Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 139 references

Planetesimal Scattering Efficiency of Cold Giant Planet Architectures

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Moderate eccentricity turns a Jupiter analog into an order-of-magnitude better planetesimal scatterer, and a Jupiter-Saturn pair matches it.

desk verdict A clean N-body parameter study that quantifies how Jupiter eccentricity and a Saturn analog boost planetesimal scattering inward, with the Uranus/Neptune result resting on a disk truncation that the authors partly acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08088 v2 pith:MZ4YRCAW submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.EP

Stephen R. Kane , Emma L. Miles This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords coldgiantplanetsplanetesimalscatteringvolatiledeliveryorbitaleccentricitysnowlineJupiteranalogN-bodysimulationsplanetaryhabitability
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 how efficiently cold giant planets—planets beyond the snow line, like Jupiter and Saturn—fling leftover icy planetesimals inward toward terrestrial planets. Using N-body simulations of solar-system analogs, it finds that increasing Jupiter's eccentricity from its present near-circular value to a moderate 0.2–0.3 raises the fraction of material scattered to the inner system by an order of magnitude. Adding a Saturn analog produces a comparable increase, meaning pairs of cold giants can act like one eccentric giant. Adding Uranus and Neptune analogs slightly reduces scattering by siphoning angular momentum from Jupiter and Saturn. The result matters because this scattered material is a candidate source of water and volatiles for inner terrestrial planets, so cold-giant architecture constrains how habitable a system can be.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'scattering efficiency' metric: for each injection semi-major axis between 3.0 and 8.0 AU, the percentage of 100 massless test particles that at any time reach a perihelion interior to one of five thresholds (the snow line at 2.7 AU, and the orbits of Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury). The machinery carrying the comparison is a hybrid symplectic/Bulirsch-Stoer N-body integration in Jacobi coordinates, with planetary masses and orbits taken from solar-system ephemerides. Two dynamical features do the explanatory work: the mean-motion resonances that carve dips and peaks into the scattering curves, and the Jupiter-Saturn 'Great Inequality' secular resonance, whose antiphased eccentricity oscillations pump planetesimals inward even when both planets start nearly circular. The ice giants act oppositely, drawing angular momentum from Jupiter and Saturn and reducing their eccentricity ranges.

What would settle it

Re-run simulations 3, 4, 7, and 8 on the same grid but give each test particle an initial eccentricity and inclination drawn from a Rayleigh distribution typical of a stirred disk (mean eccentricity ~0.05–0.15, mean inclination ~5–15 degrees) with a non-flat surface-density profile; if the e=0.23 Jupiter case no longer yields an order-of-magnitude increase in Earth-crossing particles over the e=0.049 case, or if a Jupiter-Saturn pair no longer matches an eccentric Jupiter, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the efficiency with which leftover planetesimals beyond the snow line are scattered inward depends more strongly on the eccentricity and multiplicity of cold giant planets than on the present solar system's near-circular arrangement. In the simulations, raising a Jupiter analog's eccentricity from 0.049 to 0.23 raises the fraction of particles that ever reach Earth-crossing perihelia from 4.58% to 56.61% over one million years, an order-of-magnitude change; at e=0.3 the snow-line scattering reaches 96.38%. Adding a Saturn analog to a circular Jupiter produces Earth-crossing scattering of 49.25%, comparable to an eccentric-Jupiter case, while adding Uranus and Neptune analogs lowers every threshold by about 5% relative to the Jupiter-Saturn case. The authors interpret these results as showing that eccentric cold giant planets, and Jupiter-Saturn-like pairs, are substantially more effective at delivering icy planetesimals to inner terrestrial planets than the present solar system, whereas distant ice giants modestly suppress that delivery by draining angular momentum from the inner giants.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison stands or falls on the assumption that leftover planetesimals are well represented by massless, circular, coplanar test particles spread evenly over 3–8 AU, and that reaching a threshold perihelion is a good proxy for delivering material to a planet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Eccentric cold Jupiters (e ~ 0.2–0.3) deliver roughly an order of magnitude more planetesimals to terrestrial-planet-crossing orbits, so exoplanet systems with such giants should receive more post-gas volatile delivery than a solar-system-like arrangement.
  • A Jupiter-Saturn pair with present-day orbits produces snow-line scattering between that of a single Jupiter at e=0.1 and e=0.23, meaning systems with two giant planets beyond the snow line can match an eccentric single giant.
  • Uranus- and Neptune-like planets reduce scattering by about 5 percent at the snow-line threshold, primarily by damping Jupiter's and Saturn's eccentricities and pushing material outward, so the outermost giants act as a brake.
  • Integration time matters most for low-eccentricity cases: extending runs from 10^5 to 10^6 years multiplies Earth-crossing scattering by roughly a factor of three for the circular Jupiter analog but only by 1.3 for the e=0.23 case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The perihelion-crossing metric counts every particle that ever dips inside a threshold, not actual collisions; with Earth's impact probability per perihelion passage near 2e-9, the absolute delivered mass is likely tiny, so the robust takeaway is the relative ordering of architectures rather than absolute delivery rates.
  • Real debris disks are not circular and coplanar; if initial inclinations and eccentricities were included, the eccentric-Jupiter boost could shrink or grow depending on whether inclined particles are scattered more or less efficiently, which the paper does not test.
  • The ice giants' outward flux could be quantified directly by extending the particle grid beyond 8 AU; a testable prediction is that Uranus/Neptune damping grows as the outer particle population increases.
  • Systems such as 47 Uma, whose snow line lies at 3.03 AU and whose giants are bright and nearby, are promising targets where atmospheric characterization of any terrestrial planet could test whether eccentric cold giants enhance volatile delivery.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper investigates how cold giant planet architectures affect the scattering of planetesimals into the inner planetary system. Using the Mercury hybrid symplectic integrator, the authors inject 100 massless test particles at each of about 500 semi-major axis locations between 3 and 8 AU, for eight configurations: Jupiter analogs with eccentricities of 0.049, 0.23, 0.1, and 0.3; 10^5- and 10^6-year runs; a Jupiter-Saturn analog; and a full four-giant-planet analog. Scattering efficiency is measured as the fraction of particles whose perihelion ever falls inside thresholds at Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and the snow line. The headline results are that increasing Jupiter's eccentricity to the median cold-giant value (0.23) increases Earth-crossing efficiency by a factor of about 12 (Table 3, 4.58% vs 56.61%), that adding a Saturn analog produces a comparable increase (49.25% Earth-crossing), and that adding Uranus and Neptune slightly decreases efficiency. The paper also presents 10 exoplanetary systems with at least two known giant planets beyond the snow line as observational motivation.

