Driving white dwarf metal pollution through unstable eccentric periodic orbits

Dimitri Veras; Kyriaki I. Antoniadou

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Driving white dwarf metal pollution through unstable eccentric periodic orbits

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using unstable periodic orbits in the restricted three-body problem, this paper shows that chaotic regions identified by dynamical stability maps predict asteroid collisions with white dwarfs in one-planet systems, offering a fast…

desk verdict Useful extension of periodic-orbit stability maps to eccentric and inclined WD-planet systems, but the validation samples only chaotic ICs and the 250 kyr DFLI cutoff is unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06108 v1 pith:3TYUPIIX submitted 2019-08-16 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Kyriaki I. Antoniadou , Dimitri Veras This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR MSC 70F1570F1670H12

keywords whitedwarfpollutionplanetarydebrisperiodicorbitsrestrictedthree-bodyproblemchaosindicatorsDFLI2:1meanmotionresonanceN-bodysimulations

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

White dwarf atmospheres are polluted by rocky debris, but finding which planetary architectures deliver asteroids to the star normally requires $N$-body simulations running up to $10^{10}$ years. This paper argues that unstable eccentric periodic orbits in the restricted three-body problem, together with chaos maps based on the DFLI indicator, can do the job much faster and with no need to rescale time. The authors compute such maps for a white dwarf with one Jupiter-like planet and an inner asteroid near the 2:1 mean-motion resonance, in planar, elliptic, and inclined versions of the problem. They then show that the chaotic regions of the maps coincide with the outcomes of 10-Gyr $N$-body simulations, in particular with asteroid-white-dwarf collisions. If the correspondence holds, the maps become quick diagnostics for pollution prospects in one-planet white dwarf systems.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the periodic orbits of the restricted three-body problem in the 2:1 interior mean-motion resonance, continued in eccentricity and inclination, together with their linear (horizontal) and vertical stability. Stable periodic orbits organise regular regions; unstable ones seed chaos. The DFLI (detrended fast Lyapunov indicator, the finite-time Lyapunov indicator divided by integration time) is computed on grids of initial conditions to build dynamical stability maps, with pale regions marking chaos and white marking close-encounter integration failure. The map is computed in dimensionless RTBP units over $t_{\max}=250$ kyr and then rescaled to physical units through the scaling $a^{(N)}_P = a_P \zeta^{1/3}$, keeping time and angles fixed, so that the same chaotic structures can be overlaid on $N$-body outcomes.

What would settle it

Take an initial condition that the DS maps mark chaotic and that was not included in the paper's Section 5 comparison, for example an asteroid with $e_A$ near 0.9 and $e_P$ near 0.2 in the $(\theta_1,\theta_2)=(\pi,\pi)$ configuration, integrate it with the same Bulirsch-Stoer integrator for 10 Gyr, and check whether the fraction of white-dwarf collisions matches the map's chaotic fraction; a systematic mismatch would falsify the map's predictive power. A second check: rerun the DFLI computations with $t_{\max}$ increased from 250 kyr to, say, 1 Myr and see if orbits currently classified regular become chaotic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the chaotic domains traced by unstable periodic orbits in the 2D-ERTBP, 3D-CRTBP, and 3D-ERTBP accurately predict long-term instability in white dwarf systems with one major and one minor planet, and classify that instability as ejection, planet collision, or white dwarf collision. In the planar elliptic case with $e_P = 0.048$ (Jupiter-like), the 2:1 resonant periodic orbits organise the $(e_A,e_P)$ plane into stable islands (1:1 secondary resonance) and chaotic seas; the authors find that white dwarf collisions concentrate in the chaotic regions, especially for the configurations $(\theta_1,\theta_2)=(\pi,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$, and that for $(\pi,\pi)$ pollution can occur for any asteroid eccentricity once $e_P > 0.1$. In the 3D-CRTBP, the unstable spatial family is surrounded by only a small chaotic region for prograde inclinations, so low-inclination circular-planet systems should not produce pollution; in the 3D-ERTBP, vertically unstable planar periodic orbits yield instability events even at low inclination. The paper concludes that the DFLI-based dynamical stability maps, computed for only 250 kyr in normalized units, agree well with the outcomes of expensive 10-Gyr $N$-body simulations in the tested region of phase space.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the assumption that chaotic behavior detected by the DFLI indicator over 250 kyr in normalized units, then rescaled to a real white dwarf system, correctly identifies orbits that will actually collide, be ejected, or survive over billions of years.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The DFLI-based dynamical stability maps can be used to estimate pollution prospects and timescales for one-planet white dwarf architectures without running 10-Gyr $N$-body simulations.
For the 2:1 resonance, the configuration $(\theta_1,\theta_2)=(\pi,0)$ with $\Delta\varpi=\pi$ produces white dwarf collisions near the resonance, while $(\pi,\pi)$ with $\Delta\varpi=0$ yields collisions for any asteroid eccentricity once $e_P > 0.1$.
In the 3D-CRTBP, small prograde asteroid inclinations have only a tiny surrounding chaotic region, so circular-planet, low-inclination systems are unlikely to pollute the white dwarf.
For the 3D-ERTBP, vertically unstable planar periodic orbits generate instability events even at low inclination, so vertical stability is a useful additional diagnostic.
Asymmetric unstable periodic orbits, when used as $N$-body initial conditions, lead predominantly to white dwarf collisions or ejections rather than stable evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

