Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

There and back again: the quasi-interstellar objects

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Solar System ejecta that return as quasi-interstellar objects are rare, slow, and easily told apart from true Galactic ISOs.

desk verdict Quasi-ISOs are a real, kinematically distinct foreground that is rare and slow; absolute rates are uncertain but the distinguishability claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.04216 v1 pith:ABPGR2BF submitted 2026-07-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.EP

John C. Forbes , Michele T. Bannister , Chris Lintott , Matthew J. Hopkins This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.EP
keywords interstellarobjectsOortcloudquasi-interstellarGalacticdynamicsdynamicalheatinghyperbolicorbitsSolarSystemsmallbodies
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

Upcoming surveys will find many interstellar objects, raising the worry that some of them are simply Solar System debris that left and came back. This paper asks whether small bodies unbound from the outer Oort cloud can orbit in the Galactic potential and re-enter the inner Solar System on hyperbolic trajectories. Using test-particle bursts launched at different lookback times, evolved under smooth and heated Galactic potentials, and reweighted by several Oort-cloud erosion histories, the authors find that only recent outer-Oort losses (roughly the last few hundred million years, excluding the last ~10 Myr) can produce returners. Those returners, which they call quasi-interstellar objects, arrive with excess speeds of order 0.1 km/s and from preferred directions near the Galactic plane. Because those speeds and sky positions differ sharply from the expected distribution of true interstellar objects, the sample that surveys will collect can be treated as genuinely Galactic. A confirmed quasi-ISO would itself be informative: it would signal either larger Oort losses than currently assumed or a major flyby tens to hundreds of Myr ago that no other tracer can recover.

What carries the argument

Burst-ejection test-particle integrations of Solar System ISOs, evolved under white-noise, correlated, or no dynamical heating in a Galactic potential, then convolved with Oort-cloud loss-rate models (exponentials, flyby Monte Carlo, and N-body ejection timings) to obtain present-day re-encounter rates and v_∞ distributions.

What would settle it

A clear detection of an unbound small body with v_∞ of order 0.1 km s^{-1} arriving near the Galactic-plane intersections at Galactic longitudes ~−45° and +135°, or a measured rate of such objects that exceeds roughly one per decade within 5 au.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Quasi-interstellar objects—Solar System planetesimals that leave through outer Oort-cloud erosion and later re-encounter the Sun—are intrinsically rare, carry hyperbolic excess velocities of order 0.1 km s^{-1}, and arrive from restricted sky patches near the Galactic plane. Early, high-volume ejections are too dispersed to contribute, so the observed interstellar-object sample will remain a clean Galactic population.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute number of returners scales directly with how many outer Oort-cloud objects were lost in the past half-billion years, a quantity that differs by factors of tens depending on whether one normalizes to today’s long-period comets or to the interstellar-object density per star.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines quasi-interstellar objects (quasi-ISOs) as planetesimals unbound from the Solar System (primarily via outer Oort-cloud erosion over the past few hundred Myr) that later re-encounter the inner Solar System after orbiting in the Galactic potential. Using suites of test-particle burst simulations in a smooth MilkyWay2014 potential plus white-noise, correlated (Ornstein–Uhlenbeck), or no dynamical heating, the authors compute re-encounter rates via an importance-sampled flux estimator restricted to incoming trajectories and gravitational focusing (Eqs. 6–11). Convolving with exponential, Nesvorný et al. (2023), and Monte-Carlo flyby erosion histories, they conclude that quasi-ISOs are rare (re-encounter probability ≲3×10^{-14} yr^{-1} per ISO), arrive with v_∞ of order 0.1 km s^{-1}, and occupy preferred radiants near the Galactic plane at ℓ≈−45°/+135°, rendering them kinematically distinct from true Galactic ISOs.

