Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 136 references

Extreme debris disks are mid-infrared fingerprints of violent Moon- to Mars-sized collisions that build rocky planets and later scramble their orbits.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 23:25 UTC pith:G7F52BXH

load-bearing objection Solid JWST expansion of the EDD sample with clean mineralogy metrics; the Mars/Moon and instability mappings are useful hypotheses, not yet secured diagnostics. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06684 v1 pith:G7F52BXH submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Extreme Debris Disks: Insights into Violent Collisions in Planet Formation and Destruction

Kate Y. L. Su , Attila Moor , Agnes Kospal , George H. Rieke , Antranik A. Sefilian , Renu Malhotra , Ilaria Pascucci , Alan P. Jackson
show 2 more authors
Peter Abraham Nicholas P. Ballering
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords extreme debris disksdebris disksplanet formationgiant impactsdust mineralogyinfrared variabilitysilicacrystalline silicates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper analyzes JWST and Spitzer mid-infrared spectra of 21 extreme debris disks and argues that three traits set them apart from ordinary protoplanetary and debris disks: far more optically thin, sub-micron dust; high levels of thermally altered silica and crystalline silicates; and stochastic infrared variability. Those traits together define EDDs as systems whose dust is produced by catastrophic collisions between bodies roughly the size of the Moon or Mars. Silica-rich systems track the most energetic embryo impacts that finish terrestrial planet assembly within a few hundred million years; silica-poor systems with especially large amounts of small grains may mark later dynamical instability. A reader who accepts the claim gains a practical spectroscopic diagnostic of the chaotic stages of rocky-planet formation and of mature systems still rearranging their architectures.

Core claim

EDDs contain significantly more optically thin, sub-micron, thermally altered grains—marked by elevated silica and crystalline silicates—than typical protoplanetary or debris disks. Together with stochastic infrared variability, these features define EDDs as a subclass whose dust is generated by large collisions between Moon- and Mars-sized bodies. Silica-rich systems preferentially trace energetic embryo impacts during terrestrial planet formation (mostly younger than ~300 Myr); silica-poor systems with very high 10 µm feature strength offer a potential marker of later orbital instability.

What carries the argument

Dust emissivity in the 10 µm region, quantified by feature strength W10, FWHM, and four dust indices (P10 and O10 for crystalline silicates; S10 and especially S10,s for silica), used to classify systems as silica-rich or silica-poor and to measure the mass of optically thin small grains.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping from silica-rich versus silica-poor mid-infrared indices to impact energy and body size (Mars-sized vaporizing collisions versus smaller or grazing events) assumes laboratory shock products and simple impact-debris statistics translate directly into the observed spectra without major rewriting by later grinding, radiation-pressure sorting, or grain porosity.

What would settle it

A clear detection of silica-rich EDDs around stars securely older than ~300 Myr, or a demonstration that ordinary debris disks share the same silica abundance and sub-micron grain populations as EDDs once measured the same way, would collapse the proposed energy–age–mineralogy link.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Silica-rich 10 µm signatures become a practical energy and age diagnostic for the final giant-impact phase of terrestrial planet formation.
  • EDDs older than ~300 Myr should be silica-poor and highly variable if they truly trace dynamical instability rather than ongoing planet assembly.
  • Mid-infrared monitoring of W10 and silica indices can flag planetary systems currently rearranging their architectures.
  • Impact simulations and laboratory shock products can be tested against observed mineralogical dichotomies, not only against total dust mass.
  • EDDs supply an observable counterpart to the architectural ‘breaking the chain’ process inferred from mature multi-planet systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A larger JWST sample of older EDDs could cleanly separate the terrestrial-formation and dynamical-instability channels and measure their relative rates.
  • If high-W10 silica-poor EDDs mark ‘breaking the chain,’ they should preferentially host residual planetesimals or non-resonant multi-planet systems accessible to transit and radial-velocity surveys.
  • Spectral decomposition of the 20 µm region can test the paper’s prediction that vapor-condensate silica lacks high-pressure polymorphs such as coesite and stishovite.
  • Wide, eccentric stellar companions may systematically elevate collisional rates, offering a demographic test once companion orbits are better constrained.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes JWST MIRI/MRS and Spitzer IRS mid-IR spectra of 21 extreme debris disks (EDDs). Using a uniform dust-emissivity approach in the 10 µm region (pseudocontinuum subtraction, W10, FWHM, and dust indices P10, O10, S10, S10,s calibrated against laboratory materials and prior silica-rich systems), the authors show that EDDs have elevated optically thin sub-micron grains and high crystallinity/silica relative to typical PPDs and DDs. They classify ~38% as silica-rich (S10,s > 2.98), document stochastic IR variability from WISE and multi-epoch 10/20 µm photometry, and interpret silica-rich systems as products of energetic Mars-sized embryo collisions during terrestrial planet formation (≲300 Myr) while high-W10 silica-poor systems as potential markers of later dynamical instability.

