pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30177 · v2 · pith:XV2VTVJXnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

The Architecture of the 14 Herculis System Suggests Primordial Ejection of a Massive Planet

Tiger Lu , Sarah C. Millholland , Malena Rice , Brennen Black , Daniella C. Bardalez Gagliuffi , William O. Balmer , Laurent Pueyo , Mark R. Giovinazzi
show 1 more author
Timothy D. Brandt
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 05:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords 14 Herculisplanet-planet scatteringexoplanet dynamicsorbital architectureN-body simulationssuper-Jupitersejected planets
0
0 comments X

The pith

14 Herculis' misaligned eccentric super-Jupiters formed only if extra planets were ejected early on.

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

N-body simulations of planet-planet scattering reproduce the two observed super-Jupiters' eccentric and misaligned orbits around 14 Herculis only when the system starts with additional massive planets that are later ejected. A sympathetic reader cares because this ties the present architecture to a specific early dynamical history involving lost planets, and the mass of any ejected body then limits what the initial setup could have been. The work also finds ongoing secular eccentricity and inclination oscillations that are too weak for tides to reshape the orbits. It notes that upcoming Gaia and Roman data could test whether this scattering-with-ejection path applies more broadly.

Core claim

Planet-planet scattering reproduces 14 Her's peculiar orbital architecture, but only if additional massive bodies were initially present in the system that were subsequently ejected. The mass of any such ejected planet can constrain the system's initial configuration. Present-day secular evolution shows likely nontrivial eccentricity and inclination oscillations, yet their magnitudes are not strong enough for tidal forces to alter the architecture meaningfully.

What carries the argument

N-body simulations of initial multi-planet configurations that undergo scattering and ejection of extra bodies.

If this is right

  • The current architecture requires initial extra planets that were ejected through scattering.
  • The mass of any ejected planet limits the possible initial system configurations.
  • Secular eccentricity and inclination oscillations occur but remain too weak for meaningful tidal alteration.
  • Future Gaia and Roman observations can place 14 Her within a population-level dynamical framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Many other systems with eccentric misaligned giants may also have lost planets through early scattering.
  • Ejection signatures could be searched for in debris or by comparing to systems without such misalignments.
  • The requirement for extra initial planets offers a testable prediction for occurrence rates of ejected worlds.

Load-bearing premise

The observed orbits are the direct outcome of an early multi-planet scattering phase rather than migration, other formation channels, or selection effects.

What would settle it

An N-body run starting with only the two known planets that matches their current eccentric and misaligned orbits would falsify the need for extra ejected bodies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30177 by Brennen Black, Daniella C. Bardalez Gagliuffi, Laurent Pueyo, Malena Rice, Mark R. Giovinazzi, Sarah C. Millholland, Tiger Lu, Timothy D. Brandt, William O. Balmer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The posterior distributions (gray) and the subset of those which are stable (green) for nine parameters. We plot the mass, semimajor axis, and eccentricity of each planet, as well as the mutual inclination, mutual Hill radius (see Equation (3)), and relative eccentricitya . Approximately 80% of the posteriors are stable over 1 Gyr. aThe relative eccentricity e12 ≡ |e1 − e2| has been posited as the main dri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Branching ratios as a function of simulation time for our two-body scattering simulations. Blue, red solid, and red dashed lines represent simulations with two survivors, an ejection, and a collision, respectively. By 108 years, the rel￾ative fractions of each ratio have stabilized, demonstrating that our simulations have run long enough to capture pop￾ulation-level dynamics. Systems with two surviving pla… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulations that retain a 14 Her b and 14 Her c analogue from suite2, suite4 and suite6, plotted in mutual Hill radius (MHR) - mutual inclination (Θ) - relative eccentricity (e12) space of the two innermost planets. The 1σ and 2σ observational constraints are plotted as the black and gray ellipses, respectively. The colorbar corresponds to the minimum Mahalanobis distance DM of the simulation to either the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of 8028 N-body simulations repre￾senting the system’s present-day evolution, corresponding to the subset of stable posteriors derived in §2. Top: 14 Her b’s minimum and maximum eccentricity across each integra￾tion, plotted as a function of the initial mutual inclination. Bottom: Minimum and maximum mutual inclination across each simulation, plotted as a function of the initial mutual inclination. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One simulation that successfully reproduces the present-day state of 14 Her. Top: Orbital separation of the three planets over the full integration window. Semimajor axes are plotted in solid lines, while the bounds of aphelion and perihelion are represented with the shaded contours. At this scale, the scattering event appear to happen nearly in￾stantaneously. Middle: Zoom in between 3700 and 6700 years, w… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The 14 Herculis system hosts two super-Jupiters on eccentric, significantly misaligned orbits. This orbital architecture represents a dynamical puzzle that demands explanation. In this work, we reproduce the system's dynamical history and current architecture using a large suite of N-body simulations of planet-planet scattering. Our results demonstrate that planet-planet scattering is able to reproduce 14 Her's peculiar orbital architecture, but only if additional massive bodies were initially present in the system that were subsequently ejected. The mass of any such ejected planet can in turn constrain the system's initial configuration. We also analyze the present-day secular evolution of the system and conclude that while there are most likely nontrivial eccentricity and inclination oscillations currently occurring, the magnitudes of these oscillations are not strong enough to allow tidal forces to meaningfully alter the system's architecture. Finally, we discuss how forthcoming observations from future Gaia data releases and the Roman mission may situate 14 Her's dynamical history within a broader, population-level framework.

