Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 8 minor 53 references

Debris Disc Substructures Induced by Secular Planetary Perturbations

T0 review · 1 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Planet-induced density waves in debris discs trace unseen planets

desk verdict Solid analytical work on debris disc substructure with one testable gap in the observational claims read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08750 v1 pith:ILAKSHXF submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.EP

Roman R. Rafikov , Deniz Akansoy , Antranik A. Sefilian This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords debrisdiscsecularperturbationplanetarydynamicssurfacedensityexoplanetdetectioncelestialmechanicssubstructureplanet-discinteraction
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

When a planet on an eccentric orbit sits inside a debris disc, its gravity slowly winds up the eccentricities of debris particles over millions of years. This paper shows that this process imprints a characteristic pattern of sharp peaks and steps into the disc's azimuthally-averaged surface density (ASD) — the radial density profile that observers routinely extract from images. The peaks appear at radii where particle eccentricities momentarily drop to zero, and the steps appear where particle orbits pile up at their closest or farthest points from the star. Crucially, the radial locations of these peaks follow a precise geometric progression scaling as (t/k)^(2/7), where t is the system age and k is an integer counting peaks from the outside in. This pattern is a fingerprint of secular planetary perturbation and nothing else, so detecting it in a debris disc would point to an unseen planet and immediately constrain the combination of planetary mass and semi-major axis. The authors build an analytical theory of how these features form and evolve, verify it with a new public numerical tool, and show that even after the smoothing effects of finite telescope resolution and random particle eccentricities, the features should remain detectable in high-resolution observations. They further argue that even a non-detection is informative: it rules out planets in a well-defined region of parameter space.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the secular precession of debris particle eccentricities driven by an interior planet. Each particle's eccentricity oscillates in time at a rate proportional to a^(-7/2), passing through zero at semi-major axes a_k that march outward as the system ages. The ASD is computed via an exact integral (Equation 14) that sums contributions from all particle orbits crossing a given radius, with the integrand controlled by the interplay between the eccentricity profile e(a) and a geometric function κ(r,a) = |1 − r/a|. Peaks arise where e(a) vanishes (eccentricity nulls) and the parameter ζ_k — the ratio of eccentricity gradient to κ-gradient at the null — exceeds unity. Jumps,

What would settle it

If the random eccentricity dispersion of debris particles is comparable to or larger than the forced eccentricity from the planet, the sharp ASD peaks and jumps predicted by the theory would be washed out below the detection threshold, making the predicted (t/k)^(2/7) spacing pattern unobservable and undermining the planet-constraining claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Secular perturbation by an inner planet on an eccentric orbit produces a train of density peaks in a debris disc's azimuthally-averaged surface density at radii a_k = a_in × (t / t_sec × k)^(2/7), and the detection or non-detection of this pattern constrains the perturbing planet's mass, semi-major axis, and eccentricity.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical theory assumes that every debris particle at a given orbital distance has a single, deterministic eccentricity value set by secular evolution alone, with no random scatter. Real debris discs have eccentricity dispersions from self-stirring, collisions, and gravitational stirring by embedded bodies, which the paper handles only by post-hoc smoothing of the idealized result rather than by incorporating the dispersion into the core calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observing a sequence of density peaks in a debris disc following the (t/k)^(2/7) spacing rule would provide a mass-times-semi-major-axis-squared measurement of an unseen planet, independent of direct imaging.
  • Combining the secular ASD constraint on M_p × a_p^2 with a stellar radial-velocity or astrometric acceleration measurement (which constrains M_p / a_p^2) would uniquely determine the planet's mass and orbital distance.
  • A non-detection of secular ASD features in a well-resolved disc excludes planets in a calculable region of the (M_p × a_p^2, e_p × a_p) parameter space, guiding target selection for direct imaging campaigns.
  • Narrow debris rings observed with ALMA or JWST that show skewed or multi-peaked radial profiles may be explained by a single interior planet rather than requiring multiple distinct planetesimal belts.
  • The publicly released DebrisPy tool enables forward-modeling of ASD profiles for any assumed eccentricity distribution, allowing observers to test planetary hypotheses against measured radial density profiles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If multiple planets orbit interior to a debris disc, their combined secular perturbations could produce eccentricity profiles with more complex null patterns, potentially breaking the clean (t/k)^(2/7) spacing rule — the absence of this rule in observed discs might itself signal multi-planet architecture.
  • The pedestal overlap phenomenon at high null order suggests that very old or very massive planets could produce discs with featureless inner regions but structured outer regions, creating a radial gradient of secular signature visibility that evolves with system age.
  • If future high-resolution surveys of debris discs systematically fail to find the predicted peak spacing pattern, this would either imply that most debris discs are not secularly perturbed by interior planets on eccentric orbits, or that collisional and stirring processes randomize eccentricities faster than secular oscillations can organize them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the azimuthally-averaged surface density (ASD) of a debris disc secularly perturbed by an inner planet. Building on the exact analytical framework of Rafikov (2023), the authors show that secular evolution of the particle eccentricity profile e(a) produces sharp ASD features: weakly singular (logarithmically divergent) peaks at eccentricity nulls and finite discontinuous jumps at caustic (tangent) points. These features march outward through the disc as it ages, with their radial locations following the well-defined pattern a_k proportional to (t/k)^{2/7}. The authors develop detailed asymptotic analysis (Appendix C) for the conditions under which peaks form (parameter zeta_k > 1) versus mere bumps, and for the amplitudes and widths of the caustic jumps. They verify all analytical predictions against a new numerical tool, DebrisPy, which is made publicly available. The paper explores parameter dependence (planetary eccentricity, free eccentricity fraction, disc mass profile), discusses observational detectability under PSF convolution and random eccentricity, and illustrates how detection or non-detection of secular ASD features can constrain planetary mass, semi-major axis, and eccentricity.

