pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13234 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Rings Around Non-Spherical Worlds: Sub-mm Dust Retention Around Triaxial Small Bodies in the Solar System

Zs. Regaly , V. Frohlich , Cs. Kalup , Cs. Kiss This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords small bodiesplanetary ringsradiation pressuretriaxial bodiesnumerical simulationsChironCharikloQuaoar
0
0 comments X

The pith

Triaxial shapes of small Solar System bodies stabilize their narrow rings by suppressing radiation pressure effects through rapid apsidal precession.

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

The paper models the evolution of narrow rings composed of pebble-sized to sub-millimeter particles around Chiron, Chariklo, Quaoar, and Haumea. Spherical models show that solar radiation pressure excites particle eccentricities, leading to rapid accretion onto the central body, especially in lower-mass systems. When the triaxial shape is included, rapid apsidal precession suppresses this eccentricity growth, preventing material loss over the simulated millennial timescales. Strongly confined rings persist for particles larger than about 7-40 micrometers, with radial widths of 10 km for the smaller bodies and 40-70 km for the larger ones, and vertical thicknesses of 1 km or less. The triaxial models also lead to moderate vertical broadening rather than reorientation in inclined configurations.

Core claim

In contrast to spherical-body models where solar radiation pressure leads to eccentricity growth and particle loss, the inclusion of the triaxial shape induces rapid apsidal precession that suppresses RP-driven eccentricity growth and prevents material loss from the ring over the simulated interval.

What carries the argument

The non-axisymmetric gravitational field of the rotating triaxial central body, which drives rapid apsidal precession to counteract solar radiation pressure effects on ring particle orbits.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that particle collisions, Poynting-Robertson drag, and other unmodeled forces are negligible, treating particles as non-interacting test particles over millennial timescales.

What would settle it

Observing stable narrow rings with particle sizes below 7 micrometers around these bodies, or finding that ring loss occurs at rates predicted by spherical models rather than triaxial ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13234 by Cs. Kalup, Cs. Kiss, V. Frohlich, Zs. Regaly.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper subfigure shows snapshots of ring evolution for the spherical and triaxial Chiron models, shown in top (xy) and side (xz) views. Results are presented for two ring-plane tilt angles, ∆i = 0◦ and ∆i = 57◦ . The upper panels correspond to an early evolutionary stage (t ≃ 1 yr), while the lower panels show a later stage (t ≃ 1000 yr). Particle sizes, represented by β, are color-coded from red to lime, w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average eccentricity of ring particles, ⟨e⟩, as a function of β, measured for the four triaxial central-body models. mean eccentricity can be approximated as ⟨e⟩ ≃ √ 2 σr,i,β ⟨ri,β(t)⟩ , (19) where σr,i,β denotes the standard deviation of ri,β about ⟨ri,β(t)⟩ (Murray & Dermott 1999). As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The ring radial width, Wr, determined from the numerical simulations above 20 percent normalized density (shown with filled symbols). The radial spread associated with eccentric particle orbits, δrring, inferred from the mean eccentricity excitation of ring particles for a given β (shown with open symbols). The dashed black lines mark the initial ring width. 20 percent) obtained from the simulations with t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigated the millennial-scale evolution of narrow innermost rings composed of pebble-sized to sub-millimeter particles around the four known ring-bearing small bodies Chiron, Chariklo, Quaoar, and Haumea. Using a GPU-accelerated 8th-order Hermite integrator, we modeled the combined effects of solar radiation pressure (RP), shadowing of the rings by the host body, heliocentric motion, and the non-axisymmetric gravitational field of the rotating triaxial central body. The calculations compare spherical and triaxial-body models, as well as coplanar and inclined ring configurations. In spherical models, solar RP excites particle eccentricities, leading to accretion onto the central body above a critical RP parameter. This effect is strongest for the lower-mass systems, Chiron and Chariklo, where particles with relatively modest radiation forcing are rapidly removed. In contrast, when the triaxial shape of the host body is included, rapid apsidal precession suppresses RP-driven eccentricity growth and prevents material loss from the ring over the simulated interval. The triaxial models also suppress the previously identified Sun-facing reorientation of highly inclined rings and instead produce moderate vertical broadening. Strongly confined rings persist for RP parameters corresponding to particle sizes larger than about 7-40 micrometers, depending on composition. Their characteristic radial widths are about 10 km for Chiron and Chariklo and about 40-70 km for Quaoar and Haumea. The vertical thicknesses of the rings are estimated to be on the order of 1 km for Chiron and Chariklo, and only several hundred meters for Quaoar and Haumea. Our results suggest that narrow rings around triaxial small bodies in the Solar System can plausibly retain sub-millimeter particles over dynamically relevant timescales shorter than Poynting-Robertson drag.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the millennial-scale evolution of narrow rings around the triaxial small bodies Chiron, Chariklo, Quaoar, and Haumea using GPU-accelerated 8th-order Hermite integrations. It models the combined effects of solar radiation pressure (RP), shadowing, heliocentric motion, and the rotating triaxial gravitational field, comparing these to spherical-body cases for both coplanar and inclined rings. The central claim is that triaxial gravity induces rapid apsidal precession that suppresses RP-driven eccentricity excitation and prevents particle loss over the simulated interval (in contrast to spherical models), allowing retention of particles larger than ~7-40 μm with estimated radial widths of ~10 km (Chiron/Chariklo) or 40-70 km (Quaoar/Haumea) and vertical thicknesses of hundreds of meters to ~1 km. The work concludes that such rings can plausibly retain sub-mm dust on timescales shorter than Poynting-Robertson drag.