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 claims that N-body simulations of planet-planet scattering can reproduce the observed eccentric and mutually misaligned orbits of the two super-Jupiters in the 14 Herculis system only when at least one additional massive body is included in the initial configuration and subsequently ejected. The work supplies initial-condition ranges, reports outcome statistics, analyzes present-day secular evolution (finding eccentricity/inclination oscillations too weak for significant tidal evolution), and discusses constraints from future Gaia and Roman observations.

Significance. If the central result holds after fuller documentation of the simulation suite, the manuscript would provide a concrete dynamical pathway linking an observed multi-planet architecture to primordial ejection, thereby tightening constraints on formation scenarios for systems with misaligned, eccentric giants. The explicit mapping from ejected-planet mass to viable initial conditions and the secular-evolution analysis are useful contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Simulation setup] Simulation methods section: the assertion that the observed architecture is reproduced 'only if' an additional massive body is ejected (Abstract and main results) rests on an unspecified number of N-body runs, an incompletely described sampling strategy over the free parameters (initial planet masses, semi-major axes, eccentricities, inclinations), and the absence of reported convergence or stability tests. Without these details it is not possible to evaluate whether the 'only if' conclusion is robust or an artifact of limited exploration.
  2. [Results] Results on ejection requirement: the paper states that scattering reproduces the architecture only with ejection, yet provides no quantitative breakdown (e.g., success fraction with vs. without an extra body, or the minimum number of runs needed to reach that conditional statement). This information is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Figures and Methods] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the total number of integrations performed and the precise ranges and sampling method used for each initial parameter.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which identify important gaps in the documentation of our simulation suite. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our methods and results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Simulation setup] Simulation methods section: the assertion that the observed architecture is reproduced 'only if' an additional massive body is ejected (Abstract and main results) rests on an unspecified number of N-body runs, an incompletely described sampling strategy over the free parameters (initial planet masses, semi-major axes, eccentricities, inclinations), and the absence of reported convergence or stability tests. Without these details it is not possible to evaluate whether the 'only if' conclusion is robust or an artifact of limited exploration.

    Authors: We agree that the current Methods section lacks sufficient detail on the numerical experiments. In the revised manuscript we will add: the total number of integrations performed, the precise parameter ranges and sampling strategy (including distributions for masses, semi-major axes, eccentricities, and inclinations), convergence tests performed with varied random seeds, and long-term stability checks on the final configurations. These additions will allow readers to assess the robustness of the reported requirement for an ejected body. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results on ejection requirement: the paper states that scattering reproduces the architecture only with ejection, yet provides no quantitative breakdown (e.g., success fraction with vs. without an extra body, or the minimum number of runs needed to reach that conditional statement). This information is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative success rates are necessary to support the central claim. The revised manuscript will include a table reporting success fractions for the two-planet scattering case (zero successful reproductions of the observed architecture) versus cases that include an additional ejected planet (with success rates broken down by ejected-planet mass), along with the total number of runs and the precise success criteria. This will make the conditional statement quantitatively grounded. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central result is obtained from forward N-body scattering simulations that numerically integrate initial conditions and report outcome statistics (e.g., final eccentricities, inclinations, and ejection events). These simulations constitute independent numerical experiments whose outputs are not algebraically or statistically forced to match the inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The claim that scattering reproduces the architecture only with an ejected body is a conditional statement evaluated against external observational data and is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the premise that N-body scattering from a chosen set of initial multi-planet configurations can be tuned to match the present-day orbits and that no other mechanism is needed.

