Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Eccentric von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai effects under mildly hierarchical triple systems: Influence of Brown corrections upon orbit flipping

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Brown Hamiltonian corrections explain the lopsided flip maps of mildly hierarchical Kozai triples.

desk verdict Useful octupole-octupole extension of Brown's Hamiltonian with credible N-body agreement, but a key derivation is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19709 v1 pith:FC3AJWBG submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Hao Gao , Hanlun Lei This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR MSC 70F1570F0770H05 PACS 95.10.Ce
keywords vonZeipel-Lidov-KozaieffecteccentricZLKmechanismBrownHamiltonianorbitflippinghierarchicaltriplesystemsseculardynamicsdoubleaveragingoctupole-ordercorrections
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

The paper tries to establish that the standard double-averaged model of hierarchical three-body dynamics is systematically wrong for mildly hierarchical systems, and that the missing piece is Brown Hamiltonian corrections: nonlinear couplings of short-period evection oscillations that become important when the outer perturber is not much lighter than the central star. The authors extend Brown corrections to include the octupole-octupole coupling term, completing a Hamiltonian accurate to fifth order in the semimajor-axis ratio. They show that this corrected double-averaged model reproduces N-body simulations where the classical model fails, and that the Brown terms are what break the symmetry of orbital-flipping regions about i0 = 90 degrees. A sympathetic reader would care because mildly hierarchical triples, such as planets in stellar binaries or stars in black-hole binaries, are common, and their long-term flips and eccentricity excitations are exactly the regimes where the classical secular approximation was thought to be safe.

What carries the argument

Brown Hamiltonian corrections are terms obtained by Taylor-expanding the single-averaged disturbing function around the averaged orbit and using Lagrange planetary equations to compute the short-period oscillations delta_e1 and delta_i1 that are otherwise averaged away. Because these oscillations are driven to leading order by the quadrupole and octupole evection terms, they produce quadrupole-quadrupole, quadrupole-octupole, and octupole-octupole coupling corrections to the long-term Hamiltonian; gauge freedom in the canonical transformation eliminates the quadrupole-octupole term and leaves the other two axisymmetric. This machinery carries the argument because it turns the residual of the single-averaged perturbing function into closed-form Hamiltonian corrections that can be added to the double-averaged secular model and tested against N-body integrations.

