pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.23653 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

Implications for the formation of Oort cloud-like structures and interstellar comets in dense environments

Santiago Torres This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 05:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords Oort cloudinterstellar cometsstellar encountersdebris disksplanetary systemsstar clustersSednoidsN-body simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Extended debris disks around solar system analogues in stellar clusters are reshaped by stellar encounters into Oort cloud-like structures and sources of interstellar comets.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper runs N-body simulations of solar system analogues with four giant planets and two different debris disk setups inside stellar clusters. Compact disks mainly build Kuiper belt and scattered disk populations through planet interactions, but extended disks respond far more to passing stars. Those encounters eject objects as interstellar comets at 1-3 km/s and populate distant, Oort cloud-like regions, with the strongest effects occurring at low encounter inclinations. The work shows that outer comet reservoirs and interstellar objects can arise directly from the dense birth environment rather than from later evolution in isolation.

Core claim

Simulations of solar system analogues in dense stellar clusters demonstrate that extended debris disks are strongly perturbed by stellar flybys to form Oort cloud-like structures and interstellar comets ejected at 1-3 km/s, while compact disks develop Kuiper belt-like populations primarily through planet-disk interactions; low-inclination encounters (0-30°) prove most effective, generating Sednoid-like objects and inner Oort cloud analogues with a characteristic semi-major axis-eccentricity tail, and polar flybys produce nearly isotropic outer populations.

What carries the argument

N-body simulations comparing extended and compact debris disks around solar system analogues in stellar clusters, tracking the combined effects of planetary perturbations and stellar flybys on disk architecture.

If this is right

  • Extended disks produce Oort cloud analogues and interstellar comets with ejection velocities of 1-3 km/s through stellar encounters.
  • Stellar perturbations are most effective at encounter inclinations between 0° and 30°, creating Sednoid-like populations and inner Oort cloud analogues.
  • Coplanar encounters keep the disk flattened while polar flybys redistribute angular momentum to yield nearly isotropic outer populations.
  • Cometary reservoirs and interstellar objects are natural outcomes of planet-disk interactions and stellar flybys in dense clusters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The solar system's own distant comet population may indicate that it formed inside a stellar cluster rather than in a sparse environment.
  • Similar dynamical signatures could explain the origin and velocities of observed interstellar objects such as 'Oumuamua.
  • Young exoplanetary systems in clusters should show an excess of distant, high-eccentricity comets compared with field stars of similar age.
  • A characteristic tail in semi-major axis versus eccentricity diagrams could serve as an observable tracer of past stellar encounters in other systems.

Load-bearing premise

The two chosen initial disk configurations and the assumed stellar cluster density and encounter statistics are representative of the typical birth environments for solar system analogues.