free parameters (1)
  • initial planet masses, semi-major axes, eccentricities, and inclinations
    Chosen so that scattering produces the observed final architecture; the mass of the ejected body is itself a fitted outcome used to constrain the initial state.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Newtonian point-mass gravity plus standard N-body integrators accurately capture the long-term evolution of the system
    Invoked when stating that the simulations reproduce the architecture.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5743 in / 1191 out tokens · 22951 ms · 2026-06-29T05:51:48.274946+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

85 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M., Brandt, T

    An, Q., Lu, T., Brandt, G. M., Brandt, T. D., & Li, G. 2025, AJ, 169, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad90b4 10 Though D. A. Yahalomi et al. (2026) cautions that circular planet pairs in 2:1 mean motion resonance may masquerade as single eccentric planets inGaiadata, which would represent a very different dynamical interpretation

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad90b4 2025

  2. [2]

    R., Lai, D., & Pu, B

    Anderson, K. R., Lai, D., & Pu, B. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3119

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3119 2020

  3. [3]

    W., & Math´ ematicien, E.-U

    Anderson, T. W., & Math´ ematicien, E.-U. 1958, An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis, Vol. 2 (Wiley New York)

    1958

  4. [4]

    Armitage, P. J. 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation 12 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Faherty, J. K., Li, Y., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac382c Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Balmer, W. O., Pueyo, L., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade30f Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac382c 2010

  5. [5]

    G., & Perets, H

    Bhaskar, H. G., & Perets, H. 2024, ApJ, 973, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad62f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad62f9 2024

  6. [6]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1277

    Bovy, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1277

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1277 2017

  8. [8]

    Brandt, T. D. 2018, ApJS, 239, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 2018

  9. [9]

    P., Marcy, G

    Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Vogt, S. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 582, 455, doi: 10.1086/344570

    work page doi:10.1086/344570 2003

  10. [10]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0cbf

    Murray-Clay, R. 2025, ApJ, 994, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0cbf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0cbf 2025

  11. [11]

    E., & Wetherill, G

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

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1998.6007 1998

  12. [12]

    E., Wetherill, G

    Chambers, J. E., Wetherill, G. W., & Boss, A. P. 1996, Icarus, 119, 261, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0019

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0019 1996

  13. [13]

    B., Matsumura, S., & Rasio, F

    Chatterjee, S., Ford, E. B., Matsumura, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 580, doi: 10.1086/590227

    work page doi:10.1086/590227 2008

  14. [14]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 2017

  15. [15]

    Cresswell, P., Dirksen, G., Kley, W., & Nelson, R. P. 2007, A&A, 473, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077666

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077666 2007

  16. [16]

    I., & Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2013, ApJL, 767, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L24

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/l24 2013

  17. [17]

    M., Holman, M

    Deck, K. M., Holman, M. J., Agol, E., et al. 2012, ApJL, 755, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/1/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/755/1/l21 2012

  18. [18]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22426, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22426

    Gupta, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22426, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22426

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22426 2026

  19. [19]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22409

    Esposito, J., Li, G., & Wang, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22409

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22409 2026

  20. [20]

    B., Mulders, G

    Fernandes, R. B., Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., Mordasini, C., & Emsenhuber, A. 2019, ApJ, 874, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0300

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0300 2019

  21. [21]

    A., & Valenti, J

    Fischer, D. A., & Valenti, J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102, doi: 10.1086/428383

    work page doi:10.1086/428383 2005

  22. [22]

