Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 94 references

A Resonant Beginning for the Solar System Terrestrial Planets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the present 3.05 Mars–Venus period ratio is a relic of a primordial 2:3:4:6 mean-motion resonance chain that the giant-planet instability broke, triggering the Moon-forming giant impact.

desk verdict A solid dynamical scenario with one overclaimed headline: the 3:1 Mars-Venus ratio is an imposed initial condition, but the post-instability physics is worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04164 v2 pith:A7BETFWX submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.EP physics.geo-ph

Shuo Huang , Chris Ormel , Simon Portegies Zwart , Eiichiro Kokubo , Tian Yi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPphysics.geo-ph
keywords terrestrialplanetformationmeanmotionresonancegiantinstabilityMoon-formingimpactMars-VenusperiodratioplanetarymigrationN-bodysimulationssolarsystemarchitecture
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

This paper argues that the terrestrial planets formed early, inside the gas disk, and that Venus, proto-Earth, Theia, and Mars were initially locked in a 2:3:4:6 mean-motion resonance chain — a configuration in which neighboring orbital periods sit near the ratios 3:2, 4:3, and 3:2. When the giant-planet instability later forced Saturn outward, the chain was broken and the close Theia–proto-Earth pair collided to form the Moon, while Venus and Mars, farther apart, preserved their 3:1 period ratio. The authors show with N-body simulations that this one scenario reproduces the present Mars–Venus period ratio of about 3.05, the planets' eccentricities and mutual inclinations, and the timing and low impact velocity of the Moon-forming event, all without post-impact damping. A reader should care because it converts an apparently accidental number in the Solar System into a fossil of an early dynamical event and yields testable predictions for Venus's interior and for exoplanet systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 2:3:4:6 mean-motion resonance chain — a linked set of orbital-period commensurabilities that fixes Venus, proto-Earth, Theia, and Mars in a 3:1 Venus–Mars ratio with Theia near Earth. The chain is diagnosed by three-body resonance angles whose libration signals that the planets remain locked; the disk-migration prescription in Section 2.1 is used to build it, and the simplified pebble- and planetesimal-accretion models in Appendix A are adduced to show the chain can form. The breaking mechanism is the giant-planet instability: Saturn's parameterized outward migration, with a timescale between 0.8 and 16 Myr, excites Jupiter and sweeps the g5 secular resonance through the inner system, which diffuses the angular momentum deficit — a standard measure of how dynamically excited an orbital system is — and turns the librating angles into circulating ones. Once the chain dissolves, the tightly packed Theia–proto-Earth pair is the part that collides, while the more distant Venus and Mars are left unperturbed.

What would settle it

Run a self-consistent disk formation and migration calculation from a standard protoplanetary disk and check whether a 2:3:4:6 resonance chain among Venus, proto-Earth, Theia, and Mars appears without tuning the disk inner edge, gas density, and embryo injection history; if it does not, the period-ratio peak near 3 in the simulations is inherited from the imposed initial condition rather than a relic of early formation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single early event — capture of the four terrestrial planets into a 2:3:4:6 resonance chain while the gas disk was still present — explains the inner Solar System's present architecture. The chain fixes the Venus–Mars period ratio at 3:1; when Saturn's outward migration during the giant-planet instability stirs Jupiter's eccentricity, sweeping secular resonances diffuse the angular momentum deficit of the inner system and the resonance angles begin to circulate. Theia and proto-Earth, initially very close, then overlap and collide; the paper reports that this outcome occurs in 20–50% of the simulated systems depending on the Theia–Earth resonance, always with impact velocities at or below about 1.5 times the mutual escape velocity. The resulting eccentricities and inclinations match the present-day values, and the collision follows the instability by roughly 10 Myr or more, consistent with the dated Moon-forming event. The observed Mars–Venus period ratio of 3.057 falls within the quartile range of the simulated distribution and near its median, with probability density more than an order of magnitude higher than in the late collisional-growth model.