Significance. The study is a clean, direct N-body comparison with no fitted parameters, and the main relative effects are large enough to be robust to the finite-particle statistics. If confirmed, the conclusion that moderate eccentricities and Jupiter-Saturn pairs boost inward scattering by an order of magnitude is important for volatile-delivery and habitability studies. The explicit limitation passages in Sections 4.3 and 5 are honest and should be kept; in particular, the paper's own acknowledgment that the ice-giant result is restricted to a 3-8 AU disk is exactly the caveat that needs to be reflected in the abstract and conclusions. The value of the paper is as a relative-scattering template rather than an absolute-delivery calculation, and its census of 10 multi-cold-giant systems gives a concrete observational anchor.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §4.3, Table 3 (suite 8)] The third headline result—that Uranus and Neptune analogs produce a 'minor negative effect' on scattering efficiency—is not established for the general architectures stated in the abstract. In suite 8, particles are injected only over 3–8 AU, interior to all ice giants; Uranus and Neptune can therefore only act indirectly by damping Jupiter/Saturn eccentricities and by ejecting outward-scattered material. The authors recognize this in §4.3 ('the ice giants create a net outward flux... could ideally be tested via future simulations'), but the abstract and §6 present the negative effect without this qualifier. A realistic post-gas disk extends well beyond Neptune's orbit, where the ice giants could scatter material inward directly and reverse the sign. Please either re-run suite 8 with an extended disk (e.g., 3–40 AU) or reframe the claim as 'for planetesimals initially interior to Saturn's orbit.'
  2. [Table 3, §3] The integrated efficiencies are quoted to two decimal places without uncertainty or convergence tests. Each suite contains roughly 50,000 particles (100 per location and about 500 locations), so binomial errors are small, but the reported percentages are correlated across adjacent semi-major axes and depend on the 10-day timestep and the single 10^6-year integration time. Please report Monte Carlo or Poisson uncertainties on at least the headline rows (simulations 3, 4, 7, 8), and add a convergence check—for example, doubling particle number at a few locations or halving the timestep for a subset—to demonstrate that the factor-of-12 Earth-crossing contrast is not a numerical artifact.
  3. [§4.4, §6] The paper alternates between 'scattering efficiency' and 'volatile delivery' when stating the order-of-magnitude result. The simulation metric is a perihelion crossing, not a collision or an accretion event; as the authors note in §4.4, the Earth impact probability per perihelion passage is about 2.33e-9. Relative scattering efficiencies do not automatically translate into relative delivery rates unless the distribution of encounter geometries is similar across scenarios. Please reserve 'delivery' language for the relative scattering flux and state explicitly that absolute volatile masses are not modeled in this work.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1] The text 'those those interactions' should read 'those interactions', and 'the relative dearth giant planets' should read 'the relative dearth of giant planets.'
  2. [§4.1] The phrase 'selected based on on the 1σ RMS scatter' contains a duplicated 'on'; please correct it.
  3. [§4.4] The sentence 'simulations 1 and 2 consist of the the 10^5 year integrations' contains a duplicated article; please correct it.
  4. [Table 2] The column header 'Sim Time' and entries '10 5' and '10 6' should be typeset with superscripts for readability.
  5. [§4.4] The Zimbelman (1984) relative probabilities (93%, 170%, and 12% for Mercury, Venus, and Mars) should be clarified as percentages relative to Earth's probability rather than as absolute impact probabilities.
  6. [Figures 4–7] The figures would benefit from a consistent legend identifying the five colored thresholds; currently the color key is described only in the caption text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

