [6]

    R., Hogg, D

    Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 819, doi: 10.1086/375776

    doi:10.1086/375776 2003

  7. [7]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  8. [8]

    Boss, A. P. 1994, Icarus, 107, 422, doi: 10.1006/icar.1994.1035

    arXiv 1994

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    2010, A&A, 516, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014275

    Brasser, R., Higuchi, A., & Kaib, N. 2010, A&A, 516, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014275

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Karastergiou, A., Buchner, S., et al

    Brook, P. R., Karastergiou, A., Buchner, S., et al. 2014, ApJL, 780, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L31

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Chatterjee, S., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Brisken, W. F., et al. 2005, ApJL, 630, L61, doi: 10.1086/491701

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Jia, X

    Chen, J. H., Jia, X. D., Dong, X. F., & Wang, F. Y. 2024, ApJL, 973, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., e...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    A., & Petschek, A

    Colgate, S. A., & Petschek, A. G. 1981, ApJ, 248, 771, doi: 10.1086/159201 ´Cuk, M. 2018, ApJL, 852, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3db

    1981 doi

  6. [14]

    Dai, Z. G. 2020, ApJL, 897, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba11b

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    G., Wang, J

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, J. S., Wu, X. F., & Huang, Y. F. 2016, ApJ, 829, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/27

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7256

    Deng, C., Huang, Y.-F., Du, C., Wang, P., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, ApJ, 974, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7256

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    A., & Tonry, J

    Do, A., Tucker, M. A., & Tonry, J. 2018, ApJL, 855, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaae67

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Consolmagno, G

    Flynn, G. J., Consolmagno, G. J., Brown, P., & Macke, R. J. 2018, Chemie der Erde / Geochemistry, 78, 269, doi: 10.1016/j.chemer.2017.04.002

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    C., & Loeb, A

    Forbes, J. C., & Loeb, A. 2019, ApJL, 875, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab158f

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Bannister, M

    Fraser, W. C., Bannister, M. T., Pike, R. E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0088, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0088

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    J., & Huang, Y

    Geng, J. J., & Huang, Y. F. 2015, ApJ, 809, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/24

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Davis, D

    Gladman, B. J., Davis, D. R., Neese, C., et al. 2009, Icarus, 202, 104, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.012

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Mizutani, H., & Yamamoto, T

    Greenberg, J. M., Mizutani, H., & Yamamoto, T. 1995, A&A, 295, L35

    1995

  17. [25]

    Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., On, A. Y. L., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 498, 3927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2490 —. 2020b, MNRAS, 497, 4107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2238

    doi

  18. [26]

    H., et al

    Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., Chen, B. H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac065 7

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    2005

  21. [29]

    J., Bannister, M

    Hopkins, M. J., Bannister, M. T., & Lintott, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.04904, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.04904

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    J., Lintott, C., Bannister, M

    Hopkins, M. J., Lintott, C., Bannister, M. T., Mackereth, J. T., & Forbes, J. C. 2023, AJ, 166, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad03e6

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Hui, M.-T., Ye, Q.-Z., F¨ ohring, D., Hung, D., & Tholen, D. J. 2020, AJ, 160, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9df8

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    D., Yin, Q.-Z., et al

    Jenniskens, P., Fries, M. D., Yin, Q.-Z., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 1583, doi: 10.1126/science.1227163

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2f

    Jewitt, D., Luu, J., Rajagopal, J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2f

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Jewitt, D., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 197, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054221

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Roˇ skar, R., & Quinn, T

    Kaib, N. A., Roˇ skar, R., & Quinn, T. 2011, Icarus, 215, 491, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.07.037

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Herrmann, W., et al

    Kirsten, F., Ould-Boukattine, O. S., Herrmann, W., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 337, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02153-z

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  30. [38]

    M., Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J

    Lawler, S. M., Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab8ff

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Levy, D. H. 1998, SSRv, 85, 523

    1998

  32. [40]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5310

    Lin, H.-N., Li, X.-Y., & Zou, R. 2024, ApJ, 969, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5310

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b4f

    Lin, H.-N., & Zou, R. 2024, ApJ, 962, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1b4f

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al

    Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1179, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x

    2008

  36. [44]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    G., & Lorimer, D