Load-bearing premise

The scenario stands or falls on the premise that Venus, proto-Earth, Theia, and Mars formed early and were captured into exactly the 2:3:4:6 resonance chain; the paper's Appendix A shows this chain can emerge from simplified pebble- and planetesimal-accretion models, but only with hand-chosen parameters such as a disk inner edge at 0.6 au and a fivefold enhancement of the gas density, so a realistic disk that does not reliably build this chain would leave the 3.05 ratio imposed rather than explained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed Mars–Venus period ratio near 3.05 is no longer a numerical coincidence; it is the expected peak of the early-formation distribution, more than an order of magnitude more probable than in the late collisional-growth model.
  • The Moon-forming giant impact is tied to the same instability that shaped the outer Solar System, occurring roughly 10 Myr or more after the onset of the giant-planet instability and within the 40–120 Myr window inferred for the real event.
  • The Theia–proto-Earth impact in the simulations always occurs at or below about 1.5 times the mutual escape velocity, which fits the energetic-impact scenario for the Moon and favors a Theia mass between about 0.37 and 0.76 times proto-Earth's mass.
  • According to this model, Venus received no giant impact and should retain a largely primordial mantle, providing a measurable isotopic contrast with Earth's mantle.
  • Inner planetary systems that still display long resonance chains are expected to lack outer gas giants, since an external giant would typically have broken the chain; this can be searched for in systems like the well-known compact resonant exoplanet systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The general pattern suggested here — an outer instability preserving the period ratio of the outermost and innermost members of a broken inner chain while erasing the middle — should apply to other systems that form in compact resonant chains, so a population-level search for inner systems with a surviving outer-inner period ratio and an outer giant companion would be a direct test.
  • Because Mercury is excluded from the chain, the model implicitly predicts that Mercury's formation history was separate from that of Venus–Earth–Mars; comparing the model's required initial conditions with Mercury's bulk composition, or asking what happens to the 3:1 ratio when Mercury is added, would sharpen the claim.
  • The paper treats the early-formation assumption as consistent with Mars isotope data and Earth oxidation state, but its strongest internal evidence is the period-ratio peak; a fuller disk-evolution survey with a wide parameter grid would show whether the chain is a robust attractor of migration or a carefully placed initial condition.
  • The explicit prediction of an unprocessed Venus mantle with elevated 182W relative to Earth could be tested by a future Venus lander or sample-return mission; that would not test the Mars–Venus ratio itself but would distinguish the early-formation family of models from the late-collision family.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper hypothesizes that Venus, proto-Earth, Theia, and Mars formed in a 2:3:4:6 mean-motion resonance chain in the gas disk, and that the giant planet instability, modeled as Saturn's outward exponential migration, broke the chain, triggered the Moon-forming Theia-Earth impact, and left the terrestrial planets with their present eccentricities and inclinations. The authors run REBOUND/REBOUNDx N-body simulations from such chains with j=3, 4, 5 for the Theia-Earth resonance, report that the Mars-Venus period ratio remains peaked near 3.01–3.05, that AMD, eccentricities, and inclinations match the current solar system, and that Theia-Earth collisions occur in 20–50% of their 'Solar-like' subset. They contrast this with a late collisional-growth model and claim an order-of-magnitude higher probability for the observed 3.05 ratio. The paper also draws two exoplanet/geochemical predictions.