The same periodic-orbit-plus-DFLI strategy could be carried to other interior mean-motion resonances (for example the 3:1 or 4:1) to see whether the map-to-collision correspondence holds there, extending the diagnostic beyond the 2:1 case studied here.
Because the maps are scale-free and cheap, an ensemble-level use suggests itself: match the observed incidence of metal-polluted white dwarfs against the chaotic fractions of one-planet architectures with different planet eccentricities.
The 250-kyr DFLI threshold is a practical calibration choice; increasing it might expose weakly chaotic orbits currently classified regular, so the maps' reliability at Gyr timescales could be tested by recomputing a few maps at longer $t_{\max}$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a solid, well-scoped extension of the authors' earlier CRTBP-based maps to eccentric and inclined architectures, and the central idea is sound. The new results are the DS maps for the 2D-ERTBP, 3D-CRTBP, and 3D-ERTBP for a Jupiter-mass planet with eccentricity 0.048 in the 2:1 MMR, plus a 10 Gyr N-body suite that is independent of the map construction. The paper clearly explains the periodic-orbit families, the four symmetric configurations, and the distinction between horizontal and vertical stability. The figures showing purple diamonds (WD collisions) concentrated near unstable periodic orbits are genuinely supportive, and Section 5 gives an honest account of the initial-condition selection.

The main soft spot is that the N-body comparison only samples chaotic initial conditions (DFLI > 15), so the false-negative rate of the maps over 10 Gyr is never tested. The maps are meant to be quick diagnostics; if regular regions hide slow instabilities that the 250 kyr DFLI misses, the tool would misclassify some systems. This is the strongest criticism and is directly addressable with a small set of N-body simulations drawn from regular regions, or at least a quantitative statement about why the cutoff is adequate.

Second, the tmax = 250 kyr claim in Section 2.2 is asserted without citation or convergence test. A finite-time chaos indicator can miss weak chaos, so the leap to 10 Gyr predictions needs more support. A simple convergence check would fix this.

Third, the unit scaling in Section 4.2 is compressed. The sentence "the rest of the orbital elements and the time remained the same" is ambiguous; the authors likely mean the mapping from their 2016 paper, but an explicit derivation or worked example would help. This is minor but relevant to the timescale claims.

The paper is honest about its limitations and does not overclaim beyond the abstract's "limited region of phase space." It deserves a serious referee and likely publication after minor-to-moderate revision. The missing stable-region N-body sample and the DFLI convergence test should be requested, but they do not invalidate the core approach. I'd cite this if working on WD pollution diagnostics, and I'd bring it to a reading group focused on dynamical astronomy or exoplanetary evolution.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes unstable periodic orbits and DFLI-based dynamical stability maps in the planar and spatial circular/elliptic restricted three-body problems as fast diagnostic tools for white dwarf metal pollution in one-planet architectures. It generalizes Antoniadou & Veras (2016) to eccentric planets (eP = 0.048) and inclined asteroids, concentrating on the 2:1 interior mean-motion resonance. The authors compute DS maps on several planes of initial conditions (Figs. 1–6), then run Bulirsch-Stoer N-body integrations for up to 14 Gyr in a limited phase-space region, and compare outcomes (stable, ejected, planet-collision, WD-collision) with the DFLI>15 chaotic regions (Figs. 7–10). They conclude that the maps agree well with N-body outcomes and can be used to estimate pollution prospects and timescales for one-planet white dwarf systems.