Significance. If the kinematic conclusions hold, the work cleanly removes a potential local foreground for the ISO samples expected from LSST and similar surveys, confirming that the observed population will be Galactic rather than Solar-System-derived. Strengths include a carefully constructed encounter-rate estimator that correctly excludes outgoing particles, systematic exploration of heating models and ejection geometries (isotropic vs. midplane-flattened), and falsifiable predictions for v_∞ distributions and on-sky radiants (Figs. 6–9). Absolute rates remain order-of-magnitude uncertain, but the distinguishability result is robust across the model suite and does not rely on the absolute normalization.

major comments (2)
  1. §3 and Fig. 5: Absolute quasi-ISO rates scale directly with the highly uncertain number of Oort-cloud objects lost in the past ~0.5 Gyr. The two normalizations (present-day long-period-comet rate vs. ISO number density per star) differ by factors of tens, and the Monte-Carlo flyby model requires an ad-hoc σ_H=1.1 dex scatter (Eq. 20) to match the other erosion histories. While this does not move objects into the kinematic domain of true ISOs, the paper’s claim that quasi-ISOs are “intrinsically rare” relative to the expected ISO detection rate should be accompanied by an explicit sensitivity table or shaded band spanning the full normalization range, rather than two discrete point sets.
  2. §2.1.2 and Eq. 4: The correlated-heating model enforces spatial correlation only between each ISO and the Sun (via β), neglecting correlations among nearby ISOs when they are far from the Sun. Because most returning particles never travel far (Fig. 2), the approximation may be adequate, but a short test with a fully pairwise correlated realization (or an analytic estimate of the neglected term) is needed to confirm that the v_∞ peak near 0.2 km s^{-1} and the re-encounter probability remain unchanged.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 1 caption: the acceleration-line scales differ by column; a single colorbar or explicit scale factors would aid comparison.
  2. §2.2, Eq. 11: the expression for sin θ_c mixes v and v_∞; a brief intermediate step clarifying the hyperbolic angular-momentum identity would improve readability.
  3. Appendix sky maps (Figs. 8–9): the median lookback time ˜t is useful; adding the corresponding fractional contribution to the total rate would help the reader judge which panels dominate the stacked prediction.
  4. References: the Hanse et al. (2018) power-law fit is central; a short note on its domain of validity (mass, impact parameter, velocity) would be helpful given the extrapolation to rare slow encounters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: quasi-ISO rates, v_∞ and radiants are outputs of independent N-body integrations convolved with external erosion models; self-citations supply only methods/context.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained simulation science. Burst ejections are integrated forward under three heating prescriptions (white-noise, correlated OU, none) whose parameters are fixed by the observed AVR or by GMC surface-density arguments, not by any quasi-ISO observable. Re-encounter rates are computed from the resulting phase-space density via importance sampling on a 0.1 pc sphere (Eqs. 6–11); the only free normalizations are the two literature Oort-cloud inventories (Boe et al. 2019 vs. ISO number density), which the paper displays separately rather than fitting. Convolution with dN_ej/dt uses external sources (Nesvorný et al. 2023 ejection times, Hanse et al. 2018 flyby-loss formula, exponential loss timescales). The kinematic claim (v_∞ ~ 0.1 km s^{-1}, polar/mid-plane radiants) follows directly from the low ejection speeds of outer-Oort objects and the epicyclic return geometry; it is recovered across all heating and geometry variants and is not forced by any fitted parameter of the present work. Self-citations (Forbes et al. 2025 stream density, KDE method; Hopkins et al. 2025a ISO velocity model) supply context or comparison distributions and are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems. Absolute-rate uncertainty is acknowledged and does not circularly produce the distinguishability result. Score 1 only for the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations of methods.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Galactic dynamics plus several modeling choices for heating, ejection geometry, and Oort-cloud loss history. Absolute rates further depend on two discrepant normalizations of the Oort-cloud inventory. No new physical entities beyond the named population are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • σ_ej (ejection velocity dispersion) = 0.1 or 1 km s^{-1}
    Set by hand to 0.1 or 1 km s^{-1}; the lower value dominates the quasi-ISO rate and is motivated by outer-Oort-cloud orbital speeds.
  • τ, r_corr (correlated-heating timescale and length) = 17 Myr, 170 pc
    Chosen to match a simple GMC-encounter picture (τ=17 Myr, r_corr=170 pc); control the spatial-temporal correlation of kicks.
  • σ_H (flyby-loss scatter) = 1.1 dex
    Ad-hoc 1.1 dex Gaussian scatter added to the Hanse et al. (2018) power-law loss fraction so that Monte-Carlo flybys match other erosion models over 4.5 Gyr.
  • N_Oort normalizations (OC Norm vs ISO Norm) = 5e12 (present) vs ~5e14 (birth)
    Two external anchors (Boe et al. 2019 long-period-comet rate vs. ISO number density per star) that differ by factors of tens and move all absolute rates along a 1:1 line.
  • t_loss (exponential Oort-cloud lifetime) = 3–13 Gyr
    Scanned over 3–13 Gyr literature range for the smooth baseline erosion model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MilkyWay2014 smooth potential plus additive stochastic heating (white-noise or OU) adequately captures the relevant Galactic dynamics for ~Gyr streams near the Sun.
    Used throughout Section 2; spiral arms and full ISM structure are neglected.
  • domain assumption Oort-cloud losses can be treated as a time-dependent ejection rate that multiplies the single-burst return probability (Eq. 16).
    Core of Section 3; assumes no re-capture or strong correlations between successive flybys beyond the product of survival fractions.
  • ad hoc to paper Ejections at 1.5 pc with purely radial initial velocity plus isotropic (or midplane-flattened) Gaussian kicks represent the unbound population that can return.
    Initial-condition choice in Section 2; motivated by the Hill radius and Nesvorný et al. late-time geometry.
  • domain assumption The Hanse et al. (2018) power-law loss fraction, after ad-hoc scatter, plus spectral-type encounter rates, gives a usable Monte-Carlo erosion history.
    Section 3; authors note that uncertainties in Oort-cloud orbital-element distribution dominate.
invented entities (1)
  • quasi-interstellar objects (quasi-ISOs)
    purpose: Name and isolate the Solar-System-origin foreground that can re-encounter after Galactic orbits.
    Defined by dynamical origin rather than a new force or particle; the paper’s predictions (low v_∞, preferred radiants, rarity) supply falsifiable handles once surveys deliver large samples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of There and back again: the quasi-interstellar objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABPGR2BF