The headline scattering claims are direct outputs of N-body integrations with no fitted parameters; the only self-citation supplies input eccentricities, not the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's headline results are direct outputs of simulations, not fits or renamings. Table 3 reports the percentage of test particles that ever reach perihelion interior to a threshold, and the headline comparisons are simple ratios of those reported percentages: the eccentric-Jupiter effect is 56.61 versus 4.58 for Earth-crossing material (simulation 4 versus simulation 3), or 79.58 versus 4.58 for e = 0.3; the Saturn effect is read from simulation 7 relative to simulations 3-6; and the 'minor negative effect' of the ice giants is the 63.84% to 58.84% snow-line difference between simulations 7 and 8. None of these numbers is fitted or tuned to reproduce a target result; they are direct outputs of the Mercury N-body integrations described in Section 3. The eccentricity scenarios (e = 0.23 median, e = 0.1 and 0.3 from the 1-sigma RMS) are external empirical inputs from the observed cold-giant population via Kane & Wittenmyer (2024) and the NASA Exoplanet Archive, not outputs of this paper, so using them as initial conditions is legitimate input data. The repetition of simulations 1 and 2 from Kane & Wittenmyer (2024) is a self-citation, but it is presented as a baseline reproducibility check ('We repeat those simulations here to further incorporate the additional scattering thresholds described in Section 3'), and the central claims rest on simulations 3-8, which are new integrations. The 3-8 AU particle injection does limit the ice-giant result, since with all particles interior to Uranus and Neptune those planets can only act indirectly; however, the paper explicitly flags this limitation in Section 4.3 ('This could ideally be tested via future simulations that extend the extent of the material semi-major axes out beyond the orbit of Neptune') and Section 5 ('The extension of the simulations to farther distances would provide an improved assessment of the scattering effects...'). That is a scope/validity caveat about over-generalizing to a realistic extended disk, not a circular reduction. No equation defines a predicted quantity in terms of the input and then presents that same quantity as an independent finding, so the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central results rest on scenario parameters (eccentricity, integration time, injection range) and on modeling assumptions about the leftover planetesimal disk and the solar-system template; none of these are fitted to reproduce the headline result, so the paper's contribution is an empirical simulation mapping rather than a new theory.

free parameters (4)
  • Jupiter eccentricity scenarios = 0.049; 0.1; 0.23; 0.3
    Chosen by hand to represent the current solar system value and the exoplanet cold-giant eccentricity distribution from Kane & Wittenmyer (2024); the central eccentricity-scaling claim depends on comparing these scenarios.
  • Integration time = 1e5 or 1e6 yr
    Selected timescale; longer integrations raise scattering efficiencies, particularly to inner thresholds (Table 3).
  • Particle injection range = 3.0-8.0 AU
    Defines the reservoir of leftover planetesimals; results do not cover material beyond Saturn, limiting the quantitative role of Uranus and Neptune.
  • Feeding-zone exclusion radius = about +/-1 AU (3 Hill radii of Jupiter)
    Applies only to the integrated scattering percentages in Table 3; removing particles near Jupiter changes the absolute numbers but not the relative ordering.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Mercury hybrid symplectic/Bulirsch-Stoer integration with a 10-day timestep accurately models the scattering over 1e6 years.
    Section 3: 'we utilized the Mercury Integrator Package... with a hybrid symplectic/Bulirsch-Stoer integrator and a Jacobi coordinate system'.
  • domain assumption Planetesimals can be treated as massless test particles that do not interact with each other.
    Section 3: particle mass is 1e-6 Earth masses, with tests down to 1e-12 producing indistinguishable outcomes.
  • domain assumption The relevant volatile-delivery reservoir is the post-gas-phase planetesimal disk.
    Section 5: 'our simulations only consider dynamical scattering of material after the gas phase when planet formation has largely completed'.
  • domain assumption Initial particle orbits are circular and coplanar with Jupiter, with a flat distribution over 3-8 AU.
    Section 3 and Section 5: particles injected in circular orbits; 'our simulations only consider particles whose initial orbital inclination is coplanar with that of Jupiter'.
  • ad hoc to paper Solar-system giant planet masses and current orbits are a representative template for cold giant architectures.
    Section 3: 'we adopt various orbital configurations for the solar system planets as a template for exploring such planetesimal scattering efficiencies as a template for exoplanetary scenarios'.
  • standard math The snow line is at 2.7 AU (Ida & Lin 2005).
    Section 3: threshold q=a_ice=2.7 AU, derived from Ida & Lin (2005).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planetesimal Scattering Efficiency of Cold Giant Planet Architectures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZ4YRCAW

