Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

SURF Report: High Accuracy Methods for Computing Gravitational Potential and Gravitational Force Fields Near the Surface of Irregularly Shaped 3-Dimensional Bodies

T0 review · 3 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 This paper claims that computing potential and force by integrating their definitions directly, with the gradient inside the integrand, plus a 'gravitational calculus' for combining shapes, gives high-accuracy near-surface gravity for…

desk verdict A sound direct-integration methods note whose 'calculus without accuracy loss' claim is undercut by missing cancellation-error analysis; worth a referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15728 v1 pith:MYPJWJUQ submitted 2024-11-24 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Thomas MacLean , Alan H. Barr This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM MSC 70F1565D3086A30
keywords gravitationalpotentialforceirregularlyshapedbodiesnear-surfacegravityBrillouinspheredivergencecalculusoctreemethodcylindricalcoordinates
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

Landing and navigating near asteroids, moons, and other irregular bodies requires gravity fields that stay accurate close to the surface, but conventional expansion methods lose accuracy there, often by tens of percent. This paper claims that the fix is to return to the definitions: evaluate the potential integral $V(\mathbf{x}) = \int G\rho(\mathbf{r})\, dv / |\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}|$ directly, and compute the force by differentiating the integrand before integrating, so the true cusped behavior of the force field is preserved. It introduces a 'gravitational calculus' in which component shape fields—spheres, crater bowls, mountain bumps—are translated, rotated, added, and subtracted to build a complex body without recomputing fields from scratch. If the approach holds up, near-surface navigation and landing operations on small bodies could use gravity fields with errors far below current methods, computed to a user-specified tolerance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the 'differentiate-before-integrate' force formula and the 'gravitational calculus'. The force is obtained not by differentiating an approximate potential but by substituting $\nabla (1/|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}|) = -(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r})/|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}|^3$ into the defining integral and integrating over the shape, so the force integrand is integrated directly. The gravitational calculus is the linear superposition principle of potential theory: since $V$ and $\mathbf{F}$ are volume integrals over the density, fields of component shapes add, and a translated or rotated component field is obtained by substituting coordinates in the already-computed field rather than recomputing it. This enables building a sphere with craters by subtracting rotated copies of a precomputed bowl-shaped field, and a sphere with mountains by adding rotated mountain fields. A second supporting mechanism is the use of cylindrical coordinates for azimuthally symmetric shapes, where the angular integration is performed symbolically and the vertical bounds become functions of the radial coordinate, leaving a single numerical integration. For arbitrary shapes, an octree of axis-aligned boxes, each with a closed-form cuboid potential, gives a complete shape representation whose accuracy is controlled by tree depth.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to compute the surface force field of a small uniform-density sphere with a shallow bowl-shaped crater whose depth is, say, one percent of the sphere's radius, using this method, and compare it pointwise near the crater rim against an independent high-accuracy reference such as a finely resolved polyhedron model; if the error near the rim exceeds a few percent, or if subtraction of the sphere field from the crater field produces visible cancellation noise, the claimed high accuracy is not achieved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the near-surface force field of an irregular body is generically non-smooth, with cusps wherever a line from the field point crosses a mass boundary, so any method that represents the field with smooth basis functions, such as spherical harmonics outside the body or Bessel expansions inside it, will be inaccurate near the surface, with errors of order tens of