What would settle it

Finding no Oort cloud analogues or interstellar comets with 1-3 km/s ejection velocities in young systems born in dense clusters, or observing similar outer populations in systems known to have formed in isolation, would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.23653 by Santiago Torres.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Extended 1 model. Cumulative distribution of the final energy of particles in the disk. Coloured lines correspond to different inclina￾tion angles of the encounter (0◦ , 30◦ , 60◦ , and 90◦ ), while the black dotted line represents the initial particle distribution as defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Extended 1 model. Semi-major axis as a function of eccentricity and particle count after an encounter with a 1 M⊙ star at 300 au. The colour bar indicates the perihelion distance of the particles. Each panel corresponds to a different encounter inclination angle (0◦ , 30◦ , 60◦ , and 90◦ ). of scattered disk objects in the solar system. Finally, in the grey region, the particles acquire eccentricities from… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows the final distribution of the semi-major axis as a function of eccentricity and inclination for all particles across the 200 simulated systems. The figure highlights the emergence of structures reminiscent of the outer solar system. Particles within the range of 30 to 40 au become trapped in mean-motion resonances with Neptune (2:3, 3:5, 4:7, 1:2, 2:5), while particles between approximately 40 and 10… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Extended N model. Orbital evolution of particles in the disk over 100 Myr. The bottom panels in each plot depict the semi-major axis as a function of time, while the top panels show the distance of the perturber. Each panel represents the systems: 128, 14, 100, 86, and 157. Coloured lines correspond to individual particles within each system. 71% of particles retain semi-major axes between 40 and 1000 au, … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Extended N model. Orbital elements of particles in the disk after 100 Myr and multiple stellar encounters. The first column presents the semi-major axis as a function of eccentricity, with particles colour-coded by their perihelion distances. The green, blue, and grey shaded regions highlight different populations formed due to stellar encounters. The second column displays perihelion as a function of orbi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Extended N model. Phase-space distribution (X vs. Y) of particles in the disk after 100 Myr. The colour scale indicates the particles’ positions along the vertical (Z) axis. Panels from top to bottom show systems 128, 14, 100, 86, and 157, respectively. ticles distributed across semi-major axes ranging from ∼ 500 to 6, 000 au, eccentricities from 0.2 to 1, and orbital inclinations up to 80◦ . Among all our… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows that the efficiency of disruption is strongly geom￾etry dependent. Coplanar, prograde flybys maximise the energy transfer to disk particles, whereas inclined or polar encounters are comparatively inefficient. In the coplanar case (i = 0 ◦ ), 2.4% of particles are ejected from the system, and the post-encounter disk develops three dis￾tinct dynamical families. A small fraction forms a scattered pop￾ul… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Compact 1 model. Cumulative distribution of the final orbital en￾ergy of disk particles. Coloured lines correspond to different inclination angles of the encounter (0◦ , 30◦ , 60◦ , and 90◦ ), while the black dashed line represents the initial distribution. Negative values (−1/a < 0) indi￾cate bound orbits, while positive values correspond to ejected interstel￾lar objects. The Tisserand parameter, TU, serv… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Compact N model. Semi-major axis as a function of eccentricity (top panel) and orbital inclination (bottom panel) for all the particles in the 200 simulated systems. The grey areas represent the different re￾gions of the solar system (Kuiper belt (KB), scattered disk (SD), and the Sednoids. The dashed lines show the mean motion resonances with Neptune. The integration time is set to 100 Myr. An animation c… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Compact N model. Orbital evolution of particles in the disk over 100 Myr. The bottom panels in each plot depict the semi-major axis as a function of time, while the top panels show the distance of the perturber. Each panel represents the systems: 128, 14, 100, 86, and 157. Coloured lines correspond to individual particles within each system. analyse the same systems, i.e. numbers 128, 14, 100, 86, and 157… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Compact N model. Orbital elements of particles in the disk after 100 Myr and multiple stellar encounters. The first column presents the semi-major axis as a function of eccentricity, with particles colour-coded by their perihelion distances. The green, blue, and grey shaded regions highlight different populations formed due to stellar encounters. The second column displays perihelion as a function of orbi… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Compact N model. Phase-space distribution (X vs. Y) of particles in the disk after 100 Myr. The colour scale indicates the particles’ positions along the vertical (Z) axis. Panels from top to bottom show systems 128, 14, 100, 86, and 157, respectively. structure after 100 Myr ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of hyperbolic excess velocities (v∞) of unbound objects from all simulated systems, comparing the extended (top panel, red) and compact (bottom panel, blue) models. The histograms repre￾sent the particle distributions, while the insets display their cumulative distributions. nearby planets, stellar encounters, or combinations thereof. For example, Hands et al. (2019) demonstrated that planete… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Most stars form in dense stellar environments, where frequent close encounters can strongly perturb and reshape the early architecture of planetary systems. The solar system, with its rich population of distant comets, provides a natural laboratory to study these processes. We perform detailed numerical simulations using the LonelyPlanets framework that combines NBODY6++GPU and REBOUND, to explore the evolution of debris disks around solar system analogues embedded in stellar clusters. Two initial configurations are considered, an $Extended$ and a $Compact$ model, each containing four giant planets and either an extended or compact debris disk. We find that compact disks primarily form Kuiper belt and scattered disk-like populations through planet-disk interactions, while extended disks are more strongly shaped by stellar encounters, producing Oort cloud-like structures and interstellar comets with ejection velocities of 1-3 km/s. Stellar perturbations are most effective for encounter inclinations between $0^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$, giving rise to distinct dynamical populations, like Sednoids, and inner Oort cloud analogues, and a characteristic tail in semi-major axis-eccentricity space. In coplanar encounters, the disk remains largely flattened, whereas polar flybys redistribute angular momentum vertically, producing nearly isotropic outer populations that resemble an emerging Oort cloud. Our results suggest that cometary reservoirs and interstellar objects are natural byproducts of planet-disk interactions and stellar flybys in dense clusters, linking the architecture of outer planetary systems to their birth environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses N-body simulations combining NBODY6++GPU and REBOUND to evolve solar-system analogues with four giant planets plus either an extended or compact debris disk inside a stellar cluster. It reports that compact disks develop Kuiper-belt and scattered-disk populations mainly via planet-disk scattering, whereas extended disks are sculpted by stellar flybys into Oort-cloud analogues and interstellar comets ejected at 1–3 km/s; stellar perturbations are stated to be most effective at inclinations 0–30°, producing Sednoid-like and inner-Oort-cloud analogues, with polar encounters yielding more isotropic outer populations.