Significance. If the initial 2:3:4:6 chain can be shown to be a robust outcome of disk accretion, the paper offers a compact scenario linking the Moon-forming impact, the Mars-Venus period ratio, and the low dynamical excitation of the inner solar system to the same dynamical event. The N-body methodology is reproducible (REBOUND, REBOUNDx, MERCURIUS), the parameter space for the post-disk evolution is explored sensibly, and the conditional tests—AMD, eccentricities, mutual inclinations, impact velocity, and impact timing—are meaningful and are the strongest part of the paper. The falsifiable predictions (primordial Venus mantle with high 182W; absence of outer giants in retained resonance-chain systems) are valuable. The main weakness is that the headline period-ratio 'prediction' is essentially the survival of an imposed 3:1 Venus-Mars ratio; the support for the chain's natural formation is a single-realization, fixed-parameter demonstration in Appendix A. The conditional N-body results therefore do not, by themselves, carry the full weight of the abstract's 'naturally arises' claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3; Fig. 3] The headline result that the Mars-Venus period ratio is a 'relic' of the resonance chain is not an independent prediction: the initial 2:3:4:6 chain fixes P_M/P_V = 3:1, and Section 3 states explicitly that 'This resonance chain guarantees a 3:1 period ratio between Mars and Venus.' The simulated distribution peaking at 3.01 and the comparison with the late-growth model therefore demonstrate that an imposed 3:1 ratio can survive the prescribed instability, not that the model predicts 3.05 from a more general initial condition. Please either strengthen the formation evidence (see next comment) or reframe the abstract, Section 5, and the 'naturally arises' phrasing so that the period-ratio match is presented as a test of survival of the chain, not as an a priori prediction of its value.
  2. [Appendix A; Section 3, first paragraph] The statement that the 2:3:4:6 chain is 'a natural consequence regardless of whether planet formation proceeds via pebble accretion or planetesimal accretion' is not supported by the simulations shown. Appendix A presents one realization per accretion mode with fixed disk parameters (Σ_g,0 = 2400 g/cm^2, f_g = 5, R_in = 0.6 au, St = 0.01, α_t = 1e-4) and a fixed planetesimal ring (β_plts = -5.5, centered near 1 au), and it concedes 'lacking exhaustive parameter exploration.' Because the same appendix states that the final architecture depends on the injection time interval or spatial separation between adjacent embryos, the 3:1 Venus-Mars ratio is effectively selected rather than robustly produced. Since this ratio is the paper's central observable, please add a parameter study reporting the frequency of 2:3:4:6 chains over a plausible range of disk and accretion parameters, or explicitly downgrade the claim to a conditional scenario.
  3. [Section 3; Fig. 5; Fig. 7; Appendix B] All main-text statistics, including the '20–50%' moon-forming fraction quoted in the abstract, are computed only for the 'Solar-like' subset selected by requiring Jupiter's final free and forced eccentricities to lie within a circle of radius 0.01 of the present-day value in Fig. 7. The paper does not report the total number of simulations per parameter set or the fraction that passes this post hoc selection, so the reader cannot tell whether the quoted collision fractions are typical or rare conditional outcomes. Please report the full-ensemble statistics alongside the selected subset, and if the selection is meant to ensure a realistic giant-planet excitation, justify it as a prior constraint rather than a posterior match.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The resonance-angle definitions contain apparent typographical errors: φ_VET = 2λ_V − 6λ_E + 4λ_V should almost certainly end with 4λ_T, and φ_VEM = 2λ_V − 4λ_E + 2λ_M needs to be checked for the correct coefficients.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption says 'each column corresponds to a different initial Venus-Mars resonance,' but the columns vary the Theia-Earth resonance number j; the Venus-Mars 3:1 resonance is common to all columns.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Section 3] The text refers to 'the 25% range from the median' and to 'median 50% ranges' without defining these intervals; specifying the exact percentile convention (e.g., interquartile range) would make the comparison reproducible.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The derivation of the Theia-to-Earth mass ratio is hard to follow as typeset; please define P_⊕ and P_V in the equation and show the intermediate steps that yield 0.37, 0.54, and 0.76.
  5. [Appendix C] The Monte Carlo conversion from the fitted separation distribution (μ = 50.58, σ = 17.18 Hill radii) to the Venus-Mars period ratio should state the assumed semi-major axes and the treatment of the Venus-Earth and Earth-Mars pairs, so that the comparison in Fig. 3 is reproducible.
  6. [References] Several quantitative comparisons rely on 'in preparation' or unpublished works (Kokubo et al. 2025, Hu et al. in prep); please replace these with published versions or clearly mark the results as preliminary.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The headline Mars-Venus period-ratio 'prediction' is the initial 2:3:4:6 resonance chain by construction; other N-body outcomes retain independent content.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, first paragraph (Comparison with Solar System); also Section 2, model description]
    "Firstly, we hypothesize that the four terrestrial planets—Venus, Earth, Theia, and Mars—emerged from the gaseous disk in a 2:3:4:6 resonance chain. We find that this resonant architecture is a natural consequence regardless of whether planet formation proceeds via pebble accretion or planetesimal accretion (see Appendix A). This resonance chain guarantees a 3:1 period ratio between Mars and Venus."