Significance. If the results hold, the manuscript offers a dynamical mechanism explaining the stability of observed narrow rings around non-spherical small bodies, emphasizing the role of non-axisymmetric gravity in mitigating radiation pressure effects. The direct spherical-vs-triaxial comparisons, inclusion of shadowing and heliocentric terms, and focus on sub-mm particle retention provide concrete, falsifiable predictions for ring dimensions and size thresholds that can be tested against observations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The retention conclusion for sub-mm particles rests on test-particle integrations that include RP but omit Poynting-Robertson drag and collisions. Although the abstract states the simulated retention occurs on timescales shorter than PR drag, no quantitative comparison of PR inspiral times (for the 7-40 μm particles) to the millennial integration length is provided, leaving open whether the precession suppression survives when PR is restored.
  2. [Methods and Results] Methods and Results: The assumption that particle collisions remain negligible is load-bearing for the retention claim, yet no estimate of collision frequency (via optical depth or velocity dispersion) is given to confirm this holds over the simulated interval for the stated particle sizes and ring widths.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The radiation pressure parameter and its mapping to particle size/composition could be defined more explicitly early in the text to aid readers.
  2. [Results] Figure captions or the text describing eccentricity evolution would benefit from noting the number of particles integrated and any convergence tests performed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our test-particle integrations. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to include the requested quantitative estimates.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The retention conclusion for sub-mm particles rests on test-particle integrations that include RP but omit Poynting-Robertson drag and collisions. Although the abstract states the simulated retention occurs on timescales shorter than PR drag, no quantitative comparison of PR inspiral times (for the 7-40 μm particles) to the millennial integration length is provided, leaving open whether the precession suppression survives when PR is restored.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated paragraph (new Section 4.3) that computes the Poynting-Robertson inspiral timescale for 7–40 μm particles of both icy and silicate composition using the standard formula τ_PR ≈ (c r^2 / (3 G M_⊙ β)) with β evaluated at each body’s heliocentric distance. For the smallest particles considered, τ_PR ranges from ~3×10^4 yr (Chiron) to ~2×10^5 yr (Haumea), all substantially longer than the 1,000 yr integration window. We also note that the rapid apsidal precession induced by the triaxial field operates on timescales of only a few years, so the eccentricity-suppression mechanism remains active well before PR drag can appreciably alter the orbits. These numbers are now quoted in the abstract and results section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods and Results] Methods and Results: The assumption that particle collisions remain negligible is load-bearing for the retention claim, yet no estimate of collision frequency (via optical depth or velocity dispersion) is given to confirm this holds over the simulated interval for the stated particle sizes and ring widths.

    Authors: We accept that a quantitative justification is required. In the revised Methods section we now estimate the collision timescale using the standard expression τ_coll ≈ (1 / (n σ v_rel)) where n is the number density derived from the adopted surface density, σ the geometric cross-section for the particle sizes, and v_rel the velocity dispersion obtained from the vertical thickness and radial width of the simulated rings. For the reported ring widths (10–70 km) and vertical thicknesses (hundreds of meters to 1 km), τ_coll exceeds 10^4–10^5 yr for the 7–40 μm particles, comfortably longer than the integration length. We also note that the low optical depths implied by the narrow rings further reduce collision rates. These estimates are presented in a new paragraph and referenced in the discussion of model assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results emerge from direct numerical integration

full rationale

The paper derives its central claims about apsidal precession suppressing RP-driven eccentricity growth (and thus enabling retention in triaxial cases) from GPU-accelerated 8th-order Hermite integrations that solve the equations of motion under the explicitly listed forces. No parameters are fitted to data and then relabeled as predictions, no self-definitional loops appear in the model setup, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation. The contrast between spherical and triaxial outcomes is an emergent dynamical result within the stated assumptions, making the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the numerical model incorporating triaxial gravity and radiation pressure while omitting several physical processes; free parameters are introduced via the radiation pressure strength and particle size thresholds.