Significance. If the claimed agreement holds, the work provides a computationally cheap, non-circular prior for N-body explorations and for interpreting the growing sample of polluted white dwarfs. The central validation is not circular: the periodic orbits and DS maps are computed first, and the N-body simulations are used as an independent comparison; this is a genuine strength. The extension to the ERTBP and to inclined orbits via vertical stability is also a useful step beyond the previous circular coplanar treatment. However, the predictive claim is currently stronger than the evidence: the paper itself limits the N-body comparison to a small region of phase space, the finite-time DFLI cutoff is asserted without convergence support, and only chaotic (DFLI>15) initial conditions are tested, leaving the false-negative rate in stable regions unquantified. The maps may well be useful diagnostics, but the quantitative basis for their use as a global tool needs to be established.

major comments (4)

[§2.2] The assertion that a DFLI integration time of tmax = 250 kyr is 'adequate for revealing chaos in the RTBP with the masses we use' is load-bearing for every DS map in the paper, yet no derivation, citation, or convergence test is provided. Since the maps are subsequently used to make statements about evolution over ~10 Gyr, the authors should either supply a quantitative justification for this time window (e.g., DFLI maps computed for several tmax values and shown to be stable) or restrict the conclusions to the chaotic-tracing capability on that particular timescale.
[§4.2, Eq. (2)] The scaling between the normalized RTBP units and the physical white dwarf system is not adequately specified. The sentence 'The rest of the orbital elements and the time remained the same' is not sufficient: rescaling the semimajor axis by ζ^(1/3) changes the orbital period unless a compensating time-unit transformation is applied, and the physical masses used in the N-body runs are not stated. The authors need to demonstrate that a fixed 250 kyr normalized integration corresponds to a well-defined, architecture-independent physical time window for aP = 10 au and mWD = 0.6 M⊙, or explain the convention under which the time coordinate is unchanged.
[§5] The N-body validation is not an unbiased external test of the maps because the initial conditions are selected from the chaotic regions: Section 5 states that 'we chose the initial conditions for which the DFLI traced chaoticity (DFLI>15)'. Stable or regular regions are therefore never sampled, so the false-negative rate over Gyr timescales is unknown. The abstract's claim that the maps 'can be used as tools' to estimate pollution prospects requires both chaotic and stable regions to be tested; at minimum, the authors should run N-body simulations for a sample of DFLI<10 initial conditions and report the resulting classification rates.
[§5.1, Fig. 7] The agreement between the DS maps and N-body outcomes is assessed only qualitatively, by visual inspection of where purple diamonds concentrate. With only 10–50 asteroids per simulation set and no reported run counts per panel, the statistical weight behind the claim is unclear. The authors should quantify the comparison, for example by giving the fraction of WD-collision outcomes that fall inside the DFLI>15 region and the number of initial conditions in each class, to support the predictive-power statement.

minor comments (5)