    The claimed prediction P_M/P_V ≈ 3.05 is not an emergent output but the initial condition of the N-body model: the 2:3:4:6 chain fixes Mars and Venus at a 3:1 period ratio, and the paper explicitly says the chain 'guarantees' that ratio and that Venus and Mars 'remain largely unchanged, thereby preserving the initial 3:1 period ratio.' The simulated distribution peaking near 3.01 is therefore the input ratio broadened by scattering, not an independent dynamical discovery. Appendix A's formation simulations are parameter-tuned (f_g = 5, R_in = 0.6 au, beta_plts = -5.5) and the paper concedes they are 'lacking exhaustive parameter exploration'; Section 2.1 also states disk details 'do not matter ...

full rationale

The N-body evolution itself is not circular: the Moon-forming impact rate, impact velocities, AMD, and final eccentricities and inclinations are genuine outputs of integrating the instability, and the paper's conditional comparison with the Solar System is a valid test of that scenario. The circularity is confined to the paper's principal advertised prediction, the Mars-Venus period ratio. The simulations are initialized in the 2:3:4:6 resonance chain, which the authors state 'guarantees a 3:1 period ratio between Mars and Venus,' and they further state that Venus and Mars remain largely unchanged, 'preserving the initial 3:1 period ratio.' The resulting P_M/P_V distribution peaks near 3.01 because the input ratio is carried through, not because the dynamics independently discovered 3.05. Appendix A is an attempted external justification of the initial condition, but it relies on hand-fixed parameters (f_g = 5, R_in = 0.6 au, beta_plts = -5.5, Mdot_dust = 10 Earth masses/Myr) and the paper concedes it is 'lacking exhaustive parameter exploration'; Section 2.1 also says the disk details 'do not matter' as long as the chain forms. Thus the chain's origin is not demonstrated robustly enough to make the period-ratio match an independent prediction. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; citations to Huang & Ormel (2023) concern exoplanet period-ratio statistics, not the terrestrial chain. Overall score 7: the central period-ratio claim reduces by construction, while the other stated constraints retain independent dynamical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of assumed initial conditions: an early terrestrial resonance chain that includes a 3:1 Venus-Mars ratio, a barrier-halted Venus, and a Theia in low-order resonance with Earth. The headline period ratio is not derived but imposed, then shown to persist. The Appendix A formation models add support but depend on tuned disk parameters. No genuinely new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Initial eccentricity damping factor K_e = 10^2 to 10^4
    Controls eccentricities within the resonance chain (Sect. 2.1). Varied logarithmically; the authors report results are nearly insensitive to it.
  • Saturn outward migration timescale tau_S = 0.8 to 16 Myr
    Parameterizes the giant planet instability in Eq. (2). Varied broadly; results are reported as insensitive to it.
  • Initial Jupiter eccentricity e_J,ini = 0 to 0.05
    Controls the strength of secular perturbations. Only small values (e_J,ini < 0.02) produce 'Solar-like' systems, and the selection is based on final Jupiter eccentricity.
  • Initial resonance chain architecture (Venus:Earth:Theia:Mars = 2:3:4:6, with Theia-Earth resonance number j) = 2:3:4:6, j = 3, 4, 5
    The 3:1 Venus-Mars period ratio is embedded in this initial condition. The headline result, a final period ratio near 3.01, is the persistence of this choice (Sect. 3).
  • Venus migration barrier location = 0.72 au
    Venus is forced to halt at its present semimajor axis, pinning the inner edge of the resonance chain (Sect. 2.1).
  • Total mass of proto-Earth plus Theia = 1.05 M_Earth
    Assumed in all calculations (Sect. 2.3) to set the center of mass at 1 au after the merger.
  • Disk model parameters in Appendix A (Sigma_g,0 = 2400 g/cm^2, f_g = 5, R_in = 0.6 au, St = 0.01, alpha_t = 1e-4) = listed values
    Chosen for the simplified pebble and planetesimal accretion simulations that produce the resonance chain. The paper states these are not exhaustive parameter explorations.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Terrestrial planets completed most of their growth in the gaseous protoplanetary disk, before disk dispersal.
    This is the early-formation hypothesis adopted in Sect. 1. The paper acknowledges it conflicts with Hf-W isotope evidence (Sect. 4) and offers qualitative mitigations.
  • domain assumption Theia existed as a separate planetary embryo in a low-order mean-motion resonance with proto-Earth.
    Core ingredient of the scenario (Sect. 2.1). Theia is a hypothesized body from prior literature, but its specific resonance membership is assumed by the authors.
  • ad hoc to paper The giant planet instability can be modeled as Saturn's outward exponential migration with timescale tau_S.
    Saturn's migration is parameterized in Eq. (2) rather than self-consistently driven. The paper notes the driven process and timescale are still debated (Sect. 2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The 2:3:4:6 resonance chain is a plausible outcome of disk-driven migration.
    Supported only by simplified Appendix A simulations with hand-chosen parameters. The paper states that detailed formation processes remain uncertain and do not matter as long as the chain forms.
  • domain assumption Venus halts at a migration barrier at 0.72 au, enabling convergent migration and resonant trapping.
    Needed to set the inner edge of the chain. Cites wind-driven accretion and disk evolution scenarios (Sect. 2.1).
  • domain assumption A single perfect-merger collision between Theia and proto-Earth forms the Earth-Moon system at 1 au.
    Used to derive Theia's mass from angular momentum conservation (Eqs. 3-4). Ignores hit-and-run outcomes and angular momentum loss.
  • domain assumption Planetary radii follow R proportional to m^0.29 for collision detection.
    Mass-radius relation taken from Seager et al. (2007), applied to bodies below 1 M_Earth (Sect. 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Resonant Beginning for the Solar System Terrestrial Planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7BETFWX