@misc{pith2026250608088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planetesimal Scattering Efficiency of Cold Giant Planet Architectures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZ4YRCAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08088}
}
read the original abstract

The discovery of many exoplanets has revealed an incredible diversity of orbital architectures. These orbital configurations are intrinsically linked to the potential for habitable environments within the system, since the gravitational influence of the planets governs the angular momentum distribution within the system. This angular momentum distribution, in turn, alters the planetary orbits and rotational obliquities. In the case of giant planets, their gravitational influence can also produce significant redistribution of volatiles, particularly those that lie beyond the snow line. Here, we present the results of dynamical simulations that investigate the role of cold giant planets in scattering material to inner terrestrial planets. We highlight 10 exoplanetary systems with 2 or more known giant planets beyond the snow line, and adopt a solar system analog template that investigates the scattering of material within the range 3-8~AU. We show that increasing the eccentricity of a Jupiter analog from its present, near-circular, value to a moderate range (0.2-0.3) results in an order of magnitude increase in scattered material to the inner part of the system. The inclusion of a Saturn analog to the dynamical model produces a similar increase, highlighting the importance of multiple giant planets beyond the snow line. However, the addition of analogs to Uranus and Neptune can have a minor negative effect on scattering efficiency through the transfer of angular momentum from the inner giant planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System architectures for the 10 known planetary systems that have at least 2 giant planets detected beyond the snow line. The system architectures are shown (from top to bottom) in order of increasing stellar mass, which is indicated on the right underneath each stellar name. The size of the planets, shown in blue, are logarithmically proportional to the planet mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. is a top-down view of the system architecture of HD 66428, where the Keplerian planetary orbits use the results provided by Feng et al. (2022). The scale of the figure is 20 AU along each side. Also shown is the extent of the HZ, including the conservative HZ (CHZ) and optimistic HZ (OHZ), shown in light and dark green, respectively. The CHZ adopts the traditional runaway and maximum greenhouse boundaries, whilst th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top-down view of the planetary systems de￾scribed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for particle injection simulations 1 and 2, that test the scattering efficiency of a Jupiter analog (e = 0.05; top panel) compared with an eccentric Jupiter (e = 0.23; bottom panel), where each location is integrated for 105 years. For each panel, results are p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results for particle injection simulations 3 and 4, that test the scattering efficiency of a Jupiter analog (e = 0.05; top panel) compared with an eccentric Jupiter (e = 0.23; bottom panel), where each location is integrated for 106 years. For each panel, results are p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results for particle injection simulations 5 and 6, that test the scattering efficiency of two different eccentric Jupiter scenarios: e = 0.1 (top panel) and e = 0.3 (bottom panel), where each location is integrated for 106 years. For each panel, results are plotted fo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results for particle injection simulations 7 and 8, that test the scattering efficiency of a Jupiter and Saturn analog (top panel) and the complete solar system giant planet suite of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune (bottom panel), where each location is integrated…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 989, doi: 10.1086/672273 Albar` ede, F. 2009, Nature, 461, 1227, doi: 10.1038/nature08477

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  2. [2]

    2005, A&A, 434, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042032 Artur de la Villarmois, E., Jørgensen, J

    Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., Benz, W., & Winisdoerffer, C. 2005, A&A, 434, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042032 Artur de la Villarmois, E., Jørgensen, J. K., Kristensen, L. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834877

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042032 2005

  3. [3]

    S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346211

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346211 2023

  4. [4]

    F., Marschall, R., Nesvorn´ y, D., & Vokrouhlick´ y, D

    Bottke, W. F., Marschall, R., Nesvorn´ y, D., & Vokrouhlick´ y, D. 2023, SSRv, 219, 83, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01031-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-023-01031-4 2023

  5. [5]

    N., & Davies, M

    Carrera, D., Raymond, S. N., & Davies, M. B. 2019, A&A, 629, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935744

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935744 2019

  6. [6]

    Chambers, J. E. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 793, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x —. 2003, Treatise on Geochemistry, 1, 711, doi: 10.1016/B0-08-043751-6/01170-1

    arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    E., & Wetherill, G

    Chambers, J. E., & Wetherill, G. W. 1998, Icarus, 136, 304, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.6007

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    I., Fischer, D., & Thommes, E

    Chiang, E. I., Fischer, D., & Thommes, E. 2002, ApJL, 564, L105, doi: 10.1086/338961

    doi:10.1086/338961 2002

Show all 139 references
  1. [9]

    Chyba, C. F. 1990, Nature, 343, 129, doi: 10.1038/343129a0

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    Ciesla, F. J. 2014, ApJL, 784, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/1/L1