Significance. The paper makes a solid contribution to the debris-disc dynamics literature. The analytical results are derived from first principles: the peak-location pattern (Eq. 19), the peak-to-bump transition criterion (Eq. 22), the jump amplitudes (Eq. C21), and the pedestal overlap threshold (Eq. C33) are all falsifiable predictions verified against DebrisPy calculations. The public release of DebrisPy as a reproducible computational tool is a genuine strength. The proposed observational test (Eq. 29) for identifying secular features via their radial spacing pattern is concrete and immediately applicable to ALMA/JWST data. The framework for constraining planetary parameters from both detection and non-detection (Section 9.1-9.2, Figure 9-10) is well-constructed and practical.

major comments (1)
  1. Section 8: The effect of random free eccentricity on ASD is modeled by convolving the exact ASD (computed with deterministic e(a)) with a 1D Gaussian of width sigma_e,0 * r. This is not equivalent to computing ASD from first principles using an eccentricity distribution psi_e(e,a), which equation (A1) and DebrisPy can in principle handle. The mapping from e(a) to Sigma_bar(r) in equation (14) is nonlinear (it involves a Heaviside constraint and a square root), so convolving the output ASD is not generally equivalent to integrating over a distribution of inputs. The discrepancy matters most when sigma_e is comparable to e_f, which is precisely the regime where features are most threatened. The paper itself notes (Section 9.3) that DebrisPy can handle eccentricity distributions, so the tool to test this exists but is not exercised. This does not undermine the core analytical results (the e
minor comments (8)
  1. Section 2.2, equation (9): The general eccentricity solution is presented here with f_free defined as e_free/e_f, but the specific case f_free = 1 is not adopted until Section 4. It would help the reader to state upfront in Section 2.2 that f_free = 1 will be the default for most of the paper.
  2. Section 4.1, Figure 1: The Monte Carlo comparison uses N_p = 10^8 particles and reports 2.88% RMS fractional deviation. It would be useful to state the computational time for this comparison to give readers a sense of DebrisPy's efficiency advantage.
  3. Section 7: The 1D Gaussian convolution used to model PSF effects is an approximation, since the actual observational procedure involves 2D convolution of the sky image followed by azimuthal averaging. The authors should briefly note this approximation and its expected validity for moderately inclined discs.
  4. Section 9.2, Figure 10: The threshold psi_e = 2 AU is described as 'chosen rather arbitrarily and only for illustration.' Given that this parameter determines the boundary of the excluded grey region, a brief justification of why 2 AU is a reasonable order-of-magnitude choice (or a note that it should be calibrated per system) would help readers gauge sensitivity.
  5. Equation (32): The notation [(i+k_0)^2 r_i^{7/2}]^{1/2} is slightly ambiguous. It should be clarified whether the exponent 1/2 applies to the product (i+k_0)^2 * r_i^{7/2} or just to r_i^{7/2}. Based on the derivation, it appears to be (i+k_0) * r_i^{7/2}.
  6. Appendix C1.1, equation (C11): The constant C(a_1, a_2, zeta_k) depends on integration endpoints a_1, a_2 that are defined only implicitly. A brief note on how these are determined (or a reference to where this is specified) would be helpful.
  7. Section 6.3, Figure 7: For the narrow Gaussian ring models (center and right columns), the radial range is different from the left column, which can cause confusion. Adding a panel showing the underlying e(a) profile for the narrow ring case, or at least noting the different radial scale, would improve clarity.
  8. The paper uses both 'ASD' and 'Sigma_bar(r)' interchangeably. While defined in Section 3, a brief reminder at first use in later sections would aid readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; derivation chain is self-contained and independently verified