What would settle it

Take a mildly hierarchical triple with m0 = m2 = 1 solar mass, a1 = 1 AU, a2 = 10 AU, e2 = 0.2 and integrate the full N-body equations over several ZLK timescales; if the flipping boundary in (e0, i0) space from the CDA model diverges from the N-body map in the same way the classical DA map does, the Brown-correction expansion has missed terms. A more pointed check is to measure delta_e1 and delta_i1 from osculating elements in the N-body run and verify that the Taylor expansion truncated after these terms actually reproduces the difference between the single-averaged and double-averaged disturbing functions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Brown Hamiltonian corrections, up through the octupole-octupole coupling term, are the key ingredient for accurate long-term modeling of mildly hierarchical triple systems and for the asymmetry of eccentric von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai flipping maps. Concretely: for a test particle in an inner orbit perturbed by a massive outer body, the classical double-averaged (DA) Hamiltonian predicts flipping regions symmetric about mutual inclination 90 degrees, but direct N-body integrations show lopsided flipping regions; including the quadrupole-quadrupole and octupole-octupole Brown corrections makes the corrected double-averaged (CDA) model's flipping regions align almost perfectly with N-body results. The same corrections shift the center of the resonant pendulum that governs flips away from j_z = 0, which is the mechanism that breaks the symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the short-period oscillations delta_e1 and delta_i1 of the inner orbit are small enough that Taylor-expanding the single-averaged disturbing function around the averaged orbit and computing those oscillations from Lagrange planetary equations is accurate, even when the perturber is as massive as the central body, which is exactly the mildly hierarchical regime being studied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For perturber masses comparable to the central mass, the classical DA model can predict an orbit flip where N-body dynamics shows none, or vice versa; the CDA model fixes that discrepancy.
  • Flipping regions in (e0, i0) and (i0, Omega0) space are not symmetric about i0 = 90 degrees, and the degree of asymmetry grows as the hierarchy becomes milder; the Brown terms quantitatively capture that growth.
  • The octupole-octupole Brown correction, although axisymmetric, contributes to the shift of the pendulum resonance center and therefore to the broken symmetry.
  • In the high-eccentricity regime with j_z much less than 1, the extended pendulum model reproduces the flipping boundaries found by perturbative treatment, so the simple pendulum picture remains valid once Brown corrections are included.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same symmetry-breaking mechanism should apply to non-test-particle inner binaries: secular triple dynamics used for compact-object merger rate estimates may systematically mis-estimate which inclinations produce flips if it relies on the classical DA model for mildly hierarchical systems.
  • Because the quadrupole-octupole coupling vanishes after gauge fixing, the next nontrivial Brown term beyond quadrupole-quadrupole is octupole-octupole; one could test whether including hexadecapole-evection couplings, at sixth order in the semimajor-axis ratio, matters for systems with even poorer hierarchy.
  • The predicted asymmetry is directly testable in numerical experiments: for m2/m0 approximately 1, scan (e0, i0, Omega0) and measure the area of flipping regions above versus below i0 = 90 degrees; CDA predicts a systematic area difference that grows with m2/m0, whereas DA predicts exact equality.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a corrected double-averaged (CDA) Hamiltonian model for mildly hierarchical restricted three-body systems. The model combines secular disturbing-function terms up to dotriacontapole order in the semimajor-axis ratio with Brown Hamiltonian corrections through octupole-octupole coupling, using a gauge freedom to simplify the correction terms. The authors compare the CDA model against the classical double-averaged (DA) model and direct N-body integrations for three perturber masses, and they use the CDA model to map orbital-flipping regions in initial-condition space. They find that the DA model is symmetric about i = 90° while the N-body and CDA models are asymmetric, and they attribute the asymmetry to the Brown corrections. The flipping boundaries are then analyzed with Poincaré sections, an adiabatic-invariant perturbative treatment, and an extended pendulum approximation for the high-eccentricity regime, with the three approaches in good agreement.