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Mulders, G

    Ciesla, F. J., Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D. 2015, ApJ, 804, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/9

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Quintana, E

    Clement, M. S., Quintana, E. V., & Quarles, B. L. 2022, ApJ, 928, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac549e

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Marcy, G

    Cumming, A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 531, doi: 10.1086/588487

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    A., de El ´ ıa, G

    Darriba, L. A., de El ´ ıa, G. C., Guilera, O. M., & Brunini, A. 2017, A&A, 607, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630185

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    I., & Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. 2012, ApJ, 750, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/43

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55d

    Deienno, R., Izidoro, A., Morbidelli, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55d

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2021, A&A, 656, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038863

    Emsenhuber, A., Mordasini, C., Burn, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038863

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Vogt, S

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7e57

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Anglada-Escude, G., Arriagada, P., et al

    Fischer, D. A., Anglada-Escude, G., Arriagada, P., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 066001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/964/066001

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Ford, E. B. 2008, AJ, 135, 1008, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/3/1008 —. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12616, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304219111

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Rosenthal, L

    Fulton, B. J., Rosenthal, L. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2003, Icarus, 164, 149, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00101-5 —

    Genda, H., & Abe, Y. 2003, Icarus, 164, 149, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00101-5 —. 2005, Nature, 433, 842, doi: 10.1038/nature03360

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Tsiganis, K., & Morbidelli, A

    Gomes, R., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2005, Nature, 435, 466, doi: 10.1038/nature03676

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    Gomes, R. S. 2003, Icarus, 161, 404, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(02)00056-8

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, SSRv, 214, 92, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0526-1

    Pahlevan, K., & Usui, T. 2018, SSRv, 214, 92, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0526-1

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    M., & Malhotra, R

    Hahn, J. M., & Malhotra, R. 2005, AJ, 130, 2392, doi: 10.1086/452638

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    Y., Ford, E

    He, M. Y., Ford, E. B., & Ragozzine, D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2869

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Bott, K., Dalba, P

    Hill, M. L., Bott, K., Dalba, P. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca1c0

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Kane, S

    Hill, M. L., Kane, S. R., Seperuelo Duarte, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac384

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab27c0

    Galvez, R. 2019, ApJ, 880, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab27c0

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Myers, A

    Hogg, D. W., Myers, A. D., & Bovy, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2166

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Horner, J., & Jones, B. W. 2008, International Journal of Astrobiology, 7, 251, doi: 10.1017/S1473550408004187

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Marshall, J

    Horner, J., Kane, S. R., Marshall, J. P., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 102001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab8eb9

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 1045, doi: 10.1086/429953

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    Ida, S., Lin, D. N. C., & Nagasawa, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/42 Planetesimal Scattering Efficiency 15

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, A&A, 624, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834556

    Ida, S., Yamamura, T., & Okuzumi, S. 2019, A&A, 624, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834556

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/54

    Haghighipour, N. 2013, ApJ, 767, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/54

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, Elements, 18, 181, doi: 10.2138/gselements.18.3.181

    Izidoro, A., & Piani, L. 2022, Elements, 18, 181, doi: 10.2138/gselements.18.3.181

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 359, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    Johansen, A., & Lambrechts, M. 2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 359, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444 Juri´ c, M., & Tremaine, S

    Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Bizzarro, M., et al. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444 Juri´ c, M., & Tremaine, S. 2008, ApJ, 686, 603, doi: 10.1086/590047

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 66 , doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace535

    Kalyaan, A., Pinilla, P., Krijt, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 66 , doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace535

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Kane, S. R. 2011, Icarus, 214, 327, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.04.023 —. 2013, ApJ, 766, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/10 —. 2015, ApJL, 814, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L9 —. 2019, AJ, 158, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2a09 —. 2021, Planetary Habitability (IOP Publish...

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    R., & Burt, J

    Kane, S. R., & Burt, J. A. 2024, AJ, 168, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8a68

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    R., & Byrne, P

    Kane, S. R., & Byrne, P. K. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 417, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02228-5

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Ciardi, D

    Kane, S. R., Ciardi, D. R., Gelino, D. M., & von Braun, K. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 757, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21627.x

    2012

  38. [46]

    R., & Gelino, D

    Kane, S. R., & Gelino, D. M. 2012, PASP, 124, 323, doi: 10.1086/665271

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Li, Z., Wolf, E

    Kane, S. R., Li, Z., Wolf, E. T., Ostberg, C., & Hill, M. L. 2021a, AJ, 161, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcbfd

    doi

  40. [48]

    Ciardi, D. R. 2009, PASP, 121, 1386, doi: 10.1086/648564

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    R., & Raymond, S

    Kane, S. R., & Raymond, S. N. 2014, ApJ, 784, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/104