@misc{pith2026260704216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: There and back again: the quasi-interstellar objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABPGR2BF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04216}
}
abstract

A population of interstellar objects (ISOs) exist that originate from the Solar System, rather than from other stars. Such a foreground could challenge straightforward analysis of the ISO sample expected to be gathered by upcoming sky surveys. We assess whether small bodies unbound from the Solar System can experience dynamical evolution in the Galactic potential that places them on re-encounter trajectories. We find that these 'quasi-interstellar objects' (quasi-ISOs) primarily depart the Solar System through erosion of the outer Oort cloud in the past few hundred Myr, excluding the most recent ~10 Myr. After orbiting in the Milky Way potential nearby the Sun but beyond the tidal radius, those ejected on certain orbits can re-encounter the Solar System. Meanwhile, the larger population of ISOs produced by the Solar System early in its life will be too spread-out in the Galaxy to contribute significantly to the observed sample. We predict that quasi-ISOs will be intrinsically rare and have $v_\infty$ values of order 0.1 km s$^{-1}$, easily distinguishable from ISOs from other stars, meaning that the observed ISO sample will be truly Galactic. The detection of a quasi-ISO would imply larger-than-expected losses from the Oort cloud, or a particularly catastrophic erosion event 10-300 Myr ago that would not be detectable any other way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dynamical heating models. Each panel shows 100 particles from a stream evolved under the given heating model over 30 Myr. Particles are shown in coordinates centered on the Sun (yellow star). The tails on each point show the negative direction of acceleration felt by the particle, relative to the Sun’s acceleration from the Galaxy’s background potential. The streamlines in each panel show the smooth potential’s … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quasi-ISO trajectories. Individual trajectories are shown in a frame comoving with the Sun (located at the origin). ISOs that are ejected from the Solar System and return (to within 1.5 pc) are shown in color, while the gray lines show ISOs that do not return. Distance to the camera is encoded in the thickness and transparency of the lines, and the terminal points where the particles re-enter the 1.5 pc sphere are s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The re-encounter probability. For each single-burst simulation, we compute the probability per year at the present day that a random ISO will re-encounter the Solar System with a pericenter less than 5 au. The bold lines show the σej = 0.1 km s−1 case, which is almost always much higher than the faster-ejection case of σej = 1 km s−1 . White noise heating produces encounters only when the ejection event was within t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Models of Oort cloud erosion. The number of objects in the Oort cloud normalized to its value near the birth of the Solar system. N23 refers to the D. Nesvorn´y et al. (2023) simulation. et al. 2009), are all subdominant relative to uncertain￾ties in the J. Hanse et al…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Predicted quasi-ISO rates. The y-axis shows our predictions for the present-day rate of quasi-ISOs entering the inner Solar system (pericenters < 5 au), compared against the number of Oort cloud objects ejected over the past 500 Myr. Each set of colored points correspo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Excess velocity distributions. Each line represents the predicted excess velocity distribution of quasi-ISOs for a particular Oort cloud erosion history, with the different colors representing different heating models. The realistic correlated heating models predict v∞…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quasi-ISO properties for the most realistic model: correlated heating with a flattened ejection distribution at σej = 0.1 km s−1 and timing set by the D. Nesvorn´y et al. (2023) simulation. The quasi-ISOs are dramatically different from the population of ISOs from othe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: On-sky distribution for the correlated heating case. Each sky map shows the predicted distribution of incoming radiants on the sky for the quasi-ISOs subject to different Oort cloud erosion models. In each map, we show the North and South Galactic Pole, a great circle …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: On-sky distribution for the correlated heating with flattened ejection case. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Capture of interstellar objects during stellar encounters

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stellar flybys can capture interstellar objects into a star's outer Oort cloud, with the Sun likely catching a few tens of thousands of 'Oumuamua-sized ISOs this way.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    T., Forbes, J

    Albrow, L., Bannister, M. T., Forbes, J. C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.04700, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.04700 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/153...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.04700 2025

  2. [2]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2022, ApJL, 935, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac816a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac816a 2022

  3. [3]

    2018, A&A, 616, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833456

    Fouesneau, M. 2018, A&A, 616, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833456

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833456 2018

  4. [4]

    E., & Stagg, C

    Bailey, M. E., & Stagg, C. R. 1988, MNRAS, 235, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/235.1.1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/235.1.1 1988

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Boe, B., Jedicke, R., Meech, K. J., et al. 2019, Icarus, 333, 252, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.05.034

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.05.034 2019

  6. [6]

    G., & Martig, M

    Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Martig, M. 2009, ApJL, 707, L1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/L1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/l1 2009

  7. [7]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 de la Fuente Marcos, C., de la Fuente Marcos, R., &

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 de la Fuente Marcos, C., de la Fuente Marcos, R., &

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  8. [8]

    Aarseth, S. J. 2018, MNRAS, 476, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly019

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly019 2018

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4720, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1726

    Dehnen, W., & Hasanuddin. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4720, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1726

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Tonry, J

    Do, A., Tucker, M. A., & Tonry, J. 2018, ApJL, 855, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaae67

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    R., Levison, H

    Dones, L., Weissman, P. R., Levison, H. F., & Duncan, M. J. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. Weaver, 153

    2004

  4. [12]

    C., Hopkins, M

    Dorsey, R. C., Hopkins, M. J., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 214, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/adf8ca

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    1987, AJ, 94, 1330, doi: 10.1086/114571