Significance. If the proposed CDA model is correct, it provides a practical Hamiltonian framework for mildly hierarchical triples, a regime where the standard double-averaged approximation fails and where direct N-body integration is expensive. The identification of Brown corrections as the origin of the asymmetry in ZLK flipping regions is a concrete, falsifiable claim with implications for exoplanet and black-hole binary studies. The paper contributes closed-form expressions for the octupole-octupole Brown term and extends the pendulum approximation to include that term. The manuscript's strengths include direct comparison against N-body simulations, analytically derived flip boundaries, and a transparent set of testable predictions; however, the key algebraic derivations are not shown, and the validation covers only a small number of parameter sets.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (6)–(8)] The derivation of the Brown corrections truncates the Taylor expansion of the single-averaged disturbing function at first order in the short-period oscillations δe1 and δi1, but these oscillations are themselves first order in the perturbing mass, so the omitted quadratic terms (∂²⟨R⟩/∂e1²)(δe1)² etc. are of the same order as the retained Brown corrections. The paper states that gauge freedom in the canonical transformation eliminates the quadrupole-octupole coupling term, but it does not demonstrate that the same freedom removes or accounts for the omitted quadratic terms. Without this step, the resulting Fquad-quad and Foct-oct, particularly the new octupole-octupole term, are not derived from the stated approximation; the authors should either present the full second-order calculation or explicitly show how the gauge choice cancels the missing quadratic contributions.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (18) and Appendix A] The octupole-octupole coupling term Foct-oct is the principal new ingredient of the model and is claimed to be axisymmetric and to vanish in the quadrupole-octupole coupling. However, Eq. (18) is presented only as a final closed-form expression with coefficients delegated to Appendix A; no derivation or independent check is provided. Since a single algebraic error in these coefficients would change the predicted asymmetry in Figure 3 and the claimed agreement in Figures 1–2, the central conclusion rests on an unverified expression. The authors should supply the derivation (at least in an appendix or supplementary material) and ideally verify the octupole-octupole term against an independent second-order calculation, such as the two-timescale equations of Conway & Will (2024) or a direct numerical evaluation of the original Taylor expansion.
  3. [§3.2, Figs. 1 and 3] The numerical validation of the CDA model covers only three perturber masses (0.001, 0.1, and 1.0 M⊙) and a single set of orbital parameters for each mass, and the agreement is judged visually. This is too limited to support the statement that the CDA model 'achieves nearly perfect alignment with N-body results.' In particular, the regime where the small-oscillation assumption underlying the Brown corrections is most questionable—m2 comparable to m0—is exactly the regime where the model is claimed to work. A quantitative comparison over a grid of mass ratios, semimajor-axis ratios, and initial eccentricities/inclinations, with error metrics such as the maximum deviation in H or the flip-boundary misclassification rate, is needed to demonstrate that the model is accurate across the mildly hierarchical regime rather than for the few tested cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors that should be corrected in revision, including 'calssical' (after Eq. 5), 'non-ntegrable' (end of §3.1), 'flliping' (caption of Fig. 5), 'low-eccenttricity' and 'eccentrcitiy' in §4.1, 'ditribution' in the caption of Fig. 8, and 'comparsion' in the caption of Fig. 9.
  2. [Footnote 1 in §4.2] The footnote 'Actually, it is the region characterized by H≪1' is ambiguous because H denotes both the Hamiltonian (Eq. 21) and the z-component of angular momentum (Eq. 1). Clarify that it refers to the angular-momentum variable, not the Hamiltonian value.
  3. [Eq. (20) and §3.1] The symmetry relation F(g,h,G,H)=F(2π−g,h,G,−H)=F(g,2π−h,G,−H) is stated without derivation; citing Sidorenko (2018) is appropriate, but a one-line explanation of why the Brown terms break this symmetry would help the reader connect Eq. (20) to the asymmetry discussed in §4.
  4. [Appendix B] The pendulum-model equations in Eqs. (30) and the auxiliary expressions in Appendix B would be easier to verify if the definitions of ⟨fΩ⟩, ⟨fquad-quad⟩, and ⟨foct-oct⟩ included a note on the averaging procedure used to obtain them, since the main text only states that the averaging is performed over ZLK cycles at jz = 0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Brown-correction terms are derived from a Taylor expansion and Lagrange equations, validated against external N-body integrations, and not fitted to the flipping maps.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and externally anchored. Equation (6) defines the Brown corrections by Taylor-expanding the single-averaged disturbing function about the averaged orbit, and Eqs. (7)-(8) compute the short-period oscillations delta-e1 and delta-i1 from Lagrange planetary equations. The resulting Fquad-quad and Foct-oct terms (Eqs. 17-18) are fixed algebraic functions of the masses and orbital elements, with no parameter fitted to any 'prediction' target. The central validation is against independent N-body integrations (Figs. 1-3), and the claim that Brown corrections break the H -> -H symmetry follows from the explicit odd-in-cos(i1) dependence of Eqs. (17)-(18) together with the external N-body agreement, not from an assumption equivalent to the conclusion. The pendulum-vs-perturbative boundary agreement (Fig. 9) is an internal consistency check between two approximations of the same Hamiltonian and is not presented as an independent empirical prediction. Self-citations (Lei et al. 2018 for cos-psi and disturbing-function coefficients; Lei 2022 for the adiabatic-invariant perturbative method) provide standard formulas and methods; they are not load-bearing for the novel octupole-octupole claim, which is displayed explicitly in Eq. (18) and Appendix A and tested against N-body results. The gauge choice that eliminates the quadrupole-octupole term is attributed to Tremaine (2023), an external source. A residual correctness risk remains in the linear truncation of Eq. (6), but that is a matter of approximation accuracy, not circularity.