free parameters (2)
  • radiation pressure parameter
    Varied across values corresponding to particle sizes from pebble to sub-mm; determines the critical threshold for retention.
  • particle size thresholds
    7-40 micrometers depending on composition; used to bound the regime where rings persist.
axioms (2)
  • standard math 8th-order Hermite integrator with GPU acceleration accurately captures the combined gravitational, radiative, and shadowing effects over millennial timescales
    Invoked as the core numerical method for all runs.
  • domain assumption Particle-particle collisions and Poynting-Robertson drag can be neglected for the simulated interval
    Stated implicitly by focusing on RP, shadowing, and triaxial gravity alone.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5656 in / 1408 out tokens · 32691 ms · 2026-05-10T13:52:54.436849+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

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Rubincam, D

    Bottke, Jr., W. F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Rubincam, D. P., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2006, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34, 157, doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154 2006

  2. [2]

    L., Sicardy, B., et al

    Braga-Ribas, F., Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 999, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4751 —. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 676, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346749

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4751 2026

  3. [3]

    Nature 508, 72–75

    Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2014, Nature, 508, 72, doi: 10.1038/nature13155

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13155 2014

  4. [4]

    A., Lamy, P

    Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 1979

  5. [5]

    E., Esposito, L

    Colwell, J. E., Esposito, L. W., & Sremˇ cevi´ c, M. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 17589, doi: 10.1029/1999JE001209

    work page doi:10.1029/1999je001209 2000

  6. [6]

    Cunningham, L. E. 1970, Celestial Mechanics, 2, 207, doi: 10.1007/BF01229495 de Pater, I., Hammel, H. B., Gibbard, S. G., & Showalter, M. R. 2006, Science, 312, 92, doi: 10.1126/science.1125110 de Pater, I., Hammel, H. B., Showalter, M. R., & van Dam, M. A. 2007, Science, 317, 1888, doi: 10.1126/science.1148103

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01229495 1970

  7. [7]

    2025, A&A, 699, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554168

    Dencs, Z., Dobos, V., & Reg´ aly, Z. 2025, A&A, 699, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554168

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554168 2025

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 2191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1412 —

    Dencs, Z., & Reg´ aly, Z. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1412 —. 2021, A&A, 645, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1412 2019

  9. [9]

    L., et al

    Duffard, R., Pinilla-Alonso, N., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424208

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424208 2014

  10. [10]

    Esposito, L. W. 1993, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 21, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev.ea.21.050193.002415

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.21.050193.002415 1993

  11. [11]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424439

    Fornasier, S., Lellouch, E., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424439

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424439 2014

  12. [12]

    C., Batygin, K., Brown, M

    Fraser, W. C., Batygin, K., Brown, M. E., & Bouchez, A. 2013, Icarus, 222, 357, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.004 Giuliatti Winter, S. M., Madeira, G., Ribeiro, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 679, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345864

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.004 2013

  13. [13]

    P., & Krivov, A

    Hamilton, D. P., & Krivov, A. V. 1996, Icarus, 123, 503, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0175

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0175 1996

  14. [14]

    Masci, F. J. 2015, Nature, 522, 185, doi: 10.1038/nature14476

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14476 2015

  15. [15]

    A., Nicholson, P

    Harbison, R. A., Nicholson, P. D., & Hedman, M. M. 2013, Icarus, 226, 1225, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.08.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.08.015 2013

  16. [16]

    M., Burt, J

    Hedman, M. M., Burt, J. A., Burns, J. A., & Tiscareno, M. S. 2010, Icarus, 210, 284, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.017 2010

  17. [17]

    1996, A&A, 311, 291

    Henning, T., & Stognienko, R. 1996, A&A, 311, 291

    work page 1996

  18. [18]

    Hu, W., & Scheeres, D. J. 2004, Planet. Space Sci., 52, 685, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2004.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2004.01.003 2004

  19. [19]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae194b

    Hyodo, R., & Ida, S. 2025, ApJL, 994, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae194b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae194b 2025

  20. [20]

    2024, PASP, 136, 124401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a3

    Kalup, C., Moln´ ar, L., & Kiss, C. 2024, PASP, 136, 124401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a3

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a3 2024

  21. [21]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =

    Kiss, C., M¨ uller, T. G., Farkas-Tak´ acs, A., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 976, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dcb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dcb 2041

  22. [22]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

    Kiss, C., M¨ uller, T. G., Marton, G., et al. 2024b, A&A, 684, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348054

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348054

  23. [23]

    Leiva, R., Sicardy, B., Camargo, J. I. B., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8956

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8956 2017

  24. [24]

    Winter, O. C. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3552

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3552 2022

  25. [25]

    E., Pereira, C

    Madeira, G., Morgado, B. E., Pereira, C. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 268, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae169e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae169e 2025