[§5.1] The text refers to the bottom panel of Fig. 7 as the (θ1,θ2) = (0,0) configuration, but the figure caption lists the bottom panel as (θ1,θ2) = (π,π); this inconsistency should be fixed.
[§4.2] The phrase 'aP = 10 au (or scaled as aP(N) = 8.439009789 au)' is confusing: if the physical planet semimajor axis is 10 au, it is unclear why the simulation uses 8.439 au, and the physical masses mWD and mP used in the integrator are not explicitly given. The authors should state the exact unit conventions and masses used in Mercury.
[§2.2] The text says the integration stops when the DFLI reaches the threshold 10^30, while Section 5 uses DFLI>15 as the chaos criterion; the relationship between these two thresholds (linear versus logarithmic DFLI) should be clarified.
[§3.1] The sign convention for eA and eP in Figs. 1 and 6 is explained in words, but the plots would be easier to read if the positive/negative branches were labeled directly on the eccentricity axes.
[§5.2] In Fig. 10, the white crosses mark the four planar periodic orbits, but the caption does not state which of the four are horizontally stable or unstable; adding this information would help connect the 3D-ERTBP results to the stability discussion in Fig. 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the DS-map predictions and the N-body validation are independent, though the validation samples only chaotic regions.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The periodic orbits and DFLI-based dynamical stability maps in Sections 2 and 3 are computed from the standard restricted three-body equations and the DFLI chaos indicator, with no parameter fitted to the N-body outcomes. The N-body integrations in Sections 4 and 5 are independent numerical experiments, and the paper explicitly distinguishes DFLI chaos from physical stability in Section 4.3, noting that weakly chaotic orbits can be classified as stable. The Section 5 comparison does select only initial conditions with DFLI>15, so it tests agreement only inside chaotic regions and does not establish the false-negative rate over 10 Gyr; this is a completeness or correctness limitation, not a circular reduction, because the N-body outcomes are not used to set the DFLI threshold or to define the maps. Likewise, the statement in Section 2.2 that tmax=250 kyr 'has been proved to be adequate' is an unproved and load-bearing modeling assumption, but it is not a statement that equates a prediction with its input by construction. The self-citations to Antoniadou and Libert (2018a, 2019) and Antoniadou and Veras (2016) supply prior periodic-orbit families and numerical methods; those are parameter-free computations with stated assumptions that do not include the white-dwarf pollution conclusion, so they constitute independent support rather than a circularity chain. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to the quantity it is claimed to predict.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. Its free parameters are fixed modeling choices (Jupiter-like mass, eP = 0.048, WD radius, DFLI tmax). The main unproven input is the mapping from 250 kyr chaos in normalized units to 10 Gyr instability in physical units, plus the use of vertical stability as a proxy for 3D behavior. These are domain assumptions rather than fitted parameters.

free parameters (5)

Planet mass mP = 0.001 solar masses (Jupiter mass)
A single fixed planet mass is used throughout; the paper treats it as a representative parameter, not fitted to any WD pollution data. It is a modeling choice that limits scope but is not fitted to the target result.
Planet eccentricity eP = 0.048
Chosen to match Jupiter's current eccentricity, not fitted to WD pollution data. It is a reasonable representative value but is a chosen parameter of the model.
DFLI threshold tmax = 250 kyr for DS maps
The integration time for the chaos indicator is chosen by hand, stated to be 'adequate' but not derived from a convergence study in this paper. The N-body comparison only partially validates this.
Scaling factor zeta = zeta = (mWD + mP) / 1 solar mass
Used to convert normalized periodic orbit units to N-body physical units. It is a fixed physical scaling, not fitted, but it is an input assumption.
WD radius for collision = 1e6 km
A conservatively large estimate of the WD Roche radius, adopted from Veras et al. 2017. It determines which collisions count as pollution events.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The restricted three-body problem with a massless asteroid is an adequate model for a WD, a giant planet, and an asteroid.
The asteroid is treated as massless and the planet's orbit is fixed as a Keplerian ellipse in the restricted problem. Real systems have asteroid mass, additional bodies, and mass loss history that are ignored. Entered in Section 2.
domain assumption The instability predicted by DFLI chaos in the normalized RTBP, with tmax = 250 kyr, corresponds to physical instability on 10 Gyr timescales.
This is the load-bearing mapping between the analytic maps and the N-body simulations. It is asserted in Section 2.2 and validated only in limited regions in Section 5.
ad hoc to paper The planar periodic orbits and their vertical stability in the 2D-ERTBP govern the behavior of inclined systems in the 3D-ERTBP.
In Section 5.2, the authors use the vertically unstable planar orbits as initial conditions for inclined simulations, without computing the spatial periodic orbit families themselves. This is an approximation for the 3D behavior.
domain assumption Mercury's Bulirsch-Stoer integrator conserves energy and angular momentum sufficiently well (1e-8 to 1e-12) over 10 Gyr for the outcomes to be reliable.
Stated in Section 4.1. The long-term reliability of the integrator on these timescales is assumed, not benchmarked against another integrator.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Driving white dwarf metal pollution through unstable eccentric periodic orbits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TYUPIIX