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

The model does not fit any parameter; all coefficients are derived from system masses and orbital elements. Its validity rests on a series of standard but non-trivial approximations: the test-particle restriction, truncation of the alpha expansion at fifth order, the mean-element derivation of Brown corrections, the adiabatic-invariant treatment, and the pendulum approximation. The weakest is the small-oscillation assumption behind the Brown correction construction, which is exactly the regime where the paper claims improvement.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Restricted three-body problem: the inner body m1 is a test particle with negligible mass, and the perturber m2 moves on a fixed Keplerian orbit about m0.
    Section 2 defines the model in the test-particle limit, dropping back-reaction of m1. This is standard but limits applicability to systems where m1 is much less massive than the other bodies.
  • domain assumption The disturbing function can be expanded as a power series in alpha=a1/a2 and truncated at fifth order (dotriacontapole), with alpha=0.1 in the examples; the series is assumed convergent and the omitted terms small.
    Section 2 Eq. (2) and Section 3 Eq. (12) rely on this truncation. The paper does not quantify the omitted sixth-order terms.
  • domain assumption Short-period oscillations delta e1 and delta i1 are small and can be computed by integrating the deviations of Lagrange planetary equations over one outer period (Eqs. 6-8); this is the basis of the Brown correction construction.
    Section 3.1. This is the load-bearing premise behind the added quadrupole-quadrupole and octupole-octupole terms.
  • standard math There exists a gauge freedom in the canonical transformation of the averaged Hamiltonian (Tremaine 2023), and a particular gauge choice makes the quadrupole-octupole coupling vanish.
    Section 3.1 invokes this standard result; physical observables are gauge invariant, but the simplified expression depends on the choice.
  • standard math For perturbative treatment, the slow degree of freedom (sigma1, Sigma1) can be frozen over a period of the fast degree (sigma2, Sigma2), giving an adiabatic invariant (Wisdom 1985).
    Section 4.3 uses this timescale separation to construct phase portraits and flip boundaries.
  • domain assumption In the high-eccentricity regime, the pendulum approximation assumes j_z << 1 and R_quad = const during the averaging over ZLK cycles.
    Section 5, Eqs. (30)-(32). The paper explicitly notes this fails for low and moderate eccentricity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eccentric von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai effects under mildly hierarchical triple systems: Influence of Brown corrections upon orbit flipping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FC3AJWBG

@misc{pith2026250719709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eccentric von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai effects under mildly hierarchical triple systems: Influence of Brown corrections upon orbit flipping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FC3AJWBG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19709}
}
read the original abstract