Significance. If the observational characterization holds, the work substantially enlarges the high-quality mid-IR sample of EDDs, provides a reproducible, laboratory-calibrated index framework for silica vs. crystalline silicate content, and supplies a concrete observational definition of EDDs (elevated W10, thermally altered grains, stochastic variability). The age and mineralogy trends offer a useful empirical bridge between impact simulations and exoplanetary systems. The mineralogy-to-impact-energy and high-W10-to-instability mappings remain interpretive, but the spectral reduction, index definitions, and multi-epoch variability analysis are carefully documented and falsifiable with larger samples.

major comments (2)
  1. Sections 3.2 and 4 (and Appendix B.3): The load-bearing interpretive step maps S10,s > 2.98 (silica-rich) to Mars-sized vaporizing collisions and high-W10 silica-poor systems to later dynamical instability. This rests on laboratory shock/annealing products and zero-order impact-simulation debris statistics translating directly into the observed mid-IR indices. Real grains are mixtures whose porosity, Fe/Mg, subsequent grinding, and radiation-pressure sorting can shift the same indices without a change in impact energy. The paper should either (i) present a quantitative forward model linking vapor-condensate vs. annealed debris to the measured indices and light-curve amplitudes, or (ii) clearly reframe these mappings as plausible but untested interpretations rather than demonstrated diagnostics, and state what observations would falsify them.
  2. Section 3.3 and Figure 4 vs. Figure C6 / Appendix C.1: The claimed factor-of-five higher variability for high-W10 (≳12.5 µm) systems appears only in relative flux (normalized to each system’s minimum disk flux), not in absolute dust cross-section ΔΣ. With only three systems older than ~300 Myr and a small high-W10 subsample, the age cut-off and the high-W10–instability link are under-constrained. The text should quantify the statistical significance of the W10 split (including sensitivity to the 12.5 µm cut), discuss selection/temperature biases that can decouple relative flux from ΔΣ, and soften the dynamical-instability claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. Appendix B.2 / Table 1: State explicitly how the two pseudocontinuum forms (blackbody combination vs. polynomial) are combined into the reported uncertainties, and whether the silica-rich classification of any edge-case object (e.g., HD 172555 with S10,s = 2.95 ± 0.23) flips under either choice.
  2. Figure 1 and Table A2: Several systems (J0609, J2301, V488 Per) have poor long-wavelength background subtraction; note more clearly which 20 µm features and cooler-temperature anchors are unreliable so readers do not over-interpret those panels.
  3. Section 3.1 / right panel of Figure 2: The statement that FWHM implies sub-micron grains in most EDDs should briefly address the known degeneracy with crystallinity (already noted in the text) so the grain-size claim is not overstated.
  4. Table 1 and Appendix C: For saturated WISE targets the variability is taken from Spitzer I2; a short note on absolute calibration consistency between the two instruments would help when comparing max/typ percentages across the sample.
  5. Minor presentation: standardize the silica-rich fraction notation (38+11/-9% vs. ~38%) and fix a few typographical inconsistencies (e.g., “PDDs” in the Figure 3 caption, “What Are Extreme Debris Disks?” running headers).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: dust indices and thresholds are calibrated on external laboratory spectra plus prior independent classifications; age/variability come from catalogs and multi-epoch photometry; mineralogy-to-impact mappings are interpretive, not definitional reductions.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.2 / Appendix B.2–B.3]
    "We used the JWST MIRI/MRS spectrum of LkCa 15 (K. Y. L. Su et al. 2025) as the pristine standard and computed the dust indices for three minerals: crystalline olivine (O10) and pyroxene (P10), and silica (S10)…"