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    J., & Hill, M

    Foley, B. J., & Hill, M. L. 2020a, PSJ, 1, 36, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abaab5

    doi

  43. [51]

    R., Turnbull, M

    Kane, S. R., Turnbull, M. C., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2020b, AJ, 160, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9ffe

    doi

  44. [52]

    R., & von Braun, K

    Kane, S. R., & von Braun, K. 2008, ApJ, 689, 492, doi: 10.1086/592381

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    R., & Wittenmyer, R

    Kane, S. R., & Wittenmyer, R. A. 2024, ApJL, 962, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2463

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Hill, M

    Kane, S. R., Hill, M. L., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 1, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/1

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Arney, G., Crisp, D., et al

    Kane, S. R., Arney, G., Crisp, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 124, 2015, doi: 10.1029/2019JE005939

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    R., Arney, G

    Kane, S. R., Arney, G. N., Byrne, P. K., et al. 2021b, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06643, doi: 10.1002/jgre.v126.2

    doi

  49. [57]

    F., Pollack, J

    Kasting, J. F., Pollack, J. B., & Ackerman, T. P. 1984, Icarus, 57, 335, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90122-2

    1984 doi

  50. [58]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1010

    1993

  51. [59]

    M., & Kenyon, S

    Kennedy, G. M., & Kenyon, S. J. 2008, ApJ, 673, 502, doi: 10.1086/524130

    2008 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Kenyon, S

    Kennedy, G. M., Kenyon, S. J., & Bromley, B. C. 2006, ApJL, 650, L139, doi: 10.1086/508882

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    2000, Icarus, 143, 15, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6237

    Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 2000, Icarus, 143, 15, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6237

    2000

  54. [62]

    K., & Barnes, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., & Barnes, R. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1336, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1336

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    K., H´ ebrard, E., Belikov, R., et al

    Kopparapu, R. K., H´ ebrard, E., Belikov, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab205

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    A., et al

    Lambrechts, M., Morbidelli, A., Jacobson, S. A., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834229

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    F., & Morbidelli, A

    Levison, H. F., & Morbidelli, A. 2003, Nature, 426, 419, doi: 10.1038/nature02120

    2003 doi

  60. [68]

    F., Morbidelli, A., Van Laerhoven, C., Gomes, R., & Tsiganis, K

    Levison, H. F., Morbidelli, A., Van Laerhoven, C., Gomes, R., & Tsiganis, K. 2008, Icarus, 196, 258, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.11.035

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    F., Shoemaker, E

    Levison, H. F., Shoemaker, E. M., & Shoemaker, C. S. 1997, Nature, 385, 42, doi: 10.1038/385042a0

    1997 doi

  62. [70]

    R., Kane, S

    Li, Z., Hildebrandt, S. R., Kane, S. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf831

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492

    2003 doi

  64. [72]

    Lovett, E. O. 1895, AJ, 15, 113, doi: 10.1086/102265

    doi

  65. [73]

    S., & Ito, T

    Lykawka, P. S., & Ito, T. 2024, Icarus, 416, 116098, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116098

    2024

  66. [74]

    S., & Mukai, T

    Lykawka, P. S., & Mukai, T. 2007, Icarus, 186, 331, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.10.002

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    1995, AJ, 110, 420, doi: 10.1086/117532

    Malhotra, R. 1995, AJ, 110, 420, doi: 10.1086/117532

    1995 doi

  68. [76]

    Y., & Ipatov, S

    Marov, M. Y., & Ipatov, S. I. 2018, Solar System Research, 52, 392, doi: 10.1134/S0038094618050052

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    G., & Livio, M

    Martin, R. G., & Livio, M. 2015, ApJ, 810, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/105

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    2012, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 313, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.10.040 16 Stephen R

    Marty, B. 2012, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 313, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.10.040 16 Stephen R. Kane & Emma L. Miles

    2012 doi

  71. [79]

    M., & Barnes, J

    McCubbin, F. M., & Barnes, J. J. 2019, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 526, 115771, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.115771

    2019

  72. [80]

    S., & Barnes, R

    Meadows, V. S., & Barnes, R. K. 2018, Factors Affecting Exoplanet Habitability (Springer International Publishing), 57, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 57

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    A., & Ferraz-Mello, S

    Michtchenko, T. A., & Ferraz-Mello, S. 2001, Icarus, 149, 357, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6539

    2001

  74. [82]

    Mikkola, S., & Lehto, H. J. 2022, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 134, 20, doi: 10.1007/s10569-021-10058-0

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    2023, A&A, 670, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243751

    Mishra, L., Alibert, Y., Udry, S., & Mordasini, C. 2023, A&A, 670, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243751

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    I., et al

    Morbidelli, A., Chambers, J., Lunine, J. I., et al. 2000, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 35, 1309, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01518.x

    2000

  77. [85]