Mildly hierarchical three-body systems are widespread in the Universe, exemplified by planets in stellar binaries and stars in black-hole binaries. In such systems, Brown Hamiltonian corrections play a crucial role in governing the long-term dynamical evolution. In this work, we extend Brown corrections to include octupole-order coupling terms, thereby formulating a more accurate dynamical model for predicting long-term dynamical behaviors. The utilization of the gauge freedom in canonical transformation shows that the quadrupole-octupole coupling term vanishes and the octupole-octupole coupling term is axisymmetric. Under triple systems with different levels of hierarchies, we systematically investigate the impact of Brown corrections on orbital flipping induced by the eccentric von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai (ZLK) mechanism. Our analysis reveals that, as the hierarchy of triple systems becomes lower, the asymmetry in the flipping regions becomes more significant. The asymmetric structures are examined in detail using Poincare sections and perturbative techniques, showing that Brown corrections are the key factor responsible for breaking the symmetry of flipping regions. Finally, we extend the classical pendulum approximation to our refined model and demonstrate that its analytical predictions agree remarkably well with those derived from perturbative methods, particularly in the high-eccentricity regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The temporal evolution of the test particle’s inclination 𝑖1 (left-column panels), eccentricity 𝑒1 (middle-column panels) and 𝑧-component of the orbital angular momentum 𝐻 (right-column panels). The mass of the central body is taken as 𝑚0 = 1.0 𝑚⊙. The initial orbital elements of the perturber are 𝑎2 = 10AU and 𝑒2 = 0.2 (the remaining elements are assumed at zero). The mass 𝑚2 is marked in the left-column panels in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of models truncated at different orders. The mass of third body is taken as 𝑚2 = 1.0 𝑚⊙, while other parameters are selected identical to those adopted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Orbital flipping regions distributed in the (𝑒0, 𝑖0 ) and (𝑖0, Ω0 ) spaces. From the left to right, it corresponds to the results of N-body simulation, DA, and CDA, respectively. The model parameters are set as follows: 𝑚0 = 𝑚2 = 1.0 𝑚⊙, 𝑎2 = 10 AU, 𝑒2 = 0.2, 𝑖2 = Ω2 = 𝜔2 = 0 ◦ , 𝑎1 = 1.0 AU. The middle-row panels with 𝑒0 = 0.2 stand for the case of orbit flipping in the low-eccentricity regime and the bottom-row pa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Poincaré sections shown in the (Ω, 𝑖) space for different levels of Hamiltonian. Those cycles crossing the lines of 𝑖 = 90◦ on the sections stand for flipping trajectories in the long-term evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between Poincaré sections and contour plots of adi￾abatic invariant with the same Hamiltonian at H = −0.4. The blue dots represent Poincaré sections (numerical results), while the colored solid lines correspond to contour lines of adiabatic invariant (analyt…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Phase portraits (level curves of adiabatic invariant) for four different levels of Hamiltonian at H = −0.2, −0.4, −0.6, −1.2. The corresponding Poincaré sections can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Orbital flipping regions derived from the CDA model and flip boundaries determined via analytical methods. From left to right, the perturber’s mass changes from 𝑚2 = 0.001 𝑚⊙ to 𝑚2 = 1.0 𝑚⊙. The other parameters are consistent with the ones of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of flipping boundaries determined by the method of perturbative treatment and pendulum approximation, together with the numerical distribution of flipping orbits. The top-row panels show comparisons of flipping boundaries in the (𝑒0, 𝑖0 ) space and the lower…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kozai Lidov Cycles = Simple Pendulum

    Basha R. D., Klein Y. Y., Katz B., 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19972

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Breiter S., Vokrouhlick \`y D., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1691

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    M., 1961, Methods of Celestial Mechanics

    Brouwer D., Clemence G. M., 1961, Methods of Celestial Mechanics. Academic Press, New York

    work page 1961

  4. [4]

    W., 1936a, MNRAS, 97, 56

    Brown E. W., 1936a, MNRAS, 97, 56

    work page

  5. [5]

    W., 1936b, MNRAS, 97, 62

    Brown E. W., 1936b, MNRAS, 97, 62

    work page

  6. [6]

    W., 1936c, MNRAS, 97, 116

    Brown E. W., 1936c, MNRAS, 97, 116

    work page

  7. [7]

    M., 2024, Phys

    Conway L., Will C. M., 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 083022

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A., 2004, AJ, 128, 2518

    \'C uk M., Burns J. A., 2004, AJ, 128, 2518

    work page 2004

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Fehlberg E., 1969, Computing, 4, 93

    1969

  2. [10]

    Grishin E., 2024a, MNRAS, 533, 486

  3. [11]

    Grishin E., 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 497

  4. [12]

    B., Fragione G., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4907

    Grishin E., Perets H. B., Fragione G., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4907

    2018

  5. [13]

    S., 1969, Celest

    Harrington R. S., 1969, Celest. Mech., 1, 200

    1969

  6. [14]

    Henrard J., 1990, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 49, 43

    1990

  7. [15]

    Springer, pp 117--235

    Henrard J., 1993, in , Dynamics Reported: Expositions in Dynamical Systems. Springer, pp 117--235

    1993

  8. [16]

    Henrard J., Caranicolas N., 1989, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 47, 99

    1989

  9. [17]