    Duncan, M., Quinn, T., & Tremaine, S. 1987, AJ, 94, 1330, doi: 10.1086/114571

    1987 doi

  6. [14]

    2017, AJ, 153, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5c8a

    Engelhardt, T., Jedicke, R., Vereˇ s, P., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5c8a

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Feng, F., & Jones, H. R. A. 2018, ApJL, 852, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa404

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Rickman, H., & West, R

    Festou, M. C., Rickman, H., & West, R. M. 1993, A&A Rv, 5, 37, doi: 10.1007/BF00872923 Flammini Dotti, F., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Berczik, P.,

    1993 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, A&A, 693, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452441

    Shu, Q., & Spurzem, R. 2025, A&A, 693, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452441

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    2012, ApJ, 754, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/48

    Forbes, J., Krumholz, M., & Burkert, A. 2012, ApJ, 754, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/48

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a43

    Patterson, J. 2026, ApJ, 998, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a43

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Bannister, M

    Forbes, J. C., Bannister, M. T., Lintott, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc9ac

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    C., & Loeb, A

    Forbes, J. C., & Loeb, A. 2019, ApJL, 875, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab158f

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 Garc´ ıa-S´ anchez, J., Weissman, P

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 Garc´ ıa-S´ anchez, J., Weissman, P. R., Preston, R. A., et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 634, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011330 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, ...

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    O., & Dehnen, W

    Hands, T. O., & Dehnen, W. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L59, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz186

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    F., & Pelupessy, F

    Hanse, J., J´ ılkov´ a, L., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Pelupessy, F. I. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2721

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    1986, Icarus, 65, 13, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90060-6

    Heisler, J., & Tremaine, S. 1986, Icarus, 65, 13, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90060-6

    1986 doi

  19. [27]

    Heyer, M., & Dame, T. M. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 583, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3153

    Higuchi, A., & Kokubo, E. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3153

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Hills, J. G. 1981, AJ, 86, 1730, doi: 10.1086/113058

    1981 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Schon, T

    Hol, J. D., Schon, T. B., & Gustafsson, F. 2006, in 2006 IEEE Nonlinear Statistical Signal Processing Workshop (IEEE), 26, doi: 10.1109/NSSPW.2006.4378824

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    2009, A&A, 501, 941, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811191

    Holmberg, J., Nordstr¨ om, B., & Andersen, J. 2009, A&A, 501, 941, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811191

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Bannister, M

    Hopkins, M. J., Bannister, M. T., & Lintott, C. 2025a, AJ, 169, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9eb3

    doi

  25. [33]

    J., Dorsey, R

    Hopkins, M. J., Dorsey, R. C., Forbes, J. C., et al. 2025b, ApJL, 990, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfbf4

    doi

  26. [34]

    2026, AJ, 171, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae3566

    Huang, Y., Gladman, B., & Kokubo, E. 2026, AJ, 171, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae3566

    2026 doi

  27. [35]

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

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    2025, Icarus, 429, 116443, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116443 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Inno, L., Scuderi, M., Bertini, I., et al. 2025, Icarus, 429, 116443, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116443 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    2003, Earth Moon and Planets, 92, 465, doi: 10.1023/B:MOON.0000031961.88202.60

    Jewitt, D. 2003, Earth Moon and Planets, 92, 465, doi: 10.1023/B:MOON.0000031961.88202.60

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    A., & Raymond, S

    Kaib, N. A., & Raymond, S. N. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.25069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.25069 Quasi-ISOs19

    2026 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    A., Roˇ skar, R., & Quinn, T

    Kaib, N. A., Roˇ skar, R., & Quinn, T. 2011, Icarus, 215, 491, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.07.037

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.02050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2106.02050 Kr´ olikowska, M

    Kamdar, H., Conroy, C., & Ting, Y.-S. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.02050, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2106.02050 Kr´ olikowska, M. 2014, A&A, 567, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323263 Kr´ olikowska, M. 2020, A&A, 633, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936316