percent inside the minimum Brillouin sphere, the smallest sphere centered on the body's center that encloses all of its mass. The paper's method instead evaluates the true field integrals directly: potential $V$ from its defining volume integral, and force $\mathbf{F}$ from $\mathbf{F} = -\nabla V$ with the gradient moved inside the integral, so the force integrand proportional to $(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r})/|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}|^3$ is integrated over the shape. Because these integrals are linear in the density and volume, fields of disjoint shapes superpose; the 'gravitational calculus' uses this by allowing component fields to be translated and rotated through coordinate substitution and then added or subtracted, producing for example a cratered moon as a sphere minus bowl-shaped craters. The paper demonstrates, for a uniform sphere, that direct integration reproduces the closed-form force field to numerical precision, while the spherical-harmonic method leaves a visible residual, and for crater-like shapes it shows force cusps at the crater rim that smooth expansions would miss.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the required three-dimensional numerical integrals over realistic bodies, and the subtraction of nearly equal fields in the gravitational calculus, can be made fast enough and numerically stable enough for practical mission use; the paper itself notes that computations may be infeasibly slow without GPUs and that cancellation from subtracting a crater field from a sphere field is not analyzed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near-surface gravity fields for cratered or mountainous bodies can be computed with accuracy bounded by numerical integration tolerance rather than by the divergence of spherical-harmonic expansions inside the minimum Brillouin sphere.
  • Force fields produced this way preserve the physical cusps at mass boundaries, so trajectory and landing dynamics near crater rims and mountain flanks can be modeled without artificial smoothing.
  • Component fields such as spheres and crater bowls only need to be computed once; the gravitational calculus then builds a family of bodies by translation, rotation, and subtraction, speeding up mission design studies that survey many shapes.
  • Octree box decomposition extends the same direct-integration accuracy to arbitrary shapes by summing closed-form box potentials, with the number of boxes controlling the accuracy-versus-runtime tradeoff.
  • The paper anticipates that GPU parallelization can make the direct-integrals-plus-calculus pipeline fast enough for practical mission use, whereas high-resolution polyhedron models become infeasibly slow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is applying the same differentiate-before-integrate approach to interior points and to full global shape models of real asteroids, not just idealized sphere-plus-crater composites; if the integration tolerance is maintained, this would provide surface and subsurface gravity for lander operations.
  • The subtraction step in the gravitational calculus could suffer from cancellation when a large sphere field is subtracted from a slightly different cratered field; a mitigation the paper does not analyze is to evaluate the crater component in coordinates aligned with the crater rather than the sphere, which might reduce catastrophic cancellation.
  • The method's practical value hinges on the cost of adaptive three-dimensional quadrature near cusps; if GPU tensor cores are used, direct integration could become competitive with polyhedron models for time-varying shape updates during landing, but the paper does not provide benchmarks at that scale.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a family of methods for computing the gravitational potential and force fields of irregularly shaped bodies by directly integrating the Newtonian integral definitions, differentiating the potential integrand before integration, and combining precomputed component fields via translation and rotation with addition and subtraction (a 'gravitational calculus'). It includes algorithms for a general workflow, octree shape representation, closed-form component potentials, and preliminary MATLAB and Mathematica implementations. The examples are a uniform sphere and spheres with idealized craters and mountains; the only quantitative accuracy comparison is for a uniform sphere, shown in Figure 11 against a spherical-harmonic/Bessel reconstruction.