@misc{pith2026190806108,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Driving white dwarf metal pollution through unstable eccentric periodic orbits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TYUPIIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06108}
}

abstract

Planetary debris is observed in the atmospheres of over 1,000 white dwarfs, and two white dwarfs are now observed to contain orbiting minor planets. Exoasteroids and planetary core fragments achieve orbits close to the white dwarf through scattering with major planets. However, the architectures that allow for this scattering to take place are time-consuming to explore with $N$-body simulations lasting $\sim 10^{10}$ yr; these long-running simulations restrict the amount of phase space that can be investigated. Here we use planar and three-dimensional (spatial) elliptic periodic orbits, as well as chaotic indicators through dynamical stability maps, as quick scale-free analytic alternatives to $N$-body simulations in order to locate and predict instability in white dwarf planetary systems that consist of one major and one minor planet on very long timescales. We then classify the instability according to ejection versus collisional events. We generalized our previous work by allowing eccentricity and inclination of the periodic orbits to increase, thereby adding more realism but also significantly more degrees of freedom to our architectures. We also carried out a suite of computationally expensive 10 Gyr $N$-body simulations to provide comparisons with chaotic indicators in a limited region of phase space. We compute dynamical stability maps that are specific to white dwarf planetary systems and that can be used as tools in future studies to quickly estimate pollution prospects and timescales for one-planet architectures. We find that these maps also agree well with the outcomes of our $N$-body simulations. As observations of metal-polluted white dwarfs mount exponentially, particularly in the era of Gaia, tools such as periodic orbits can help infer dynamical histories for ensembles of systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06108 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** DS maps on the planes (aA/aP, eA) (top), ($A, MA) (middle), and ($P, MP) (bottom) for the symmetric configuration (θ1, θ2)=(0, 0) and ∆$=0 presented as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** DS map on the plane (aA/aP, eA) for the symmetric configuration (θ1, θ2) = (0, π) and ∆$ = π. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: DS maps for the symmetric configuration ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: DS maps for the symmetric configuration ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Family of unstable periodic orbits in 2:1 MMR of the 3D-CRTBP when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Results of the N-body simulations on the plane (aA/aP, eA) for the symmetric configuration (θ1, θ2)=(0, 0) and ∆$=0 (top), (θ1, θ2)=(π, 0) and ∆$=π (middle) and (θ1, θ2)=(π, π) and ∆$=0 (bottom). Green circles stand for stable outcome, red triangles for an ejected aste…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Results of the N-body simulations for the symmetric configuration (θ1, θ2)=(π, π) and ∆$=0 on the planes (eA, eP) (top) and ($A, MA) (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Results of the N-body simulations for the three asymmetric configurations presented on the (eA, eP)-plane. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Results of the N-body simulations when we considered architectures in the 3D-ERTBP for each symmetric configuration shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

[1]

I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2018a, A&A, 615, A60

Antoniadou, K. I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2018a, A&A, 615, A60

work page
[2]

I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2018b, CeMDA, 130, 41

Antoniadou, K. I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2018b, CeMDA, 130, 41

work page
[3]

I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2923

Antoniadou, K. I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2923

work page 2019
[4]

I., Veras D., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 4108

Antoniadou K. I., Veras D., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 4108

work page 2016
[5]

Bear, E., & Soker, N.\ 2013, New Astronomy, 19, 56

work page 2013
[6]

J., & Wyatt, M

Bonsor, A., Mustill, A. J., & Wyatt, M. C.\ 2011, MNRAS, 414, 930

work page 2011
[7]

Broucke, R.\ 1969, AIAA Journal, 7, 1003

work page 1969
[8]

C., Veras, D., & G \"a nsicke, B

Brown, J. C., Veras, D., & G \"a nsicke, B. T.\ 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1575

work page 2017

Show all 69 references

[9]

R., & Davies, M

Carrera, D., Raymond, S. R., & Davies, M. B.\ 2019, Submitted to MNRAS Letters, arXiv:1903.02564

2019 arXiv
[10]

E.\ 1999, MNRAS, 304, 793

Chambers, J. E.\ 1999, MNRAS, 304, 793

1999
[11]

M., 2018, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:1810.00776

Cortes J., Kipping D. M., 2018, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:1810.00776

2018 arXiv
[12]

H., & Sigurdsson, S.\ 2002, ApJ, 572, 556

Debes, J. H., & Sigurdsson, S.\ 2002, ApJ, 572, 556

2002
[13]

H., Walsh, K

Debes, J. H., Walsh, K. J., & Stark, C.\ 2012, ApJ, 747, 148

2012
[14]

Dosopoulou, F., & Kalogera, V.\ 2016a, ApJ, 825, 70
[15]

Dosopoulou, F., & Kalogera, V.\ 2016b, ApJ, 825, 71
[16]

Farihi, J.\ 2016, New Astronomy Reviews, 71, 9

2016
[17]

Frewen, S. F. N., & Hansen, B. M. S.\ 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2442