@misc{pith2026250604164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Resonant Beginning for the Solar System Terrestrial Planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7BETFWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04164}
}
read the original abstract

In the past two decades, transit surveys have revealed a class of planets with thick atmospheres -- sub-Neptunes -- that must have completed their accretion in protoplanet disks. When planets form in the gaseous disk, the gravitational interaction with the disk gas drives their migration and results in the trapping of neighboring planets in mean motion resonances, though these resonances can later be broken when the damping effects of disk gas or planetesimals wane. It is widely accepted that the outer Solar System gas giant planets originally formed in a resonant chain, which was later disrupted by dynamical instabilities. Here, we explore whether the early formation of the terrestrial planets in a resonance chain (including Theia) can evolve to the present configuration. Using N-body simulations, we demonstrate that the giant planet instability would also have destabilized the terrestrial resonance chain, triggering moon-forming giant impacts in 20--50\% of our simulated systems, dependent on the initial resonance architecture. After the instability, the eccentricity and inclination of the simulated planets match their present-day values. Under the proposed scenario, the current period ratio of 3.05 between Mars and Venus -- devoid of any special significance in traditional late formation models -- naturally arises as a relic of the former resonance chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch illustrating the dynamical evolution of the solar system planets during and after disk dissipation. The two-sided arrows represent the existence of mean motion resonances. Blue and brown scatters represent terrestrial bodies, including Venus (V), proto-Earth (E), Theia (T), and Mars (M), and gas giants including Jupiter (J) and Saturn (S). In the disk phase (t ≲1 Myr), terrestrial planets form and migrate con… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dynamical evolution of planets during Saturn’s outward migration and the post-Moon-forming impact phase. The top panel shows the evolution of 3-body resonance angles of Venus, Earth, and Theia (ϕVET) and Venus, Earth, and Mars (ϕVEM). The resonance angles are defined in Sect. 3. The bottom panel shows the changes of planet semimajor axis and eccentricity with time. The curves show the orbital evolution of each body,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mars-Venus period ratio probability distribution from different models. The current value is shown by the vertical dashed line. The colored histograms are the subgroup of simulated systems (defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Planet properties for the simulated Solar-like systems in which Theia collides with Earth. The definition of Solar-like system is inFig. 7. Each simulation starts with a terrestrial resonance chain and two gas giants. Theia and Earth are initially in j + 1:j resonance,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Statistical outcomes of simulated Solar-like systems, with final Jupiter eccentricities similar to the present day value ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulations of planetary accretion and migration, illustrating the formation of resonant architectures. The left panel shows planets growing via pebble accretion, while the right panel depicts growth through planetesimal accretion, both occurring within a gaseous proto…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Jupiter’s free and forced eccentricities obtained at the end of the simulations. The scatters with different colors are the results of the simulations starting with different initial Jupiter eccentricities. The solar system is marked as a triangle. The scatters in the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dynamical properties for planet systems, in which Theia collides with Earth. The upper panels show the final eccentricities of Venus, Earth, and Mars, while the lower panels display their final inclinations relative to the invariable plane. Different scatter points are…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Statistical outcomes of the simulated Solar Systems and their dependence on initial conditions. The architecture of simulated systems is classified into four groups: 1) Theia collides with Earth (orange); 2) Theia collides with Mars (blue); 3) There are multiple collis…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cumulative distribution of the mutual separation (∆) between each two adjacent terrestrial planets in the collisional growth scenario. The unit is the mutual Hill radius. The black curve shows the distribution of the simulation results. Each data point from the simula…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mars-Venus period ratio probability distribution from different models. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., & Lin, D