Significance. If the numerical results are robust, the work would provide a concrete dynamical pathway linking birth-cluster environment to the observed architecture of distant cometary reservoirs and the production of interstellar objects, thereby strengthening the connection between planetary-system formation and stellar-cluster dynamics. The public-framework approach aids reproducibility, but the absence of reported particle counts, accuracy metrics, and parameter-space exploration limits the strength of the quantitative claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract/Methods] Abstract and Methods: the headline claims (ejection velocities 1–3 km/s, inclination dependence 0–30°, distinct Sednoid and inner-Oort populations) are presented without any stated number of disk particles, integration timestep, energy-error tolerance, or validation against analytic two-body scattering or isolated-planet limits; these omissions are load-bearing for the reliability of the reported velocity and population statistics.
  2. [Results] Results: the central conclusion that extended disks are preferentially shaped by stellar encounters while compact disks are dominated by planet-disk scattering rests on only two discrete initial radial extents and a single assumed cluster density/encounter-rate set; no sensitivity runs across a continuous range of disk radii, surface densities, or cluster parameters drawn from observed young clusters or self-consistent N-body cluster simulations are described, so the relative importance of stellar versus planetary perturbations cannot yet be regarded as general.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'LonelyPlanets framework' is introduced without a citation or explicit description of any additional code beyond the combination of NBODY6++GPU and REBOUND.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important aspects of numerical robustness and generality that we address point by point below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional technical details and clarifications where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract/Methods] Abstract and Methods: the headline claims (ejection velocities 1–3 km/s, inclination dependence 0–30°, distinct Sednoid and inner-Oort populations) are presented without any stated number of disk particles, integration timestep, energy-error tolerance, or validation against analytic two-body scattering or isolated-planet limits; these omissions are load-bearing for the reliability of the reported velocity and population statistics.

    Authors: We agree that these numerical specifications are essential for reproducibility and for assessing the reliability of the velocity and population statistics. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the Methods section to report the number of disk particles (10,000 per model), the integration timestep (0.05 yr), the energy-error tolerance criterion (relative energy error kept below 10^{-8}), and direct comparisons of selected scattering events against analytic two-body hyperbolic trajectories as well as against control integrations of isolated planetary systems. These additions confirm that the reported 1–3 km/s ejection velocities and the identified Sednoid-like and inner-Oort-cloud analogues are numerically robust within the stated tolerances. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: the central conclusion that extended disks are preferentially shaped by stellar encounters while compact disks are dominated by planet-disk scattering rests on only two discrete initial radial extents and a single assumed cluster density/encounter-rate set; no sensitivity runs across a continuous range of disk radii, surface densities, or cluster parameters drawn from observed young clusters or self-consistent N-body cluster simulations are described, so the relative importance of stellar versus planetary perturbations cannot yet be regarded as general.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a continuous parameter survey would provide stronger evidence for generality. The two radial extents were deliberately selected to bracket the range of observed debris-disk sizes in young clusters, thereby isolating the contrasting roles of stellar flybys versus planet-disk scattering. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion that places our chosen cluster density within the observed range for young open clusters and reports the outcome of a limited set of additional test runs at half and double the nominal encounter rate. These tests preserve the qualitative distinction between the extended and compact cases. We have also tempered the language to indicate that the reported pathways apply to the explored representative configurations and note that a full Monte-Carlo exploration of cluster parameters lies beyond the scope of the present study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct outputs of N-body integrations from explicit initial conditions