    B., Havlickova, M., & Rasio, F

    Ford, E. B., Havlickova, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2001, Icarus, 150, 303, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6588

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6588 2001

  23. [23]

    B., & Rasio, F

    Ford, E. B., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 621, doi: 10.1086/590926

    work page doi:10.1086/590926 2008

  24. [24]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  25. [25]

    J., Rosenthal, L

    Fulton, B. J., Rosenthal, L. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1 2021

  26. [26]

    1993, Icarus, 106, 247, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    Gladman, B. 1993, Icarus, 106, 247, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1169 1993

  27. [27]

    1980, ApJ, 241, 425, doi: 10.1086/158356

    Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425, doi: 10.1086/158356

    work page doi:10.1086/158356 1980

  28. [28]

    2018, AJ, 156, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad32c

    Hadden, S., & Lithwick, Y. 2018, AJ, 156, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad32c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad32c 2018

  29. [29]

    M., & Malhotra, R

    Hahn, J. M., & Malhotra, R. 1999, AJ, 117, 3041, doi: 10.1086/300891

    work page doi:10.1086/300891 1999

  30. [30]

    M., Zeebe, R

    Hernandez, D. M., Zeebe, R. E., & Hadden, S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3664

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3664 2022

  31. [31]

    Hill, G. W. 1878, American Journal of Mathematics, 1, 5, doi: 10.2307/2369433

    work page doi:10.2307/2369433

  32. [32]

    R., Becker, J

    Howe, A. R., Becker, J. C., & Adams, F. C. 2026, AJ, 171, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae3aa6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae3aa6 2026

  33. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  34. [34]

    Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2004, ApJ, 616, 567, doi: 10.1086/424830

    work page doi:10.1086/424830 2004

  35. [35]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Bitsch, B., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935336

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935336 2021

  36. [36]

    2002, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/15002962

    Jette, M., Dunlap, C., Garlick, J., & Grondona, M. 2002, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/15002962

    arXiv 2002

  37. [37]

    A., Penny, M., Gaudi, B

    Johnson, S. A., Penny, M., Gaudi, B. S., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba75b Juri´ c, M., & Tremaine, S. 2008, ApJ, 686, 603, doi: 10.1086/590047

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba75b 2020

  38. [38]

    C., & McNeil, R

    Keenan, P. C., & McNeil, R. C. 1989, ApJS, 71, 245, doi: 10.1086/191373

    work page doi:10.1086/191373 1989

  39. [39]

    R., Duncan, M., Brasser, R., & Levison, H

    Kirsh, D. R., Duncan, M., Brasser, R., & Levison, H. F. 2009, Icarus, 199, 197, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.05.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.05.028 2009

  40. [40]

    Lammers, C., & Winn, J. N. 2024, ApJL, 968, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad50d2 2024

  41. [41]

    Lammers, C., & Winn, J. N. 2026, AJ, 171, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae21de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae21de 2026

  42. [42]

    2020, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2020–228, doi: 10.5194/epsc2020-228

    Li, D., Mustill, A., & Davies, M. 2020, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2020–228, doi: 10.5194/epsc2020-228

    work page doi:10.5194/epsc2020-228 2020

  43. [43]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planetary and Space Science, 9, 719

    1962

  44. [44]

    Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., & Richardson, D. C. 1996, Nature, 380, 606, doi: 10.1038/380606a0

    work page doi:10.1038/380606a0 1996

  45. [45]

    2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12610, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308261110

    Lithwick, Y., & Wu, Y. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12610, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308261110

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1308261110 2014

  46. [46]

    2025a, ApJ, 979, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79 13

    Lu, T., An, Q., Li, G., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 979, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79 13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79

  47. [47]

    M., & Rein, H

    Lu, T., Hernandez, D. M., & Rein, H. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1982

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1982 2024

  48. [48]

    Lu, T., Li, G., Cassese, B., & Lin, D. N. C. 2025b, ApJ, 980, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4b2

  49. [49]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc06d

    Lu, T., Rein, H., Tamayo, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc06d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc06d 2023

  50. [50]