    Agnor, C. B., & Lin, D. N. C. 2012, ApJ, 745, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/143

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/143 2012

  2. [2]

    2021, AJ, 162, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf6ca

    Ali-Dib, M., Marsset, M., Wong, W.-C., & Dbouk, R. 2021, AJ, 162, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf6ca

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf6ca 2021

  3. [3]

    M., Huang, J., Pérez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  4. [4]

    Asphaug, E., Emsenhuber, A., Cambioni, S., Gabriel, T. S. J., & Schwartz, S. R. 2021, PSJ, 2, 200, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac19b2

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac19b2 2021

  5. [5]

    G., Mann, A

    Barber, M. G., Mann, A. W., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 574, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08123-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08123-3 2024

  6. [6]

    2017, Science Advances, 3, e1602365, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602365

    Barboni, M., Boehnke, P., Keller, B., et al. 2017, Science Advances, 3, e1602365, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602365

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.1602365 2017

  7. [7]

    P., Weinberger, A

    Boss, A. P., Weinberger, A. J., Keiser, S. A., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa84b5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa84b5 2017

  8. [8]

    2016, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 455, 85, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.013

    Ida, S. 2016, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 455, 85, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.013 2016

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Levison, H. F. 2009, A&A, 507, 1053, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912878 Brož, M., Chrenko, O., Nesvorný, D., & Dauphas, N. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 898, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01383-3

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04583, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04583

    Brown, G., Malhotra, R., & Rein, H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04583, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04583

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Asphaug, E

    Canup, R. M., & Asphaug, E. 2001, Nature, 412, 708, doi: 10.1038/35089010 16

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Righter, K., Dauphas, N., et al

    Canup, R. M., Righter, K., Dauphas, N., et al. 2023, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 89, 53, doi: 10.2138/rmg.2023.89.02

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Droettboom, M., Lee, A., et al

    Caswell, T. A., Droettboom, M., Lee, A., et al. 2021, matplotlib/matplotlib: REL: v3.4.2, v3.4.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.592536

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Chambers, J. E. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 793, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x —. 2001, Icarus, 152, 205, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6639

    1999

  7. [15]

    Charalambous, C., Teyssandier, J., & Libert, A. S. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1554

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Deienno, R., & Izidoro, A

    Clement, M. S., Deienno, R., & Izidoro, A. 2023, Icarus, 389, 115260, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2022.115260

    2023

  9. [17]

    S., Kaib, N

    Clement, M. S., Kaib, N. A., Raymond, S. N., Chambers, J. E., & Walsh, K. J. 2019, Icarus, 321, 778, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.033