    The reference emissivity used to normalize all dust indices is taken from a contemporaneous paper by the same lead author. While the choice is subsequently validated against independent ISM optical-depth profiles and laboratory materials (so the indices remain externally anchored), the pristine baseline itself is not an external, pre-existing standard; this is a minor self-citation that is not load-bearing for the silica-rich threshold or the main scientific claims.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical mid-IR spectral analysis of 21 EDDs. Dust emissivity, FWHM, W10, and the four indices (P10, O10, S10, S10,s) are computed from observed spectra after pseudocontinuum subtraction (Appendix B); the S10,s > 2.98 silica-rich threshold is set from the lowest laboratory silica-like S10,s value (shocked shergottite) plus previously published silica-rich systems, not from a fit that is then re-predicted. W10 and variability indicators (max/typ % and ΔΣ) are direct measurements; correlations with age and mineralogy are reported, not forced by construction. Self-citations (LkCa 15 pristine reference from Su et al. 2025; earlier Spitzer EDD classifications) supply a convenient standard and historical context but are cross-checked against ISM opacities, laboratory shock series (Morlok et al.), and independent PPD samples; they do not close a uniqueness or prediction loop. The Mars- vs Moon-sized and high-W10-to-instability claims remain under-constrained interpretations (as the skeptic notes) but are not circular reductions of inputs to outputs. Score 1 reflects only the minor self-citation of the pristine reference; the central observational results stand independently.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The observational measurements rest on standard radiative-transfer and laboratory dust-opacity assumptions. The interpretive leap from indices to impact physics and dynamical history introduces several free thresholds and domain assumptions drawn from impact simulations and prior spectral-decomposition studies; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • S10,s silica-rich threshold = 2.98
    Set at >2.98 by matching the lowest laboratory silica-like material and previously identified silica-rich systems; directly controls the 38% silica-rich fraction and subsequent age/mineralogy claims.
  • W10 high/low division = ~12.5 µm
    Empirical cut at ~12.5 µm used to claim that high-W10 systems are exclusively silica-poor and more variable; drives the dynamical-instability interpretation.
  • pseudocontinuum temperatures and anchor points = system-dependent
    Two-temperature blackbody or low-order polynomial anchors chosen by hand (median warm ~750 K, cool ~225 K); affect derived emissivity, FWHM, W10 and all dust indices.
  • integration half-width Δλ for dust indices = 0.182 µm
    Reduced by one-third relative to Watson et al. (2009) to minimize mineral overlap; changes absolute index values.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Dust emissivity Wλ = (Fλ − Fλ,c)/Fλ,c isolates composition of small grains once a pseudocontinuum is subtracted.
    Standard in mid-IR disk spectroscopy (Watson et al. 2009); invoked throughout Section 2.2 and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Silica-rich laboratory and previously classified systems provide a reliable absolute threshold for identifying silica-rich EDDs.
    Used in Appendix B.3 to set S10,s > 2.98; assumes lab grain sizes/porosities and prior spectral decompositions transfer to the EDD sample.
  • domain assumption Impact energy (hence vapor fraction and silica production) scales primarily with impactor mass (Mars-sized vs Moon-sized) and velocity, as indicated by existing hydrodynamical simulations.
    Central to the mineralogy–impact-size mapping in Section 4; drawn from cited works (Johnson, Davies, Cambioni, etc.).
  • ad hoc to paper High crystallinity observed in EDDs is generated by recent transient heating rather than inherited from the PPD phase.
    Stated in Section 5; justified by short grain lifetimes and absence of comparable crystallinity in ordinary DDs, but not independently measured.