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain proceeds from standard secular perturbation theory (Murray & Dermott 1999, equations 1-5) to the eccentricity profile e(a,t) (equation 10, derived from initial condition e=0), then uses the ASD integral framework of Rafikov (2023) — equation 14 — to compute axisymmetric surface density. The key prediction, the radial spacing of ASD peaks a_k ∝ (t/k)^{2/7} (equation 19), follows directly from the null condition A_p(a_k)t/2 = kπ (equation 18) combined with the secular precession rate A_p(a) ∝ a^{-7/2} (equation 4). This is a genuine first-principles derivation with no fitting to observational data. The self-citation to Rafikov (2023) for equation 14 is load-bearing for the analytical framework, but it is independently verified: Figure 1c and Figure 3 show exact agreement between the analytical ASD and Monte Carlo sampling (2.88% RMS deviation attributable to Poisson noise). The feature analysis in Appendix C (peaks at nulls, caustic jumps) is mathematical derivation from equation 14, not assumption. The observational detectability claims in Sections 7-8 use post-hoc Gaussian convolution as an approximation rather than the exact eccentricity-distribution capability of DebrisPy (equation A1), which is a correctness/approximation concern (the skeptic's valid point) but not circularity — no prediction is forced by construction to equal a fitted input. No step in the chain reduces to its own inputs by definition, fit, or self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. All free parameters are input variables explored across a parameter space, not fitted to observational data. The axioms are standard domain assumptions from secular perturbation theory. The main analytical framework (equation 14) is an exact result from Rafikov (2023) with no approximations beyond the Keplerian orbit assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • e_p (planetary eccentricity)
    Varied as input parameter (0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4); not fitted to data but explored as a parameter space.
  • f_free (free eccentricity fraction)
    Set to 1 for most calculations (dynamically cold initial condition), varied in Section 6.2. Not fitted to data.
  • Sigma_a(a) profile parameters (a_in, a_out, gamma, w_in, w_out) = a_in=4ap, a_out=15ap, gamma=1, w_in=w_out=0.2ap
    Chosen to represent a smooth truncated power-law disc; not fitted to a specific observed system.
  • sigma (PSF width for convolution) = 0.1ap and 0.25ap
    Chosen to represent high and low resolution observations; not fitted to a specific telescope configuration.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Secular perturbation theory: particle semi-major axes are conserved under secular gravitational perturbations (Section 2.1, equation 1).
    Standard result from celestial mechanics (Murray & Dermott 1999); the disturbing function is averaged over orbital phases.
  • domain assumption Debris particles are collisionless on secular timescales (Section 3, paragraph 2).
    Assumes collisional evolution is slow compared to secular precession. Justified for large parent bodies but may not hold for small dust grains.
  • domain assumption Eccentricity e is a unique function of semi-major axis a (Section 2.2).
    Assumes no random eccentricity dispersion. Appropriate for the analytical treatment but only approximately valid for real discs with self-stirring and collisions.
  • domain assumption The disc is coplanar with the planet (Section 2, paragraph 4).
    Restricts to planar geometry; excludes warped discs or inclined planets.
  • domain assumption The planet orbits interior to the disc (alpha = ap/a << 1, Section 2.1).
    Simplifies the Laplace coefficient asymptotics; excludes embedded or exterior planets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Debris Disc Substructures Induced by Secular Planetary Perturbations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ILAKSHXF

@misc{pith2026260708750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Debris Disc Substructures Induced by Secular Planetary Perturbations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ILAKSHXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08750}
}
read the original abstract