    F., Tsiganis, K., & Gomes, R

    Morbidelli, A., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., & Gomes, R. 2005, Nature, 435, 462, doi: 10.1038/nature03540

    2005 doi

  78. [86]

    I., O’Brien, D

    Morbidelli, A., Lunine, J. I., O’Brien, D. P., Raymond, S. N., & Walsh, K. J. 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 251, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105319

    2012 doi

  79. [87]

    Morbidelli, A., & Raymond, S. N. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 121, 1962, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005088

    2016 doi

  80. [88]

    2007, AJ, 134, 1790, doi: 10.1086/521705

    Gomes, R. 2007, AJ, 134, 1790, doi: 10.1086/521705

    2007 doi

  81. [89]

    2016, Icarus, 267, 368, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.027

    Morbidelli, A., Bitsch, B., Crida, A., et al. 2016, Icarus, 267, 368, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.027

    2016 doi

  82. [90]

    2010, Icarus, 207, 517, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.11.038 Mr´ oz, P., Ryu, Y

    Morishima, R., Stadel, J., & Moore, B. 2010, Icarus, 207, 517, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.11.038 Mr´ oz, P., Ryu, Y. H., Skowron, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaae9

    2010 doi

  83. [91]

    D., Ciesla, F

    Mulders, G. D., Ciesla, F. J., Min, M., & Pascucci, I. 2015, ApJ, 807, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/9 Nesvorn´ y, D. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052028 Nesvorn´ y, D., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., & Morbidelli, A. 2013, ApJ, 768, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637...

    2015 doi

  84. [92]

    Jones, E. M. 1999, Icarus, 138, 224, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6076 ¨Oberg, K. I., & Bergin, E. A. 2021, PhR, 893, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.004 O’Brien, D. P., Izidoro, A., Jacobson, S. A., Raymond, S. N., & Rubie, D. C. 2018, SSRv, 214, 47, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0475-...

    1999

  85. [93]

    2023, PSJ, 4, 32, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acb64b O’Rourke, J

    Ogihara, M., Genda, H., & Sekine, Y. 2023, PSJ, 4, 32, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acb64b O’Rourke, J. G., Wilson, C. F., Borrelli, M. E., et al. 2023, SSRv, 219, 10, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00956-0

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    S., Folkner, W

    Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., & Boggs, D. H. 2021, AJ, 161, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd414

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

    Pepe, F., Cristiani, S., Rebolo, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    2020, Ap&SS, 365, 144, doi: 10.1007/s10509-020-03855-w

    Perminov, A., & Kuznetsov, E. 2020, Ap&SS, 365, 144, doi: 10.1007/s10509-020-03855-w

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    Pham, L. B. S., Karatekin, ¨O., & Dehant, V. 2011, Planet. Space Sci., 59, 1087, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2010.11.010

    2011 doi

  90. [98]

    2020, Scienc e, 369, 1110, doi: 10.1126/science.aba1948

    Piani, L., Marrocchi, Y., Rigaudier, T., et al. 2020, Scienc e, 369, 1110, doi: 10.1126/science.aba1948

    2020 doi

  91. [99]

    N., Nesvorny, D., & Morbidelli, A

    Pierens, A., Raymond, S. N., Nesvorny, D., & Morbidelli, A. 2014, ApJL, 795, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L11

    2014 doi

  92. [100]

    Pignatari, M., Trueman, T. C. L., Womack, K. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2167

    2023 doi

  93. [101]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  94. [102]

    B., Romero-Colmenero, E., Ramsay, G., et al

    Potter, S. B., Romero-Colmenero, E., Ramsay, G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2202, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19198.x

    2011

  95. [103]

    B., Liu, L., Liao, W

    Qian, S. B., Liu, L., Liao, W. P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, L16, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01045.x

    2011

  96. [104]

    V., & Lissauer, J

    Quintana, E. V., & Lissauer, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 786, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/33

    2014 doi

  97. [105]

    Raymond, S. N. 2006, ApJ, 643, L131, doi: 10.1086/505596

    2006 doi

  98. [106]

    N., Armitage, P

    Raymond, S. N., Armitage, P. J., & Gorelick, N. 2009, ApJL, 699, L88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L88

    2009 doi

  99. [107]

    N., Barnes, R., Armitage, P

    Raymond, S. N., Barnes, R., Armitage, P. J., & Gorelick, N. 2008, ApJL, 687, L107, doi: 10.1086/593301

    2008 doi

  100. [108]

    N., & Bonsor, A

    Raymond, S. N., & Bonsor, A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L18, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu048

    2014 doi

  101. [109]

    N., & Izidoro, A

    Raymond, S. N., & Izidoro, A. 2017, Icarus, 297, 134, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.030

    2017 doi

  102. [111]

    N., Kokubo, E., Morbidelli, A., Morishima, R., & Walsh, K

    Raymond, S. N., Kokubo, E., Morbidelli, A., Morishima, R., & Walsh, K. J. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 595, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch026