  • domain assumption Radiation-pressure blow-out and collisional grinding do not erase the initial mineralogical imprint on the timescales sampled.
    Required for the claim that silica abundance records time since the giant impact (Section 4).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 47433 in / 3372 out tokens · 45042 ms · 2026-07-10T23:25:56.960202+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Debris disks are dusty structures around mature stars, primarily identified by infrared excesses in the stellar spectra. A subset, known as extreme debris disks (EDDs), exhibits stochastic infrared variability, believed to result from large-scale violent collisions that contribute to the formation or destruction of rocky planetary bodies. We analyze JWST and Spitzer mid-infrared spectra for 21 EDDs to investigate the connection between impact-produced dust mineralogy and the age and dynamical state of these systems during various stages of planet formation and evolution. Our findings indicate that EDDs contain significantly more optically thin, small dust grains compared to those typically seen in protoplanetary and debris disks. Predominantly submicron in size, these grains are thermally altered, as shown by their high levels of silica and crystalline silicate composition. Along with stochastic infrared variability, these features define EDDs as a subclass of debris systems where dust is generated from large collisions between Moon- and Mars-sized bodies. Our results not only provide diagnostic information about the physical conditions of violent events during terrestrial planet formation, aiding in differentiating the complex outcomes of these impacts, but also offer a potential marker for identifying planetary systems experiencing dynamical instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06684 by Agnes Kospal, Alan P. Jackson, Antranik A. Sefilian, Attila Moor, George H. Rieke, Ilaria Pascucci, Kate Y. L. Su, Nicholas P. Ballering, Peter Abraham, Renu Malhotra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Star-subtracted mid-infrared spectra of the EDDs are shown in black with error bars in gray. JWST MIRI/MRS spectra were binned to R ∼300 for clarity while Spitzer IRS spectra were shown in their native resolution. The two pseudo￾continua are shown in green (a combination of blackbody functions) and blue (a polynomial function). The wavelengths for prominent peaks of silica dust are marked on the top in red… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: EDD properties in the context of other disks – debris disks (DDs) and protoplanetary disks (PPDs). The left panel shows the evolution of warm dust in DDs, depicting the amount of dust as measured by 22/24 µmflux relative to the star adopted from C. H. Chen et al. 2020. This warm dust is largely depleted as stars age, except in EDDs (large symbols with horizontal bars indicating age uncertainties). The colo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dust indices in the 10 µm region: P10 and O10 (upper two panels) for crystalline silicates and S10 and S10,s (lower two panels) for silica, for EDDs and a selected sample of PDDs and DDs (smaller dots). The PPD indices from D. M. Watson et al. (2009) are shown in dark green and marked with upward arrows in the S10 panel since they were computed using a wider wavelength width (see Appendix B.2). Thin, red c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlation between the observed 4.6 µm disk variability (y-axis) and EDD properties: W10 (x-axis), im￾pact-dust mineralogy (red: silica-rich; orange: silica-poor), and multiplicity (crosses). Dividing EDDs by W10 shows a potential trend: high-W10 (≳12.5 µm) systems – exclusively silica-poor – tend to exhibit greater variability (a factor of ∼5), as indicated by the median values (green dashed lines). dice… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 10 µm feature strength (left) and abundance of silica dust (characterized by S10,s, right) are shown at three different stages of planet formation and evolution: giant planet formation, terrestrial planet formation, and the giant planet migration/orbital instability period, which are indicated at the top of each panel. Symbols and colors are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