Observations of debris discs have the potential to provide us with valuable information about massive planets perturbing them gravitationally. In this work, we explore the evolution of the azimuthally-averaged (or axisymmetric) surface density (ASD) -- a characteristic routinely derived from observations -- in a disc secularly perturbed by an inner planet. We develop detailed analytical understanding of ASD evolution and verify it using a novel numerical framework DebrisPy, which we make publicly available. With these tools we show that in a secularly evolving disc ASD develops a set of sharp features -- weakly discontinuous peaks at eccentricity nulls and sharp discontinuities at caustic points where particle periastra or apoastra pile up -- marching out through the disc as it ages. We probe the dependence of these features on planetary eccentricity, ratio of the free to forced particle eccentricity, and underlying radial mass distribution, showing in particular that more eccentric planets produce more prominent ASD features. Convolution with the PSF of realistic observations (as well as the non-zero random free eccentricity of debris) smooths out these features, but they can still be detectable in high-resolution observations. Radial locations of secular ASD peaks follow a particular, well-defined pattern, which should unambiguously point to their secular nature in observations. We illustrate how both detection and non-detection of such secular features in observed discs can be used (in combination with other constraints) to measure or constrain key parameters of perturbing planets (even those not yet detected) -- mass, semi-major axis and eccentricity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshot of various characteristics of a debris disc secularly per￾turbed by an inner planet. This calculation assumes ep = 0.4, ffree = 1, and t = 5tsec. Different panels show: (a) apsidal angle of debris particles ϖ(a) as a function of their semi-major axis a, (b) particle eccentricity e(a) as a function of a, (c) radial profile of the ASD Σ( ¯ r) and of the underlying Σa(a), (d) a Cartesian r − ϕ map of the two-d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the origin of ASD features — sharp peaks and dis￾continuous jumps. Shown over a particular radial range are (a) the eccen￾tricity profile e(a) and (b) the ASD profile Σ( ¯ r). The calculation is done at t = 25tsec for ep = 0.2, ffree = 1 and Σa(a) given by equations (B1)- (B3), also shown as red dotted curve in panel (b). Vertical dotted brown and black lines mark the locations of ASD discontinuities… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ASD evolution secularly driven by a planet with eccentricity ep = 0.2, with efree = ef . Solid black curve is the analytical ASD Σ( ¯ r) calculation, dashed orange is the Monte Carlo sampling, dotted red is the underlying Σa(a) profile. Both r and a are expressed in units of ap. Solid blue curves in subpanels above show the corresponding e(a) at every moment of time (indicated for both subpanels). ASD snapshots are … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Snapshots of ASD (thin solid black curves) convolved (in radius) with a Gaussian to mimic the effects of finite resolution of observations. Shown are 3 snapshots at times t = 4, 15, 40tsec for ep = 0.05, 0.2, 0.4 and ffree = 1, as labeled in individual panels. Smoothin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Various constraints on the planetary mass Mp and semi-major axis ap enabled by the detection of secular ASD structure in a debris disc (see text for details). In both panels the star marks the actual planetary pa￾rameters, and arrows show the individual ranges of ap an…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Constraints on combinations of planetary parameters Mpa 2 p and epap provided by a non-detection of secular structures in disc ASD, illus￾trated using a system with properties similar to HD 107146 (see Section 9.2 for details). Grey region of this parameter space is e…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Apai D., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524191 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672.1196A 672, 1196

    work page doi:10.1086/524191 2008

  2. [2]

    C., Nelson R

    Augereau J. C., Nelson R. P., Lagrange A. M., Papaloizou J. C. B., Mouillet D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...370..447A 370, 447

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010199 2001

  3. [3]

    A., et al., 2023, matplotlib/matplotlib: REL : v3.7.4, @doi 10.5281/ZENODO.592536 , https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.592536

    Caswell T. A., et al., 2023, matplotlib/matplotlib: REL : v3.7.4, @doi 10.5281/ZENODO.592536 , https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.592536

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.592536 2023

  4. [4]

    S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adfadb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...990L..40C 990, L40

    Chittidi J. S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adfadb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...990L..40C 990, L40

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

  5. [5]

    I., Murray-Clay R

    Dawson R. I., Murray-Clay R. A., Fabrycky D. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743L..17D 743, L17

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/l17 2011

  6. [6]

    A., Sefilian A

    Farhat M. A., Sefilian A. A., Touma J. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.2067F 521, 2067

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad316 2023

  7. [7]

    Han Y., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202556450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...705A.196H 705, A196

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556450 2026

  8. [8]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    M., Duch \^e ne G., Matthews B

    Hughes A. M., Duch \^e ne G., Matthews B. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA&A..56..541H 56, 541

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Ida S., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90182-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Icar...88..129I 88, 129

    1990 doi

  3. [11]

    Ida S., Makino J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90008-U , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Icar...96..107I 96, 107

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    Ida S., Makino J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1993.1167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Icar..106..210I 106, 210

    1993 doi

  5. [13]

    Imaz Blanco A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.6150I 522, 6150

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    J., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1017/S1323358000013461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PASA....2..174K 2, 174

    Kalnajs A. J., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1017/S1323358000013461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PASA....2..174K 2, 174

    1973 doi

  7. [15]