full rationale

The paper conducts forward numerical simulations of gravitational dynamics using NBODY6++GPU and REBOUND on two explicitly stated initial configurations (extended and compact debris disks around solar-system analogues in a cluster). All reported outcomes—Oort-cloud analogues, interstellar comets with 1-3 km/s ejections, inclination-dependent populations, and Sednoid-like objects—are computed results of evolving those initial conditions under the chosen encounter statistics. No parameters are fitted to data and then relabeled as predictions, no quantities are defined in terms of themselves, and the abstract and described methods contain no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems that reduce the central claims to prior author work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained computational evolution rather than any form of circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the fidelity of two public N-body integrators and on the representativeness of the chosen initial disk sizes, planet configurations, and cluster encounter rates; these are modeling choices rather than derived quantities.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial disk radial extent
    Extended versus compact disk models are selected as the two primary configurations whose outcomes are compared.
  • Stellar cluster density and encounter statistics
    The frequency and geometry of flybys are set by the assumed cluster environment in which the planetary systems are embedded.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption NBODY6++GPU and REBOUND accurately integrate the gravitational dynamics of planets, debris disks, and stellar flybys over the relevant timescales.
    The entire numerical experiment depends on the correctness and appropriate use of these established codes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5799 in / 1503 out tokens · 44974 ms · 2026-05-18T05:06:24.840507+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Adams, F. C. 2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 47

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    T., Bhandare, A., Dybczy ´nski, P

    Bannister, M. T., Bhandare, A., Dybczy ´nski, P. A., et al. 2019, Nature Astron- omy, 3, 594 Barrado y Navascués, D., Stauffer, J. R., Song, I., & Caillault, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 520, L123

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 671, L2

    Bertini, L., Roccatagliata, V ., & Kim, M. 2023, A&A, 671, L2

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    & Tremaine, S

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

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    J., & Levison, H

    Brasser, R., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. F. 2006, Icarus, 184, 59

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    J., Levison, H

    Brasser, R., Duncan, M. J., Levison, H. F., Schwamb, M. E., & Brown, M. E. 2012, Icarus, 217, 1

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    & Morbidelli, A

    Brasser, R. & Morbidelli, A. 2013, Icarus, 225, 40

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    X., Kouwenhoven, M

    Cai, M. X., Kouwenhoven, M. B., Zwart, S. P., & Spurzem, R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4337

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    X., Meiron, Y ., Kouwenhoven, M

    Cai, M. X., Meiron, Y ., Kouwenhoven, M. B., Assmann, P., & Spurzem, R. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series, 219

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    X., Zwart, S

    Cai, M. X., Zwart, S. P., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., & Spurzem, R. 2019, 10, 1

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    X., Zwart, S

    Cai, M. X., Zwart, S. P., & van Elteren, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 5114

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Chebotarev, G. A. 1965, Soviet Astronomy AJ, 8, 787

    work page 1965

  13. [13]

    A., & Tonry, J

    Do, A., Tucker, M. A., & Tonry, J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, L10

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Dohnanyi, J. S. 1969, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 2531

    work page 1969

  15. [15]

    2015, Space Science Reviews, 197, 191

    Dones, L., Brasser, R., Kaib, N., & Rickman, H. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 197, 191

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    R., Levison, H

    Dones, L., Weissman, P. R., Levison, H. F., & Duncan, M. J. 2004, Comets II, 323, 153

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    1987, The Astronomical Journal, 94, 1330

    Duncan, M., Quinn, T., & Tremaine, S. 1987, The Astronomical Journal, 94, 1330

    work page 1987

  18. [18]

    Duncan, M. J. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 109 Flammini Dotti, F., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Cai, M. X., & Spurzem, R. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2280

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    2020, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 132, 43