Significance. If the accuracy and speed claims were substantiated, the approach would be a useful complement to existing polyhedron and mascon methods for near-surface small-body gravity, particularly for non-smooth surface features. The direct-integration idea is mathematically sound, and the paper is transparent in providing explicit algorithms and acknowledging current limitations. However, as it stands, the manuscript is a proposal with illustrative examples rather than a validated computational method: it lacks a rigorous error analysis for the gravitational-calculus subtraction, presents no benchmark against existing methods on an irregular shape, and gives no runtime or convergence data. The paper's own Section 5 concedes that computations 'may be infeasibly slow without GPUs,' which undercuts the abstract's speed claim until quantitative evidence is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4, Figure 11] The headline claim that the method achieves high accuracy near irregular bodies is not demonstrated for any irregular shape. The only quantitative accuracy comparison, Figure 11, is for a uniform-density sphere, for which the exact solution is known and direct integration trivially reproduces the potential. No error plot, convergence study, or comparison against the polyhedron method or the Takahashi-Scheeres spherical-Bessel method is given for a shape that actually exhibits the cusps and non-smooth force features the paper emphasizes. This gap is load-bearing because the claimed advantage over existing methods is precisely in the irregular near-surface regime.
  2. [§3 'New Gravitational Calculus' and Figures 3–5] The claim that the gravitational calculus combines fields 'without accuracy loss' is unsupported and, as stated, numerically unsafe. In the sphere-minus-crater construction, V_sphere and V_crater can differ by many orders of magnitude for a shallow crater; any independent quadrature error or round-off in either field is amplified by the ratio |V_sphere|/|V_crater| when the two are subtracted. The paper gives no cancellation-error bound, no compensated-summation scheme, and no recommendation to evaluate the subtraction in higher precision. This is a load-bearing issue because the subtraction operation is the centerpiece of the calculus and is applied precisely in the shallow-feature regime the paper targets.
  3. [§5 and Algorithm A.2] The 'fast' claim is unquantified. Section 5 admits that computations 'may be infeasibly slow without GPUs,' yet no timings, operation counts, or convergence-versus-N data are reported for the octree algorithm, and the octree subdivision depth N is not tied to an accuracy tolerance in any formula or experiment. Without this, the abstract's assertion of speed relative to existing methods cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm A.3.1 and A.3.2] In Algorithm A.3.1, Step 2, the formula for the translated force field is mis-stated as FT(−→p ) = V(−→p − −→p0); it should be F(−→p − −→p0). A similar typo appears in Algorithm A.3.2, Step 2, where 'translated force' should read 'rotated force.'
  2. [Eq. (6), Algorithm A.2] The closed-form cube potential in Eq. (6) is hard to parse as printed: the summation indices, the bracket evaluation, and the role of the substitution C = p1p2p3 are not defined clearly enough for a reader to reproduce the formula without consulting Chappell et al. (2012).
  3. [Figure 7] Figure 7 is described as showing the gravity field 'in direction of North Pole,' but no coordinate convention is specified for the crater model, making the plot non-reproducible.
  4. [§2 and Appendix B] The repeated citation of 'tens of percent' errors for state-of-the-art methods is presented as if it were established by the current paper; in fact, the only reproduced comparison, Figure 11, is for a sphere. The text should clarify that these error magnitudes are cited from the literature rather than demonstrated here.
  5. [§5] The discussion of future machine-learning density fitting is speculative and could be removed or clearly separated from the methods that are actually implemented and tested.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: direct integration of the defining potential integral and linear superposition; the only self-citation records an NTR acceptance and is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation computes V and F from the defining integrals (Eqs. 1-2), bringing the gradient inside the integral; this is a direct evaluation of the definitions, not a fit. The 'gravitational calculus' is the linearity of the volume integral together with translation/rotation equivariance (Algorithms A.3.1-A.3.2), so sphere-minus-crater examples are true identities rather than circular predictions; the crater field is computed independently by its own integral. Accuracy claims are validated against the closed-form sphere (Figure 11), an external benchmark. The only self-citation is the NTR record (Lo et al. 2024), used to state that the work was accepted, not to justify accuracy; it is therefore not load-bearing. Section 5 openly concedes that computations 'may be infeasibly slow without GPUs,' and the paper does not bound cancellation error when subtracting nearly equal crater and sphere fields; these are correctness/support limitations, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. Hence no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no physical constants. Its method relies on standard Newtonian gravity and the linearity of the integral. The only user-chosen parameters are numerical discretization choices such as octree depth and integration tolerances.