    2014 doi

  103. [112]

    N., Quinn, T., & Lunine, J

    Raymond, S. N., Quinn, T., & Lunine, J. I. 2004, Icarus, 168, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2003.11.019 Planetesimal Scattering Efficiency 17

    2004 doi

  104. [113]

    Rickman, H., Wi´ sniowski, T., Wajer, P., Gabryszewski, R., & Valsecchi, G. B. 2014, A&A, 569, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423966

    2014 doi

  105. [114]

    P., & de El ´ ıa, G

    Ronco, M. P., & de El ´ ıa, G. C. 2014, A&A, 567, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323313

    2014 doi

  106. [115]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  107. [116]

    2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2217398120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2217398120 S´ anchez, M

    Sagear, S., & Ballard, S. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2217398120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2217398120 S´ anchez, M. B., de El ´ ıa, G. C., & Darriba, L. A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1281, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2292

    2023 doi

  108. [117]

    2016, A&A, 589, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527069

    Sato, T., Okuzumi, S., & Ida, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527069

    2016 doi

  109. [118]

    E., Sari, R., & Yalinewich, A

    Schlichting, H. E., Sari, R., & Yalinewich, A. 2015, Icarus, 247, 81, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.053

    2015 doi

  110. [119]

    Shen, Y., & Turner, E. L. 2008, ApJ, 685, 553, doi: 10.1086/590548

    2008 doi

  111. [120]

    C., Latouf, N., Mandell, A

    Stark, C. C., Latouf, N., Mandell, A. M., & Young, A. 2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 014005, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.1.014005

    2024 doi

  112. [121]

    G., Renu, M., Xiao, Z.-Y., et al

    Strom, R. G., Renu, M., Xiao, Z.-Y., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 407, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/3/009

    2015 doi

  113. [122]

    C., Zimmerman, N., Girard, J

    Turnbull, M. C., Zimmerman, N., Girard, J. H., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 021218, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.021218

    2021 doi

  114. [123]

    P., & Guilera, O

    Venturini, J., Ronco, M. P., & Guilera, O. M. 2020, SSRv, 216, 86, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00700-y

    2020 doi

  115. [124]

    R., & Dalba, P

    Wakeford, H. R., & Dalba, P. A. 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 378, 20200054, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0054

    2020

  116. [125]

    J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S

    Walsh, K. J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., O’Brien, D. P., & Mandell, A. M. 2011, Nature, 475, 206, doi: 10.1038/nature10201

    2011 doi

  117. [126]

    J., Del Genio, A

    Way, M. J., Del Genio, A. D., Kiang, N. Y., et al. 2016, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8376, doi: 10.1002/2016GL069790

    2016 doi

  118. [127]

    G., & Benson, G

    Williams, J. G., & Benson, G. S. 1971, AJ, 76, 167, doi: 10.1086/111100

    1971 doi

  119. [128]

    F., Widemann, T., & Ghail, R

    Wilson, C. F., Widemann, T., & Ghail, R. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 54, 575, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09766-0

    2022 doi

  120. [129]

    N., & Fabrycky, D

    Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 409, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122246

    2015 doi

  121. [130]

    2006, AJ, 131, 2294, doi: 10.1086/500829

    Wisdom, J. 2006, AJ, 131, 2294, doi: 10.1086/500829

    2006 doi

  122. [131]

    1991, AJ, 102, 1528, doi: 10.1086/115978

    Wisdom, J., & Holman, M. 1991, AJ, 102, 1528, doi: 10.1086/115978

    1991 doi

  123. [132]

    A., Tinney, C

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Tinney, C. G., O’Toole, S. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/102

    2011 doi

  124. [133]

    A., Tinney, C

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Tinney, C. G., Horner, J., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 351, doi: 10.1086/670680

    2013 doi

  125. [134]

    A., Butler, R

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Butler, R. P., Tinney, C. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 28, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/28

    2016 doi

  126. [135]

    A., Wang, S., Horner, J., et al

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Wang, S., Horner, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3436

    2020 doi

  127. [136]

    L., Pan, M., & Ford, E

    Zakamska, N. L., Pan, M., & Ford, E. B. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1895, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17570.x

    2011

  128. [137]

    K., Yee, J

    Zang, W., Jung, Y. K., Yee, J. C., et al. 2025, Science, 388, 400, doi: 10.1126/science.adn6088

    2025 doi

  129. [138]

    Zimbelman, J. R. 1984, Icarus, 57, 48, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90006-X

    1984 doi

  130. [139]

    K., Batygin, K., & Adams, F

    Zink, J. K., Batygin, K., & Adams, F. C. 2020, AJ, 160, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb8de

    2020 doi

  131. [140]

    Dullemond, C. P. 2010, A&A, 513, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912976

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.