    Fouchard, M., Emel’yanenko, V ., & Higuchi, A. 2020, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 132, 43

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    2006, Celestial Me- chanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 95, 299

    Fouchard, M., Froeschlé, C., Valsecchi, G., & Rickman, H. 2006, Celestial Me- chanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 95, 299

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    2023, A&A, 676, A104

    Fouchard, M., Higuchi, A., & Ito, T. 2023, A&A, 676, A104

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    2018, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 620, A45

    Fouchard, M., Higuchi, A., Ito, T., & Maquet, L. 2018, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 620, A45

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Fouchard, M., Rickman, H., Froeschle, C., & Valsecchi, G. B. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 535, 86

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    Francis, P. J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, 1348

    work page 2005

  25. [25]

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

    Gomes, R., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2005, Nature, 435, 466 Gragera-Más, J. L., Torres, S., Mustill, A. J., & Villaver, E. 2025, in press As- tronomy and Astrophysics, arXiv:2510.02509

    work page arXiv 2005

  26. [26]

    2019, Nature Astronomy

    Guzik, P., Drahus, M., Rusek, K., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    O., Dehnen, W., Gration, A., Stadel, J., & Moore, B

    Hands, T. O., Dehnen, W., Gration, A., Stadel, J., & Moore, B. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    & Tremaine, S

    Heisler, J. & Tremaine, S. 1986, Icarus, 65, 13

    work page 1986

  29. [29]

    1981, The Astronomical Journal

    Hills, J. 1981, The Astronomical Journal

    work page 1981

  30. [30]

    M., Duchêne, G., & Matthews, B

    Hughes, A. M., Duchêne, G., & Matthews, B. C. 2018, Annual Review of As- tronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 541

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06475

    Jewitt, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06475

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, L36 Jílková, L., Hamers, A

    Jewitt, D., Luu, J., Rajagopal, J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, L36 Jílková, L., Hamers, A. S., Hammer, M., & Zwart, S. P. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 4218 Jílková, L., Zwart, S. P., Pijloo, T., & Hammer, M. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 3158

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Kaib, N. A. & Quinn, T. 2008, Icarus, 197, 221

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    Lada, C. J. & Lada, E. A. 2003, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 41, 57 Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Cros, L., Hébrard, G., et al. 2022, Scientific Reports, 12, 5855

    work page 2003

  36. [36]

    F., Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., Duncan, M. J., Brasser, R., & Kaufmann, D. E. 2010, Science, 329, 187

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    F., Morbidelli, A., & Dones, L

    Levison, H. F., Morbidelli, A., & Dones, L. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 2553 Martínez-Barbosa, C. A., Brown, A. G. A., Boekholt, T., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 1062

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    J., Weryk, R., Micheli, M., et al

    Meech, K. J., Weryk, R., Micheli, M., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 378

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Origin and Dynamical Evolution of Comets and their Reservoirs

    Morbidelli, A. 2005, eprint arXiv:astro-ph/0512256, 86

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

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

    Morbidelli, A., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., & Gomes, R. 2005, Nature, 435, 462

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    & Nesvorny, D

    Morbidelli, A. & Nesvorny, D. 2019, eprint arXiv:1904.02980, 67

    work page arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    F., & Gomes, R

    Morbidelli, A., Tsiganis, K., Crida, A., Levison, H. F., & Gomes, R. 2007, The Astronomical Journal, 134, 1790 Moro-Martín, A. 2018, ApJ, 866, 131

    work page 2007

  43. [43]

    & Taniguchi, Y

    Mouri, H. & Taniguchi, Y . 2002, ApJ, 580, 844

    work page 2002

  44. [44]

    Murray, C. D. & Dermott, S. F. 2000, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge Uni- versity Press) Nesvorný, D. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 137 Nesvorný, D. & Morbidelli, A. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 117

    work page 2000

  45. [45]

    2017, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 603, A112

    Nordlander, T., Rickman, H., & Gustafsson, B. 2017, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 603, A112

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    Oort, J. H. 1950, Communication from the Observatory at Leiden, 408

    work page 1950

  47. [47]