    1936, Sankhy¯ a: The Indian Journal of Statistics (1933-1960), 2, 411

    Mahalanobis, P. 1936, Sankhy¯ a: The Indian Journal of Statistics (1933-1960), 2, 411

    1936

  51. [51]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 2439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17855.x 20

    Malmberg, D., Davies, M. B., & Heggie, D. C. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 859, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17730.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17730.x 2011

  52. [52]

    Mardling, R. A. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1048, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16814.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16814.x 2010

  53. [53]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2602

    Marzari, F. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2602

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2602 2025

  54. [54]

    2017, ApJL, 849, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714

    Millholland, S., Wang, S., & Laughlin, G. 2017, ApJL, 849, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714 2017

  55. [55]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 72

    Nagasawa, M., & Ida, S. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 72

    2011

  56. [56]

    2025, AJ, 170, 334, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae1466

    Nguyen, M., & Adibekyan, V. 2025, AJ, 170, 334, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae1466

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae1466 2025

  57. [57]

    2017, Icarus, 293, 52, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.010

    Obertas, A., Van Laerhoven, C., & Tamayo, D. 2017, Icarus, 293, 52, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.010 2017

  58. [58]

    2006,, USA: Trelgol Publishing http://www.numpy.org/

    Oliphant, T. 2006,, USA: Trelgol Publishing http://www.numpy.org/

    2006

  59. [59]

    2014, ApJ, 786, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/101

    Petrovich, C., Tremaine, S., & Rafikov, R. 2014, ApJ, 786, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/101 2014

  60. [60]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/44

    Pu, B., & Wu, Y. 2015, ApJ, 807, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/44 2015

  61. [61]

    N., Barnes, R., Armitage, P

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

    work page doi:10.1086/593301 2008

  62. [62]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 2012

  63. [63]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    Rein, H., & Tamayo, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1257 2015

  64. [64]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 2377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx232

    Rein, H., & Tamayo, D. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx232

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx232 2017

  65. [65]

    Rice, W. K. M., Armitage, P. J., Bonnell, I. A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, L36, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07317.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07317.x 2003

  66. [66]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

  67. [67]

    Safronov, V. S. 1972, Evolution of the protoplanetary cloud and formation of the earth and planets

    1972

  68. [68]

    2010, A&A, 515, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014247 Stef´ ansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Winn, J

    Caillo, A. 2010, A&A, 515, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014247 Stef´ ansson, G., Mahadevan, S., Winn, J. N., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada9e1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014247 2010

  69. [69]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc1c4

    Tamayo, D., & Hadden, S. 2025, ApJ, 986, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc1c4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc1c4 2025

  70. [70]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020a, MNRAS, 491, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2870

  71. [71]

    2020b, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 18194, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2001258117

    Tamayo, D., Cranmer, M., Hadden, S., et al. 2020b, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 18194, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2001258117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2001258117

  72. [72]

    Lopez, E. D. 2016, ApJ, 831, 64, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/64

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/64 2016

  73. [73]

    2023, Dynamics of Planetary Systems van der Walt, S., Colbert, S

    Tremaine, S. 2023, Dynamics of Planetary Systems van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2011.37 2023

  74. [74]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261 von Zeipel, H. 1910, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345, doi: 10.1002/asna.19091832202

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.19091832202 2020

  75. [75]

    J., Graham, J

    Wang, J. J., Graham, J. R., Dawson, R., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae150

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae150 2018

  76. [76]

    J., & Marzari, F

    Weidenschilling, S. J., & Marzari, F. 1996, Nature, 384, 619, doi: 10.1038/384619a0

    work page doi:10.1038/384619a0 1996

  77. [77]

    M., Marcy, G

    Weiss, L. M., Marcy, G. W., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9ff6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9ff6 2018

  78. [78]

    2015, AJ, 150, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/4/127

    Wisdom, J. 2015, AJ, 150, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/4/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/4/127 2015

  79. [79]

    A., Endl, M., & Cochran, W

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Endl, M., & Cochran, W. D. 2007, ApJ, 654, 625, doi: 10.1086/509110

    work page doi:10.1086/509110 2007

  80. [80]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3436 2020

Showing first 80 references.