  26. [26]

    Makino, J., & Aarseth, S. J. 1992, PASJ, 44, 141, doi: 10.1093/pasj/44.2.141

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/44.2.141 1992

  27. [27]

    L., & Buratti, B

    Marcialis, R. L., & Buratti, B. J. 1993, Icarus, 104, 234, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1098

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1098 1993

  28. [28]

    D., Duffard, R., Ortiz, J

    Melita, M. D., Duffard, R., Ortiz, J. L., & Campo-Bagatin, A. 2017, A&A, 602, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629858

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629858 2017

  29. [29]

    2017, ApJL, 837, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6256

    Michikoshi, S., & Kokubo, E. 2017, ApJL, 837, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6256

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6256 2017

  30. [30]

    E., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al

    Morgado, B. E., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141543 —. 2023, Nature, 614, 239, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05629-6

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141543 2021

  31. [31]

    doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174817 , adsurl =

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174817 1999

  32. [32]

    D., De Pater, I., French, R

    Nicholson, P. D., De Pater, I., French, R. G., & Showalter, M. R. 2018, in Planetary Ring Systems. Properties, Structure, and Evolution, ed. M. S. Tiscareno & C. D. Murray, 93–111, doi: 10.1017/9781316286791.004

    work page doi:10.1017/9781316286791.004 2018

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2008, NewA, 13, 498, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.01.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2008.01.010 2008

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Ortiz, J. L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al. 2017, Nature, 550, 219, doi: 10.1038/nature24051

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24051 2017

  35. [35]

    L., Duffard, R., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Duffard, R., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424461 16

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424461 2015

  36. [36]

    L., Pereira, C

    Ortiz, J. L., Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347025

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347025 2023

  37. [37]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/18

    Pan, M., & Wu, Y. 2016, ApJ, 821, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/18 2016

  38. [38]

    L., Sicardy, B., Morgado, B

    Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., Morgado, B. E., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346365

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346365 2023

  39. [39]

    Astrophys

    Pereira, C. L., Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 992, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b6d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b6d 2025

  40. [40]

    J., et al

    Proudfoot, B., Nolthenius, R., Holler, B. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1585

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1585 2025

  41. [41]

    Ragozzine, D., & Brown, M. E. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 4766, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4766 Reg´ aly, Z., Dencs, Z., Mo´ or, A., & Kov´ acs, T. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2604 Reg´ aly, Z., Fr¨ ohlich, V., & Berczik, P. 2023, A&A, 677, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347205 Reg´ aly, Z., Fr¨ ohlich, V., & Kiss, C. 2025a, A&...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4766 2009

  42. [42]

    Winter, S. M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 44, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2362

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2362 2023

  43. [43]

    Rubincam, D. P. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 93, 13805, doi: 10.1029/JB093iB11p13805

    work page doi:10.1029/jb093ib11p13805 1988

  44. [44]

    2025a, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 383, 20240193, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0193

    Souami, D. 2025a, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 383, 20240193, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0193

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2024.0193 2024

  45. [45]

    2025b, A&A, 704, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556950

    Souami, D. 2025b, A&A, 704, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556950

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556950

  46. [46]

    A., & Lewis, M

    Sickafoose, A. A., & Lewis, M. C. 2024, PSJ, 5, 32, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad151c

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad151c 2024

  47. [47]

    R., Hedman, M

    Tamayo, D., Markham, S. R., Hedman, M. M., Burns, J. A., & Hamilton, D. P. 2016, Icarus, 275, 117, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.009 Vokrouhlick´ y, D. 1999, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 344, 362

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.009 2016

  48. [48]

    and Brandt, Richard E

    Warren, S. G., & Brandt, R. E. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 113, D14220, doi: 10.1029/2007JD009744

    work page doi:10.1029/2007jd009744 2008

  49. [49]

    C., Borderes-Motta, G., & Ribeiro, T

    Winter, O. C., Borderes-Motta, G., & Ribeiro, T. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz246

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz246 2019

  50. [50]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.02585

    Zhou, W.-H., Kokubo, E., Agrusa, H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.02585. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02585

    work page arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 968, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4f7f

    Zhou, W.-H., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Kanamaru, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 968, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4f7f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4f7f 2024

  52. [52]

    G., Mennella V., Colangeli L., Bussoletti E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/282.4.1321 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/1996MNRAS.282.1321Z 282, 1321

    Zubko, V. G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L., & Bussoletti, E. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.4.1321 17 APPENDIX A.TRIAXIAL TERMS FOR A 4TH-ORDER HERMITE SCHEME In this appendix, we present an efficient method for calculating the potential and its first and second derivatives, following Cunningham (1970). Letr b = (x b, yb, zb) denote body-ce...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/282.4.1321 1996