2014
[18]

Froeschl \'e , C., Lega, E., & Gonczi, R.\ 1997, CeMDA, 67, 41

1997
[19]

T., Marsh, T

G \"a nsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., Southworth, J., & Rebassa-Mansergas, A.\ 2006, Science, 314, 1908

2006
[20]

P., Tremblay, P.-E., G \"a nsicke, B

Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P.-E., G \"a nsicke, B. T., et al.\ 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4570

2019
[21]

R., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., & Soifer, B

Graham, J. R., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., & Soifer, B. T.\ 1990, ApJ, 357, 216

1990
[22]

Hadjidemetriou, J. D. & Christides, T., \ 1975, Celestial Mechanics, 12, 175

1975
[23]

D.\ 1963, Icarus, 2, 440

Hadjidemetriou, J. D.\ 1963, Icarus, 2, 440

1963
[24]

Hadjidemetriou J., Voyatzis G., 2000, CeMDA, 78, 137

2000
[25]

Harrison, J. H. D., Bonsor, A., & Madhusudhan, N.\ 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3814

2018
[26]

H \'e non, M.\ 1973, A&A, 28, 415

1973
[27]

A., G \"a nsicke, B

Hollands, M. A., G \"a nsicke, B. T., & Koester, D.\ 2018, MNRAS, 477, 93

2018
[28]

Jura, M.\ 2003, ApJL, 584, L91

2003
[29]

T., & Farihi, J.\ 2014, A&A, 566, A34

Koester, D., G \"a nsicke, B. T., & Farihi, J.\ 2014, A&A, 566, A34

2014
[30]

B., Pepper J

Lund M. B., Pepper J. A., Shporer A., Stassun K. G., 2018, Submitted to AAS Journals, arXiv:1809.10900

2018 arXiv
[31]

J., et al

Manser, C. J., et al. \ 2019, Science, 364, 66

2019
[32]

Marchal, C.\ 1990, The three-body problem, Elsevier, Amsterdam

1990
[33]

A., Ferraz-Mello S.\ 1995, A&A, 303, 945

Michtchenko T. A., Ferraz-Mello S.\ 1995, A&A, 303, 945

1995
[34]

A., Beaug \'e , C., & Ferraz-Mello, S.\ 2008, MNRAS, 387, 747

Michtchenko, T. A., Beaug \'e , C., & Ferraz-Mello, S.\ 2008, MNRAS, 387, 747

2008
[35]

Moons, M., & Morbidelli, A.\ 1993, CeMDA, 56, 273

1993
[36]

\ 1993, Icarus, 102, 316

Morbidelli, A., & Moons, M. \ 1993, Icarus, 102, 316

1993
[37]

London: Taylor & Francis, 2002, ISBN 0415279399

Morbidelli, A.\ 2002a, Modern celestial mechanics : aspects of solar system dynamics, by Alessandro Morbidelli. London: Taylor & Francis, 2002, ISBN 0415279399

2002
[38]

D., & Dermott, S

Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F.\ 1999, Solar system dynamics, Cambridge University Press

1999
[39]

J., Veras, D., & Villaver, E.\ 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1404

Mustill, A. J., Veras, D., & Villaver, E.\ 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1404

2014
[40]

J., Villaver, E., Veras, D., G \"a nsicke, B

Mustill, A. J., Villaver, E., Veras, D., G \"a nsicke, B. T., Bonsor, A. \ 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3939

2018
[41]

& Ferraz-Mello, S.\ 1997, A&A, 320, 672

Nesvorn \'y , D. & Ferraz-Mello, S.\ 1997, A&A, 320, 672

1997
[42]

Pichierri, G., Morbidelli, A., & Lai, D.\ 2017, A&A, 605, A23

2017
[43]

Omarov, T. B. 1962, Izv. Astrofiz. Inst. Acad. Nauk. KazSSR, 14, 66

1962
[44]

\'A ., Lindegren, L.\ 2014, ApJ, 797, 14

Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. \'A ., Lindegren, L.\ 2014, ApJ, 797, 14

2014
[45]

\ 1899, Les m \'e thodes nouvelles de la m \'e chanique c \'e leste

Poincar \'e , H. \ 1899, Les m \'e thodes nouvelles de la m \'e chanique c \'e leste. Vol. III, Gauthier-Villars, Paris
[46]

Schr \"o der, K.-P., & Smith, R.\ 2008, MNRAS, 386, 155

2008
[47]