    & Schlichting, H

    Pan, M. & Schlichting, H. E. 2012, ApJ, 747, 113

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    3I/ATLAS: In Search of the Witnesses to Its Voyage

    Pelupessy, F. I., van Elteren, A., de Vries, N., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 557, A84 Pérez-Couto, X., Torres, S., Villaver, E., Mustill, A. J., & Manteiga, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07678

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  49. [49]

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

    Pfalzner, S., Aizpuru Vargas, L. L., Bhandare, A., & Veras, D. 2021, A&A, 651, A38

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 45

    Pfalzner, S., Bhandare, A., Vincke, K., & Lacerda, P. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 45

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1380

    Pfalzner, S., Govind, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1380

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    2012, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 73

    Pichardo, B., Moreno, E., Allen, C., et al. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 73

    work page 2012

  53. [53]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 71, 460 Portegies Zwart, S. 2009, Astrophysical Journal, 696, 2007 Portegies Zwart, S. 2021, A&A, 647, A136 Portegies Zwart, S. & Jílková, L. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 144 Portegies Zwart, S. & McMillan, S. 2018, Astrophysical Recipes: The art of AMUSE (IOP Publishing) Portegies Zwart, S., Mc...

    work page 1911

  54. [54]

    Punzo, D., Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R., & Zwart, S. P. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 2808

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    N., Armitage, P

    Raymond, S. N., Armitage, P. J., & Gorelick, N. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 711, 772

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    N., Izidoro, A., & Morbidelli, A

    Raymond, S. N., Izidoro, A., & Morbidelli, A. 2018

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    C., Kammerer, J., et al

    Rebollido, I., Stark, C. C., Kammerer, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 69

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    & Liu, S.-F

    Rein, H. & Liu, S.-F. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    & Spiegel, D

    Rein, H. & Spiegel, D. S. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1424

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Z., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al

    Seligman, D. Z., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, L36

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    P., Veras, D., & Wyatt, M

    Shannon, A., Jackson, A. P., Veras, D., & Wyatt, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 2059

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    P., & Wyatt, M

    Shannon, A., Jackson, A. P., & Wyatt, M. C. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 5511

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    & Takahashi, K

    Spurzem, R. & Takahashi, K. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 772

    work page 1995

  64. [64]

    C., Kuchner, M

    Stark, C. C., Kuchner, M. J., Traub, W. A., et al. 2009, Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1188

    work page 2009

  65. [65]

    X., Spurzem, R., Kouwenhoven, M

    Stock, K., Cai, M. X., Spurzem, R., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1807

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    X., Brown, A

    Torres, S., Cai, M. X., Brown, A. G. A., & Zwart, S. P. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 629, 13

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    Torres, S., Naoz, S., Li, G., & Rose, S. C. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1025

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Nature, 435, 459

    work page 2005

  69. [69]

    F., et al

    Veras, D., Reichert, K., Dotti, F. F., et al. 2020, 19, 1 V okrouhlický, D., Nesvorný, D., & Dones, L. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 181

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 4070

    Wang, L., Spurzem, R., Aarseth, S., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 4070

    work page 2015

  71. [71]

    Weissman, P. R. 1996, Earth, Moon and Planets, 72, 25

    work page 1996

  72. [72]

    & Tremaine, S

    Wiegert, P. & Tremaine, S. 1999, Icarus, 137, 84

    work page 1999

  73. [73]

    2017, Minor Planet Electronic Circular, 2017-U181

    Williams, G. 2017, Minor Planet Electronic Circular, 2017-U181

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    J., Clarke, C

    Winter, A. J., Clarke, C. J., Rosotti, G., & Booth, R. A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2314

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Wu, K., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Flammini Dotti, F., & Spurzem, R. 2024, MN- RAS, 533, 4485

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    Wu, K., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Spurzem, R., & Pang, X. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4801

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    Wyatt, M. C. 2008, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 46, 339 Article number, page 17 of 19 A&A proofs:manuscript no. Torres_2025_AA Appendix A: The Effect of A and B-type stars In Section 3, we examined the dynamical evolution of the SSA under full cluster dynamics. Because of the adopted IMF (see Section 2), the vast majority of encounters inv...

    work page 2008