    Huang X., Lei H., 2022, AJ, 164, 232

    2022

  10. [18]

    Huang X., Lei H., 2024, AJ, 167, 234

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ito T., Ohtsuka K., 2019, Monogr. Environ. Earth Planets, 7, 1

    2019

  12. [20]

    Katz B., Dong S., Malhotra R., 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 181101

    2011

  13. [21]

    Y., Katz B., 2024a, MNRASL, 535, L26

    Klein Y. Y., Katz B., 2024a, MNRASL, 535, L26

  14. [22]

    Y., Katz B., 2024b, MNRASL, 535, L31

    Klein Y. Y., Katz B., 2024b, MNRASL, 535, L31

  15. [23]

    Kozai Y., 1959, AJ, 64, 367

    1959

  16. [24]

    Kozai Y., 1962, AJ, 67, 591

    1962

  17. [25]

    Krymolowski Y., Mazeh T., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 720

    1999

  18. [26]

    Lei H., 2022, AJ, 163, 214

    2022

  19. [27]

    Lei H., Gong Y.-X., 2022, A&A, 665, A62

    2022

  20. [28]

    Lei H., Grishin E., 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2422

    2025

  21. [29]

    Lei H., Huang X., 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1086

    2022

  22. [30]

    Lei H., Circi C., Ortore E., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4602

    2018

  23. [31]

    Li G., Naoz S., Kocsis B., Loeb A., 2014a, ApJ, 785, 116

  24. [32]

    Li G., Naoz S., Holman M., Loeb A., 2014b, ApJ, 791, 86

  25. [33]

    L., 1962, Planet

    Lidov M. L., 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719

    1962

  26. [34]

    Lithwick Y., Naoz S., 2011, ApJ, 742, 94

    2011

  27. [35]

    Luo L., Katz B., Dong S., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3060

    2016

  28. [36]

    Taylor and Francis, Padstow, UK

    Morbidelli A., 2002, Modern celestial mechanics: aspects of solar system dynamics. Taylor and Francis, Padstow, UK

    2002

  29. [37]

    D., Dermott S

    Murray C. D., Dermott S. F., 1999, Solar system dynamics. Cambridge university press

    1999

  30. [38]

    Naoz S., 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441

    2016

  31. [39]

    M., Lithwick Y., Rasio F

    Naoz S., Farr W. M., Lithwick Y., Rasio F. A., Teyssandier J., 2011, Nature, 473, 187

    2011

  32. [40]

    M., Lithwick Y., Rasio F

    Naoz S., Farr W. M., Lithwick Y., Rasio F. A., Teyssandier J., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2155

    2013

  33. [41]

    Neishtadt A., 1987, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 51, 586

    1987

  34. [42]

    S., Hamers A

    Rajamuthukumar A. S., Hamers A. S., Neunteufel P., Pakmor R., de Mink S. E., 2023, ApJ, 950, 9

    2023

  35. [43]

    I., 2016, The Lidov-Kozai effect-applications in exoplanet research and dynamical astronomy

    Shevchenko I. I., 2016, The Lidov-Kozai effect-applications in exoplanet research and dynamical astronomy. Springer

    2016

  36. [44]

    V., 2018, Celest

    Sidorenko V. V., 2018, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 130, 1

    2018

  37. [45]

    Soderhjelm S., 1975, A&A, 42, 229

    1975

  38. [46]

    Su Y., 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16258

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Tremaine S., 2023, MNRAS, 522, 937

    2023

  40. [48]

    M., 2017, Phys

    Will C. M., 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 023017

    2017

  41. [49]

    M., 2021, Phys

    Will C. M., 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 063003

    2021

  42. [50]

    Wisdom J., 1985, Icarus, 63, 272

    1985

  43. [51]

    Zhao S., Huang X., Lei H., 2024, A&A, 689, A99

    2024

  44. [52]

    Nachr., 183, 345

    von Zeipel H., 1910, Astron. Nachr., 183, 345

    1910

  45. [53]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.