free parameters (1)
  • octree subdivision depth N
    Chosen by the user to balance accuracy and runtime; it is a discretization parameter, not fitted to data, but it controls the accuracy claims of the octree method (Algorithm A.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Newton's law of gravitation, Eq. 1, defines the potential as an integral over mass density.
    The central method is direct evaluation of this integral; the law is taken as given.
  • standard math Linear superposition of gravitational potentials: the potential of a sum of shapes is the sum of potentials.
    Fundamental to the gravitational calculus, used in Algorithms A.3 through A.5.
  • domain assumption Differentiation under the integral sign is valid for field points not on the mass boundary, so F = -gradient(integral) = integral(-gradient).
    The paper brings the derivative inside the integral (Section 3) without proving regularity conditions for points on or near the surface.
  • domain assumption Uniform density for all example shapes (sphere, crater, mountain).
    All examples in Sections 3 and 4 assume constant density; extension to non-constant density is left to future work in Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SURF Report: High Accuracy Methods for Computing Gravitational Potential and Gravitational Force Fields Near the Surface of Irregularly Shaped 3-Dimensional Bodies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYPJWJUQ

@misc{pith2026241115728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SURF Report: High Accuracy Methods for Computing Gravitational Potential and Gravitational Force Fields Near the Surface of Irregularly Shaped 3-Dimensional Bodies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYPJWJUQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15728}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate gravity field calculations are necessary for landing on planets, moons, asteroids, minimoons, or other irregularly shaped bodies, but current methods become increasingly inaccurate and slow near the surface. We present high accuracy, fast methods for computing gravitational potential and gravitational force fields, which are needed for future space missions. Notably, gravitational force and potential computations are simplified, with high accuracy enhanced by bringing the derivative inside the gravitational potential integral. In addition, we present a new gravitational field calculus, which lets us combine simpler potentials and force fields to create more complex ones without accuracy loss. Several examples are provided, for instance, where we subtract different shapes from a spherical body making a variety of craters. The calculus will also work well with volumetric octree methods. Additionally, we use new bounds in the gravitational potential integral, to avoid trying to fit smooth basis functions to non-smooth curves, and harness new computational tools where tasks can be migrated to GPUs. We also have found that cylindrical coordinates can have special advantages in tailoring shape models. We have created a series of algorithms and preliminary MATLAB and Mathematica toolboxes utilizing these methods and the gravitational calculus. These methods are newly customizable for necessary high-accuracy gravity computations in future missions planned by JPL and other space agencies to navigate near irregularly shaped bodies in the solar system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gravity field for uniform density radius R=1 sphere along a line from the sphere center, in any direction, in non-dimensional units. Gravitational potential VS is C 1 continuous but not C 2 continuous. Note the cusp in the force function FS, which makes FS unsuitable for representation with smooth basis functions. The x-axis is the distance from the center of the sphere in units of sphere radii. The left plot is the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Computing the gravity field of bowl-shaped “simple” craters can be done with convenient bounds in cylindrical coordinates. The final integral involves only one numeric integration (here, over INew in ρ as opposed to integrating the original integrand I over ρ, θ, z) and two symbolic integrations, due to the symmetry in θ and ability to write bounds of z as a continuous function of cylindrical coordinate ρ. See Kiefe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of Gravitational Calculus: Sphere with several bowl-shaped “sim￾ple” craters, which models a simple moon. The gravity field of the final shape is equal to the gravity field of the sphere minus the gravity field of the “simple craters.” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of Gravitational Calculus: Sphere with mountain appendages. The gravity field of the final shape is equal to the gravity field of the sphere plus the gravity field of the mountain volumes. The gravity field of the mountain volume need only be computed once sinc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of Gravitational Calculus: Sphere of radius R with an “ice cream cone crater.” The gravity field of the final shape is equal to the gravity field of the sphere minus the gravity field of the crater volume. The spherical coordinate bounds of the crater volume, t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scientific “simple crater” and “complex crater” classifications, figure from Kiefer (2003). Such craters may exist on the shape of interest. The crater’s contribution to the gravity field can be realized via choice of coordinate system, new gravitational potential inte…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Absolute value of gravitational potential (|V |) versus distance, and gravitational force (F) versus distance of bowl-shaped “simple” craters in direction of North Pole. Figure made originally in Mathematica and reproduced in MATLAB using our new GravToolbox Package, w…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Shape S in gray represents 2-dimensional cross-section of shape of interest. Quad-tree algorithm out to 5 steps is demonstrated. Generalizes to 3 dimensions in octree representation. See Algorithm A.2 for the octree representation method. Algorithm A.3.1: Gravitational…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Consider these shapes as cross-sections of a 3-dimensional ellipsoid with ap￾pendage shape S, where shape S represents a flat cone which is intersected with base shape ellipsoid B. The intersection region SI is the section of the ellipsoid that is missing, and this reg…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Shape SI in gray and blue is intersected with base shape B. Intersection region is I. The intersection region resembles that of a crater. Packages: GravToolbox. Presented in MATLAB, this directory gives a set of files which can compute specified crater or base sphere …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Error in computational methods on the uniform density sphere. Our method of solving the integral directly only has numerical error, which is bounded by 10−11 per￾cent, indistinguishable from the x-axis. “Degree/Power m” expansions are state-of-the art spherical harmon…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 16 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 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.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    /(רQܟz)sW^tt,\Ќo 3ZAYC7 '7@_-< y f L=e'|2lׯ ipf0n &M*r 6 pc ˯u m 8 g ]]e ? ΄f .& k W꣏>*[n Ϭ q7JYa 37IWlUٳgЄel3׏ u e [rR, B3ׇ q qQ w S d WXC a =,+iٲeff 3 G eK HF` *