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

136 extracted references · 136 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., & Purcell, E

    Aannestad, P. A., & Purcell, E. M. 1973, ARA&A, 11, 309, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.11.090173.001521

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.11.090173.001521 1973

  2. [2]

    2006, A&A, 455, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065697

    Alibert, Y., Baraffe, I., Benz, W., et al. 2006, A&A, 455, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065697

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065697 2006

  3. [3]

    J., Caballero, J

    Alonso-Floriano, F. J., Caballero, J. A., Cort´ es-Contreras, M., Solano, E., & Montes, D. 2015, A&A, 583, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526795 34Su et al. Figure C8.This figure shows the flux ratio between the previous 10/20µm photometry and the synthetic values derived from the JWST/MIRI/MRS spectra. The left panel displays the results for the VLT/VISI...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526795 2015

  4. [4]

    Armitage, P. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.11064, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.11064

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.11064 2024

  5. [5]

    2014, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 551, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124057

    Asphaug, E. 2014, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 551, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124057

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124057 2014

  6. [6]

    2013, Icarus, 223, 544, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.12.009

    Asphaug, E., & Reufer, A. 2013, Icarus, 223, 544, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.12.009 2013

  7. [7]

    P., Rieke, G

    Ballering, N. P., Rieke, G. H., & G´ asp´ ar, A. 2014, ApJ, 793, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/57 2014

  8. [8]

    L., Vink´ o, J., et al

    Balog, Z., Kiss, L. L., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1989, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1989

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1989 2009

  9. [9]

    A., Lisse, C

    Beichman, C. A., Lisse, C. M., Tanner, A. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/85

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/85 2011

  10. [10]

    P., & Brauer, F

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., & Brauer, F. 2010, A&A, 513, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913731

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913731 2010

  11. [11]

    F., & Norman, M

    Bottke, W. F., & Norman, M. D. 2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 619, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020131

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020131 2017

  12. [12]

    A., et al

    Bouwman, J., Henning, T., Hillenbrand, L. A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 479, doi: 10.1086/587793 Brice˜ no, C., & Tokovinin, A. 2017, AJ, 154, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8e9b What Are Extreme Debris Disks?35

    work page doi:10.1086/587793 2008

  13. [13]

    2023,, 1.12.5 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10022973

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023,, 1.12.5 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10022973

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10022973 2023

  14. [14]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e8a

    Cambioni, S., Asphaug, E., Emsenhuber, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e8a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e8a 2019

  15. [15]

    P., Asphaug, E., et al

    Cambioni, S., Weiss, B. P., Asphaug, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450128

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450128 2025

  16. [16]

    Stewart, S. T. 2015, ApJ, 813, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/72

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/72 2015

  17. [17]

    J., & Stewart, S

    Carter, P. J., & Stewart, S. T. 2020, PSJ, 1, 45, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abaecc

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abaecc 2020

  18. [18]

    Chambers, J. E. 2013, Icarus, 224, 43, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.015 2013

  19. [19]

    2025, A&A, 696, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553710

    Charalambous, C., Cuello, N., & Petrovich, C. 2025, A&A, 696, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553710

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553710 2025

  20. [20]

    H., Mamajek, E

    Chen, C. H., Mamajek, E. E., Bitner, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/122

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/2/122 2011

  21. [21]

    H., Mittal, T., Kuchner, M., et al

    Chen, C. H., Mittal, T., Kuchner, M., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/25 2014

  22. [22]

    H., Su, K

    Chen, C. H., Su, K. Y. L., & Xu, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 328, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1067-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1067-6 2020

  23. [23]

    H., Sargent, B

    Chen, C. H., Sargent, B. A., Bohac, C., et al. 2006, ApJs, 166, 351, doi: 10.1086/505751

    work page doi:10.1086/505751 2006

  24. [24]

    H., Li, A., Bohac, C., et al

    Chen, C. H., Li, A., Bohac, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 466, doi: 10.1086/519989

    work page doi:10.1086/519989 2007

  25. [25]

    2002, A&A, 391, 267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020791

    Sakamoto, D. 2002, A&A, 391, 267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020791

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020791 2002

  26. [26]

    Contardo, G., & Hogg, D. W. 2024, AJ, 168, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6b90 ´Cuk, M., Dones, L., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2016, ApJ, 820, 97, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6b90 2024

  27. [27]

    2024, AJ, 168, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6

    Dai, F., Goldberg, M., Batygin, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6 2024

  28. [28]

    J., Carter, P

    Davies, E. J., Carter, P. J., Root, S., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 125, e06227, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006227

    work page doi:10.1029/2019je006227 2020

  29. [29]

    2006, A&A, 448, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200600002 de Vries, B

    Davoisne, C., Djouadi, Z., Leroux, H., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200600002 de Vries, B. L., Skogby, H., Waters, L. B. F. M., & Min, M. 2018, Icarus, 307, 400, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.10.029

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200600002 2006

  30. [30]