    M., 2020, @doi [Royal Society Open Science] 10.1098/rsos.200063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RSOS....700063K 7, 200063

    Kennedy G. M., 2020, @doi [Royal Society Open Science] 10.1098/rsos.200063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RSOS....700063K 7, 200063

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Bromley B

    Kenyon S. J., Bromley B. C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....121..538K 121, 538

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Rodmann J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673.1123L 673, 1123

    L \"o hne T., Krivov A. V., Rodmann J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673.1123L 673, 1123

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    B., Lynch E

    Lovell J. B., Lynch E. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525L..36L 525, L36

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    B., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adfadc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...990..145L 990, 145

    Lovell J. B., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adfadc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...990..145L 990, 145

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Malhotra R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1038/365819a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.365..819M 365, 819

    1993 doi

  13. [21]

    Marino S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5100M 503, 5100

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Marino S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.5423M 479, 5423

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Marino S., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202556489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...705A.195M 705, A195

    2026 doi

  16. [24]

    Matr \`a L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.151M 693, A151

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Morrison S., Malhotra R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...41M 799, 41

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Papaloizou J

    Mouillet D., Larwood J. D., Papaloizou J. C. B., Lagrange A. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.4.896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292..896M 292, 896

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Dermott S

    Murray C. D., Dermott S. F., 1999, Solar system dynamics

    1999

  20. [28]

    E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747..113P 747, 113

    Pan M., Schlichting H. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747..113P 747, 113

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Wyatt M

    Pearce T. D., Wyatt M. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3329P 453, 3329

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3462 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.3876P 527, 3876

    Pearce T. D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3462 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.3876P 527, 3876

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    R., 2003a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..906R 125, 906

    Rafikov R. R., 2003a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..906R 125, 906

    doi

  24. [32]

    R., 2003b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..922R 125, 922

    Rafikov R. R., 2003b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..922R 125, 922

    doi

  25. [33]

    R., 2003c, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.2529R 126, 2529

    Rafikov R. R., 2003c, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.2529R 126, 2529

    doi

  26. [34]

    R., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/764/1/L16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764L..16R 764, L16

    Rafikov R. R., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/764/1/L16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764L..16R 764, L16

    doi

  27. [35]

    R., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765L...8R 765, L8

    Rafikov R. R., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765L...8R 765, L8

    doi

  28. [36]

    R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5607R 519, 5607

    Rafikov R. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5607R 519, 5607

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Silsbee K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/69 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...69R 798, 69

    Rafikov R. R., Silsbee K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/69 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...69R 798, 69

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Rafikov R

    Sefilian A. A., Rafikov R. R., Wyatt M. C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abda46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910...13S 910, 13

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Rafikov R

    Sefilian A. A., Rafikov R. R., Wyatt M. C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace68e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..100S 954, 100

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Kratter K

    Sefilian A. A., Kratter K. M., Wyatt M. C., Petrovich C., Th \'e bault P., Malhotra R., Faramaz-Gorka V., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.543.3123S 543, 3123

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    R., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...71S 798, 71

    Silsbee K., Rafikov R. R., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...71S 798, 71

    doi

  34. [42]

    R., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/58 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...58S 808, 58

    Silsbee K., Rafikov R. R., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/58 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808...58S 808, 58

    doi

  35. [43]

    S., Burrows A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..174S 745, 174

    Spiegel D. S., Burrows A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..174S 745, 174

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Ida S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1999.6242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Icar..143...28S 143, 28

    Stewart G. R., Ida S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1999.6242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Icar..143...28S 143, 28

    2000 doi

  37. [45]

    Tremaine S., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116.2015T 116, 2015

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , 17, 261

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...440..937W 440, 937

    Wyatt M. C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...440..937W 440, 937

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46..339W 46, 339

    Wyatt M. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46..339W 46, 339

    2008 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    C., 2018, in Deeg H

    Wyatt M. C., 2018, in Deeg H. J., Belmonte J. A., eds, , Handbook of Exoplanets. p. 146, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_146

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Dent W

    Wyatt M. C., Dent W. R. F., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05533.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.334..589W 334, 589

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Dermott S

    Wyatt M. C., Dermott S. F., Telesco C. M., Fisher R. S., Grogan K., Holmes E. K., Pi \ n a R. K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...527..918W 527, 918

    1999 doi

  44. [52]

    M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2673Y 479, 2673

    Yelverton B., Kennedy G. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2673Y 479, 2673

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    Zawadzki B., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202556505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...705A.197Z 705, A197

    2026 doi

Pith tools

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