    2021 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    T., & Mackereth, J

    Lintott, C., Bannister, M. T., & Mackereth, J. T. 2022, ApJL, 924, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac41d5

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, A&A, 694, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452061

    Maconi, E., Alves, J., Swiggum, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452061

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    A., & Chapman, R

    McGlynn, T. A., & Chapman, R. D. 1989, ApJL, 346, L105, doi: 10.1086/185590

    1989 doi

  36. [44]

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

    Meech, K. J., Weryk, R., Micheli, M., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 378, doi: 10.1038/nature25020

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Hamilton, C., & Tremaine, S

    Modak, S., Ostriker, E. C., Hamilton, C., & Tremaine, S. 2026, ApJ, 999, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3bd4

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    Monk, H., & Seligman, D. Z. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag345

    2026 doi

  39. [47]

    Morbidelli, A., Batygin, K., Brasser, R., & Raymond, S. N. 2020, MNRAS, 497, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa111 Moro-Mart´ ın, A. 2018, ApJ, 866, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf34 Moro-Mart´ ın, A. 2019, AJ, 157, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafda6

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Adams, F

    Napier, K. J., Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2021a, PSJ, 2, 53, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abe76e/53

    doi

  41. [49]

    J., Adams, F

    Napier, K. J., Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2021b, PSJ, 2, 217, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac29bb Nesvorn´ y, D., Bernardinelli, P., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., &

    doi

  42. [50]

    2023, Icarus, 406, 115738, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115738

    Batygin, K. 2023, Icarus, 406, 115738, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115738

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.07187, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.07187 ’Oumuamua ISSI Team, Bannister, M

    Opitom, C., Manfroid, J., Hutsem´ ekers, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.07187, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.07187 ’Oumuamua ISSI Team, Bannister, M. T., Bhandare, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 594, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0816-x

    2026 doi

  44. [52]

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

    Pfalzner, S., Aizpuru Vargas, L. L., Bhandare, A., & Veras, D. 2021, A&A, 651, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140587 Portegies Zwart, S. 2021, A&A, 647, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038888 Portegies Zwart, S., & Huang, S. 2025, A&A, 698, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554855

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, in 2020 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), IEEE, 1–8

    Rackauckas, C., & Nie, Q. 2020, in 2020 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), IEEE, 1–8

    2020

  46. [54]

    N., Armitage, P

    Raymond, S. N., Armitage, P. J., Veras, D., Quintana, E. V., & Barclay, T. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty468

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    Rickman, H., Fouchard, M., Froeschl´ e, C., & Valsecchi, G. B. 2008, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 102, 111, doi: 10.1007/s10569-008-9140-y

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    1976a, Icarus, 27, 123, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90189-5

    Sekanina, Z. 1976a, Icarus, 27, 123, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90189-5

    doi

  49. [57]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Stern, S. A. 1990, PASP, 102, 793, doi: 10.1086/132704

    1990 doi

  51. [59]

    2026, A&A, 708, A301, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554978

    Torres, S. 2026, A&A, 708, A301, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554978

    2026 doi

  52. [60]

    X., Brown, A

    Torres, S., Cai, M. X., Brown, A. G. A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2019, A&A, 629, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935330

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    E., & Ornstein, L

    Uhlenbeck, G. E., & Ornstein, L. S. 1930, Physical Review, 36, 823, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.36.823

    1930 doi

  54. [62]

    1999, Icarus, 137, 84, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.6040

    Wiegert, P., & Tremaine, S. 1999, Icarus, 137, 84, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.6040

    1999 doi

  55. [63]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 4485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2067

    Spurzem, R. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2067

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Wu, K., Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Spurzem, R., & Pang, X. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1673

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2026, Nature Communications, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-72646-8

    Zhao, S., Shi, X., Lei, H., Hui, M.-T., & Shi, J. 2026, Nature Communications, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-72646-8

    2026 doi

  58. [66]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.