    2024, PSJ, 5, 59, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad2178

    Emsenhuber, A., Asphaug, E., Cambioni, S., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 59, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad2178

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad2178 2024

  31. [31]

    2000, A&A, 364, 282

    Mutschke, H. 2000, A&A, 364, 282

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    2012, ApJL, 749, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/749/2/L29

    Fujiwara, H., Onaka, T., Yamashita, T., et al. 2012, ApJL, 749, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/749/2/L29

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/749/2/l29 2012

  33. [33]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1942

    Gaidos, E., Jacobs, T., LaCourse, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1942

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1942 2019

  34. [34]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/136 Gentile Fusillo, N

    Genda, H., Kobayashi, H., & Kokubo, E. 2015, ApJ, 810, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/136 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3016

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/136 2015

  35. [35]

    Ghosh, T., Chatterjee, S., & Lombardi, J. C. 2024, AJ, 168, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7d8a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7d8a 2024

  36. [36]

    2022, AJ, 163, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5961

    Goldberg, M., & Batygin, K. 2022, AJ, 163, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5961

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5961 2022

  37. [37]

    Goldberg, M., & Petit, A. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11329, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11329

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11329 2025

  38. [38]

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

    Gomes, R., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2005, Nature, 435, 466, doi: 10.1038/nature03676

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03676 2005

  39. [39]

    H., et al

    Gorlova, N., Balog, Z., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 516, doi: 10.1086/521671

    work page doi:10.1086/521671 2007

  40. [40]

    H., & Schlaufman, K

    Hamer, J. H., & Schlaufman, K. C. 2024, AJ, 167, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad110e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad110e 2024

  41. [41]

    Hansen, B. M. S. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2847

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2847 2023

  42. [42]

    Woodward, C. E. 2023, PSJ, 4, 242, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad0382

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad0382 2023

  43. [43]

    D., & L´ epine, S

    Hartman, Z. D., & L´ epine, S. 2020, ApJS, 247, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab79a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab79a6 2020

  44. [44]

    M., Morrison, S

    Hazen, R. M., Morrison, S. M., Prabhu, A., Walter, M. J., & Williams, J. R. 2023, American Mineralogist, 108, 1620, doi: 10.2138/am-2022-8539

    work page doi:10.2138/am-2022-8539 2023

  45. [45]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac675 2022

  46. [46]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Ogihara, M., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1232

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1232 2017

  47. [47]

    MNRAS , author =

    Jackson, A. P., & Wyatt, M. C. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 657, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21546.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21546.x 2012

  48. [48]

    Jang, H., Waters, R., Kamp, I., & Dullemond, C. P. 2024a, A&A, 687, A275, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348630

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348630

  49. [49]

    2024b, A&A, 691, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451589

    Jang, H., Waters, R., Kaeufer, T., et al. 2024b, A&A, 691, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451589

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451589

  50. [50]

    Stock, D. J. 2022, A&A, 665, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141511

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141511 2022

  51. [51]

    C., & Melosh, H

    Johnson, B. C., & Melosh, H. J. 2012, Icarus, 217, 416, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.11.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.11.020 2012

  52. [52]

    C., & Melosh, H

    Johnson, B. C., & Melosh, H. J. 2014, Icarus, 228, 347, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.022 2014

  53. [53]

    C., Minton, D

    Johnson, B. C., Minton, D. A., Melosh, H. J., & Zuber, M. T. 2015, Nature, 517, 339, doi: 10.1038/nature14105

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14105 2015

  54. [54]

    C., Lisse, C

    Johnson, B. C., Lisse, C. M., Chen, C. H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/45 36Su et al. Juh´ asz, A., Henning, T., Bouwman, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1024, doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/695/2/102410.48550/arXiv.0902.0405 Juh´ asz, A., Bouwman, J., Henning, T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 431, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/431

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/1/45 2012

  55. [55]

    Kaeufer, T., Min, M., Woitke, P., Kamp, I., & Arabhavi, A. M. 2024, A&A, 687, A209, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449936

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449936 2024

  56. [56]