L., Martin, R

Smallwood, J. L., Martin, R. G., Livio, M., & Lubow, S. H.\ 2018, MNRAS, 480, 57

2018
[48]

L., Martin, R

Smallwood, J. L., Martin, R. G. In Preparation
[49]

H., Wu D.-H., Larson S

Steffen J. H., Wu D.-H., Larson S. L., 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.03438

2018 arXiv
[50]

\ 1967, Theory of orbits

Szebehely , V. \ 1967, Theory of orbits. The restricted problem of three bodies, Academic Press, New York

1967
[51]

Tamanini N., Danielski C., 2018, Submitted, arXiv:1812.04330

2018 arXiv
[52]

A., Rappaport, S., et al.\ 2015, Nature, 526, 546

Vanderburg, A., Johnson, J. A., Rappaport, S., et al.\ 2015, Nature, 526, 546

2015
[53]

C., Mustill, A

Veras, D., Wyatt, M. C., Mustill, A. J., Bonsor, A., & Eldridge, J. J.\ 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2104

2011
[54]

D., & Tout, C

Veras, D., Hadjidemetriou, J. D., & Tout, C. A.\ 2013a, MNRAS, 435, 2416
[55]

J., Bonsor, A., & Wyatt, M

Veras, D., Mustill, A. J., Bonsor, A., & Wyatt, M. C.\ 2013b, MNRAS, 431, 1686
[56]

M., Bonsor, A., G\" a nsicke, B

Veras, D., Leinhardt, Z. M., Bonsor, A., G\" a nsicke, B. T.\ 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2244

2014
[57]

T.\ 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2814

Veras, D., Eggl, S., G \"a nsicke, B. T.\ 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2814

2015
[58]

T.\ 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1049

Veras, D., G\" a nsicke, B. T.\ 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1049

2015
[59]

Veras, D.\ 2016a, MNRAS, 463, 2958
[60]

Veras, D.\ 2016b, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150571
[61]

J., G \"a nsicke, B

Veras, D., Mustill, A. J., G \"a nsicke, B. T., et al.\ 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3942

2016
[62]

J., Leinhardt, Z

Veras, D., Carter, P. J., Leinhardt, Z. M., & G \"a nsicke, B. T.\ 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1008

2017
[63]

T., Dobbs-Dixon I., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2180

Veras D., Georgakarakos N., G \"a nsicke B. T., Dobbs-Dixon I., 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2180

2018
[64]

\ 2019, MNRAS, 485, 708

Veras, D., Higuchi, A., Ida, S. \ 2019, MNRAS, 485, 708

2019
[65]

Voyatzis, G.\ 2008, ApJ, 675, 802

2008
[66]

D., Veras, D., & Varvoglis, H.\ 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3383

Voyatzis, G., Hadjidemetriou, J. D., Veras, D., & Varvoglis, H.\ 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3383

2013
[67]

E.\ 1987, Nature, 330, 138

Zuckerman, B., & Becklin, E. E.\ 1987, Nature, 330, 138

1987
[68]

N., H \"u nsch, M.\ 2003, ApJ, 596, 477

Zuckerman, B., Koester, D., Reid, I. N., H \"u nsch, M.\ 2003, ApJ, 596, 477

2003
[69]

Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., Klein, B., Koester, D., & Jura, M.\ 2010, ApJ, 722, 725

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2018a, A&A, 615, A60

Antoniadou, K. I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2018a, A&A, 615, A60

work page

[2] [2]

I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2018b, CeMDA, 130, 41

Antoniadou, K. I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2018b, CeMDA, 130, 41

work page

[3] [3]

I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2923

Antoniadou, K. I., & Libert, A.-S.\ 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2923

work page 2019

[4] [4]

I., Veras D., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 4108

Antoniadou K. I., Veras D., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 4108

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Bear, E., & Soker, N.\ 2013, New Astronomy, 19, 56

work page 2013

[6] [6]

J., & Wyatt, M

Bonsor, A., Mustill, A. J., & Wyatt, M. C.\ 2011, MNRAS, 414, 930

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Broucke, R.\ 1969, AIAA Journal, 7, 1003

work page 1969

[8] [8]

C., Veras, D., & G \"a nsicke, B

Brown, J. C., Veras, D., & G \"a nsicke, B. T.\ 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1575

work page 2017