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    The gravitational field of a cube

    Chappell, J. M., Chappell, M. J., Iqbal, A., & Abbott, D. 2012, The gravitational field of a cube. 1206.3857

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    On the domain of convergence of spherical harmonic expansions

    Costin, O., Costin, R. D., Ogle, C., & Bevis, M. 2020. 2011.05709

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    2023, Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications, 29, 28, 10.1007/s00041-023-10008-4

    Iglewska-Nowak , I., & Stefaniak , P. 2023, Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications, 29, 28, 10.1007/s00041-023-10008-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00041-023-10008-4 2023

  7. [7]

    Kiefer , W. S. 2003, Lunar and Planetary Institute. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kiefer/Education/SSRG2-Craters/craterstructure.html

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    W., Hockney, G., & Kwan, B

    Lo, M. W., Hockney, G., & Kwan, B. 2003, NASA Tech Briefs. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20110023952

    work page arXiv 2003

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    W., MacLean, T., & Barr, A

    Lo, M. W., MacLean, T., & Barr, A. 2024, New Technology Report 53321 California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory

    2024

  2. [10]

    1982, Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 19, 129, https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-664X(82)90104-6

    Meagher, D. 1982, Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 19, 129, https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-664X(82)90104-6

    1982 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, ``Neighborhood Analysis, KD-Trees, and Octrees for Meshes and Point Clouds in Python," Medium

    Nikolov, I. 2022, ``Neighborhood Analysis, KD-Trees, and Octrees for Meshes and Point Clouds in Python," Medium. https://towardsdatascience.com/

    2022

  4. [12]

    2001, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 79, 235, 10.1023/A:1017555515763

    Romain , G., & Jean-Pierre , B. 2001, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 79, 235, 10.1023/A:1017555515763

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, Orbital Motion in Strongly Perturbed Environments: Applications to Asteroid, Comet and Planetary Satellite Orbiters, Springer Praxis Books (Springer Berlin Heidelberg)

    Scheeres, D. 2016, Orbital Motion in Strongly Perturbed Environments: Applications to Asteroid, Comet and Planetary Satellite Orbiters, Springer Praxis Books (Springer Berlin Heidelberg). https://books.google.com/books?id=kAuPDAAAQBAJ

    2016

  6. [14]

    2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 476, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2018.10.016

    Scheeres, D., Van wal , S., Olikara, Z., & Baresi, N. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 476, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2018.10.016

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    E., & Stewart, S

    Senft, L. E., & Stewart, S. T. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, 1, 10.1029/2007JE002894

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Takahashi , Y., & Scheeres , D. J. 2014, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 119, 169, 10.1007/s10569-014-9552-9

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    2010, NASA Tech Briefs

    Werner , R. 2010, NASA Tech Briefs. http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/8726

    2010

  10. [18]

    Werner, R. A. 1997, Computers & Geosciences, 23, 1071, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(97)00110-6

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    2010, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 294, 541, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.033

    Willner, K., Oberst, J., Hussmann, H., et al. 2010, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 294, 541, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.033

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    Zamaro , M., & Biggs , J. D. 2015, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 122, 263, 10.1007/s10569-015-9619-2

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, Earth-Science Reviews, 222, 103739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103739

    Šprlák, M., & Han, S.-C. 2021, Earth-Science Reviews, 222, 103739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103739

    2021

Pith tools

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