    Lyne, A. G., & Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature, 369, 127, doi: 10.1038/369127a0

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    G., Fong, W.-f., Simha, S., et al

    Mannings, A. G., Fong, W.-f., Simha, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abff56

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Margalit, B., Berger, E., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Nolan, M

    Margot, J. L., Nolan, M. C., Benner, L. A. M., et al. 2002, Science, 296, 1445, doi: 10.1126/science.1072094

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    H., & Veras, D

    McDonald, C. H., & Veras, D. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad382

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    A., & Chapman, R

    McGlynn, T. A., & Chapman, R. D. 1989, ApJL, 346, L105, doi: 10.1086/185590

    1989 doi

  44. [52]

    D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz700

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    Michilli, D., Bhardwaj, M., Brar, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf89

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, ApJL, 913, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfb75

    Mondal, T. 2021, ApJL, 913, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfb75

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    1993, IAUC, 5800, 1 ’Oumuamua ISSI Team, Bannister, M

    Nakano, S., Kobayashi, T., Meyer, E., et al. 1993, IAUC, 5800, 1 ’Oumuamua ISSI Team, Bannister, M. T., Bhandare, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 594, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0816-x

    1993 doi

  49. [57]

    L., Bhandare, A., & Veras, D

    Pfalzner, S., Aizpuru Vargas, L. L., Bhandare, A., & Veras, D. 2021, A&A, 651, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140587

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, PhR, 821, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    Platts, E., Weltman, A., Walters, A., et al. 2019, PhR, 821, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    C., Kaspi, V

    Pleunis, Z., Good, D. C., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33ac

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Pohl, L., & Britt, D. T. 2020, M&PS, 55, 962, doi: 10.1111/maps.13449

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    D., Bannister, K

    Ryder, S. D., Bannister, K. W., Bhandari, S., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 294, doi: 10.1126/science.adf2678

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Scheeres, D. J. 2007, Icarus, 189, 370, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.02.015 —. 2018, Icarus, 304, 183, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.05.029

    2007 doi

  55. [63]

    W., Bhardwaj, M., et al

    Shin, K., Masui, K. W., Bhardwaj, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf06

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    M., & Wolfe, R

    Shoemaker, E. M., & Wolfe, R. F. 1984, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 780–781

    1984

  57. [65]

    B., Armitage, P

    Simon, J. B., Armitage, P. J., Li, R., & Youdin, A. N. 2016, ApJ, 822, 55, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/55

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 130, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ab43de

    Siraj, A., & Loeb, A. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 130, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ab43de

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Martin, R

    Smallwood, J. L., Martin, R. G., & Zhang, B. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz483

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Stern, S. A. 1990, PASP, 102, 793, doi: 10.1086/132704

    1990 doi

  61. [69]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 4971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2092

    Sweeney, D., Tuthill, P., Sharma, S., & Hirai, R. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2092

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 085105, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c 8

    Tang, L., Lin, H.-N., & Li, X. 2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 085105, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c 8

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

    Vanderlinde, K., Liu, A., Gaensler, B., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020, 28, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    Wadiasingh, Z., & Timokhin, A. 2019, ApJ, 879, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    Walsh, K. J. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 593, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052013

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    J., & Richardson, D

    Walsh, K. J., & Richardson, D. C. 2006, Icarus, 180, 201, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.08.015

    2006 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Richardson, D

    Walsh, K. J., Richardson, D. C., & Michel, P. 2008, Nature, 454, 188, doi: 10.1038/nature07078

    2008 doi

  68. [76]

    G., Kreckel, K., Belfiore, F., et al

    Williams, T. G., Kreckel, K., Belfiore, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3082

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    Wolszczan, A., & Frail, D. A. 1992, Nature, 355, 145, doi: 10.1038/355145a0

    1992 doi

  70. [78]

    2020, Nature, 587, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    Zhang, B. 2020, Nature, 587, 45, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    J., Dong, X

    Zhang, K. J., Dong, X. F., Rodin, A. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00476, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.00476

    2024 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    C., & Zhang, B

    Zhang, R. C., & Zhang, B. 2022, ApJL, 924, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46ad

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    Zhang, Y., & Lin, D. N. C. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 852, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1065-8

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.