    J., & Tielens, A

    Kemper, F., Vriend, W. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2004, ApJ, 609, 826, doi: 10.1086/421339

    work page doi:10.1086/421339 2004

  57. [57]

    M., Kenworthy, M

    Kennedy, G. M., Kenworthy, M. A., Pepper, J., et al. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160652, doi: 10.1098/rsos.160652

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.160652 2017

  58. [58]

    M., & Wyatt, M

    Kennedy, G. M., & Wyatt, M. C. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt900

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt900 2013

  59. [59]

    M., & Wyatt, M

    Kennedy, G. M., & Wyatt, M. C. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1665

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1665 2014

  60. [60]

    M., Murphy, S

    Kennedy, G. M., Murphy, S. J., Lisse, C. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2435

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2435 2014

  61. [61]

    M., Ginski, C., Kenworthy, M

    Kennedy, G. M., Ginski, C., Kenworthy, M. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L75, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa092

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa092 2020

  62. [62]

    2023, Nature, 622, 251, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06573-9

    Kenworthy, M., Lock, S., Kennedy, G., et al. 2023, Nature, 622, 251, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06573-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06573-9 2023

  63. [63]

    J., & Bromley, B

    Kenyon, S. J., & Bromley, B. C. 2005, AJ, 130, 269, doi: 10.1086/430461

    work page doi:10.1086/430461 2005

  64. [64]

    P., et al

    Kessler-Silacci, J., Augereau, J.-C., Dullemond, C. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 275, doi: 10.1086/499330

    work page doi:10.1086/499330 2006

  65. [65]

    2003, A&A, 399, 1101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021831

    Koike, C., Chihara, H., Tsuchiyama, A., et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 1101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021831

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021831 2003

  66. [66]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/60

    Koike, C., Noguchi, R., Chihara, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/60 2013

  67. [67]

    G., Stewart, S

    Kraus, R. G., Stewart, S. T., Swift, D. C., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 117, E09009, doi: 10.1029/2012JE004082

    work page doi:10.1029/2012je004082 2012

  68. [68]

    2003, The physics of interstellar dust

    Kruegel, E. 2003, The physics of interstellar dust

    work page 2003

  69. [69]

    R., Argyriou, I., Gordon, K

    Law, D. R., Argyriou, I., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9685

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9685 2025

  70. [70]

    J., Spoon, H

    Lebouteiller, V., Barry, D. J., Spoon, H. W. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/8 2011

  71. [71]

    E., & Rasio, F

    Li, J., O’Connor, C. E., & Rasio, F. A. 2026, ApJL, 998, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3a9a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3a9a 2026

  72. [72]

    P., Zhao, G., & Li, A

    Li, M. P., Zhao, G., & Li, A. 2007, MNRAS, 382, L26, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00382.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00382.x 2007

  73. [73]

    2025, AJ, 169, 323, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adce0c

    Li, R., Chiang, E., Choksi, N., & Dai, F. 2025, AJ, 169, 323, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adce0c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adce0c 2025

  74. [74]

    M., Carpenter, J

    Lieman-Sifry, J., Hughes, A. M., Carpenter, J. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 25, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/25

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/25 2016

  75. [75]

    M., Chen, C

    Lisse, C. M., Chen, C. H., Wyatt, M. C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 2019, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/2019 2009

  76. [76]

    M., Meng, H

    Lisse, C. M., Meng, H. Y. A., Sitko, M. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b80

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b80 2020

  77. [77]

    N., & Jacobson, S

    Liu, B., Raymond, S. N., & Jacobson, S. A. 2022, Nature, 604, 643, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04535-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04535-1 2022

  78. [78]

    2006, Nature, 441, 305, doi: 10.1038/nature04828 Matr` a, L., Marino, S., Wilner, D

    Lovis, C., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., et al. 2006, Nature, 441, 305, doi: 10.1038/nature04828 Matr` a, L., Marino, S., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451397

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/nature04828 2006

  79. [79]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2603

    Melis, C., Olofsson, J., Song, I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2603

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2603 2021

  80. [80]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, in

    Melis, C., Olofsson, J., Song, I., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, in. prep

    work page 2026

Showing first 80 references.