Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 52 references

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

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Triaxial shapes of small Solar System bodies stabilize their narrow rings by suppressing radiation pressure effects through rapid apsidal precession.

desk verdict Triaxial precession stabilizes sub-mm rings in the simulations but the unmodeled collisions and PR drag leave the retention claim provisional. read the letter →

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

Zs. Regaly , V. Frohlich , Cs. Kalup , Cs. Kiss This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords smallbodiesplanetaryringsradiationpressuretriaxialnumericalsimulationsChironCharikloQuaoar
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 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.

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.

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.

Watch

Extended reading notes

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.

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.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 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.
assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rings Around Non-Spherical Worlds: Sub-mm Dust Retention Around Triaxial Small Bodies in the Solar System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.13234

@misc{pith2026260413234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rings Around Non-Spherical Worlds: Sub-mm Dust Retention Around Triaxial Small Bodies in the Solar System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.13234}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.13234}
}
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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13234 by the authors.

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, while pebbl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
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 &…
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 f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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]

    L., et al

    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]

    Radiation forces on small particles in the solar system

    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]

    Water Delivery to the

    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

Show all 52 references
  1. [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

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

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

    1993 doi

  3. [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

    2014 doi

  4. [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

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    P., & Krivov, A

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

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

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

    2015 doi

  7. [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

    2013 doi

  8. [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

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    1996, A&A, 311, 291

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

    1996

  10. [18]

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

    2004 doi

  11. [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

    2025 doi

  12. [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

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Farkas-Tak´ acs, A., et al

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

    doi

  14. [22]

    G., Marton, G., et al

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

    doi

  15. [23]

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

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Pereira, C

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

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

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

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    L., & Buratti, B

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

    1993 doi

  20. [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

    2017 doi

  21. [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

    2017 doi

  22. [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

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    D., & Dermott, S

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

    1999 doi

  24. [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

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2008, NewA, 13, 498, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.01.010

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

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al

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

    2017 doi

  27. [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

    2015 doi

  28. [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

    2023 doi

  29. [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

    2016 doi

  30. [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

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

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

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

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    J., et al

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

    2025 doi

  33. [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...

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

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

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

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

    1988 doi

  36. [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

    2024 doi

  37. [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

    doi

  38. [46]

    A., & Lewis, M

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

    2024 doi

  39. [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

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    G., & Brandt, R

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

    2008 doi

  41. [49]

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

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

    2019 doi

  42. [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

    2026

  43. [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

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L., & Bussoletti, E

    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...

    1996 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.