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Raymond, S

    Clement, M. S., Raymond, S. N., & Chambers, J. E. 2021, ApJL, 923, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3e6d

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.09283

    Dai, F., Masuda, K., Beard, C., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.09283. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.09283

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2024, AJ, 168, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6 D’Angelo, G., & Lubow, S

    Dai, F., Goldberg, M., Batygin, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad83a6 D’Angelo, G., & Lubow, S. H. 2010, ApJ, 724, 730, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/730

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2011, Nature, 473, 489, doi: 10.1038/nature10077

    Dauphas, N., & Pourmand, A. 2011, Nature, 473, 489, doi: 10.1038/nature10077

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Petigura, E

    David, T. J., Petigura, E. A., Luger, R., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4c99 de Sousa, R. R., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2020, Icarus, 339, 113605, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113605

    2019

  15. [23]

    2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 310, 303, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.041 Drążkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al

    Deguen, R., Olson, P., & Cardin, P. 2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 310, 303, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.041 Drążkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed....

    2011 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    H., Keller, C

    Edwards, G. H., Keller, C. B., Newton, E. R., & Stewart, C. W. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1264, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02340-6

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2021, A&A, 656, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553

    Emsenhuber, A., Mordasini, C., Burn, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, L14, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae109

    Fang, T., Bi, R., Zhang, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, L14, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae109

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2017, Nature, 542, 456, doi: 10.1038/nature21360

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, Icarus, 388, 115206, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2022.115206

    Goldberg, M., Batygin, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2022, Icarus, 388, 115206, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2022.115206

    2022

  21. [29]

    2024, A&A, 688, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450340

    Morbidelli, A. 2024, A&A, 688, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450340

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    H., & Schlaufman, K

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

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Hansen, B. M. S. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/1131

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Harrison, T. M. 2009, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 37, 479, doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100151

    2009

  25. [33]

    Y., & Weiss, L

    He, M. Y., & Weiss, L. M. 2023, AJ, 166, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdd56

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Huang, S., & Ormel, C. W. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1032

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2002, MNRAS, 336, 483, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05765.x

    Ito, T., & Tanikawa, K. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 483, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05765.x

    2002

  28. [36]

    N., et al

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

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S

    Jacobson, S. A., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2014, Nature, 508, 84, doi: 10.1038/nature13172

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, A&A, 662, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243480

    Johansen, A., & Dorn, C. 2022, A&A, 662, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243480

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17043, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17043

    Johansen, A., Olson, P., & Sharp, Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17043, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17043

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Bizzarro, M., et al. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, A&A, 671, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142141

    Bizzarro, M. 2023, A&A, 671, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142141

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    A., & Chambers, J

    Kaib, N. A., & Chambers, J. E. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2554

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2019, A&A, 625, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935034

    Keppler, M., Teague, R., Bae, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935034

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2013, Icarus, 225, 122, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.03.006

    Kobayashi, H., & Dauphas, N. 2013, Icarus, 225, 122, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.03.006

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    2002, ApJ, 581, 666, doi: 10.1086/344105

    Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 2002, ApJ, 581, 666, doi: 10.1086/344105

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, In preparation

    Kokubo, E., et al. 2025, In preparation

    2025

  39. [47]

    1997, A&A, 317, L75

    Laskar, J. 1997, A&A, 317, L75

    1997

  40. [48]

    C., et al

    Leleu, A., Alibert, Y., Hara, N. C., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2101.09260. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09260

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    F., Morbidelli, A., Tsiganis, K., Nesvorný, D., & Gomes, R

    Levison, H. F., Morbidelli, A., Tsiganis, K., Nesvorný, D., & Gomes, R. 2011, AJ, 142, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/152

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    F., Morbidelli, A., Van Laerhoven, C., Gomes, R., & Tsiganis, K

    Levison, H. F., Morbidelli, A., Van Laerhoven, C., Gomes, R., & Tsiganis, K. 2008, Icarus, 196, 258, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.11.035 17

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10206, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10206

    Li, R., Chiang, E., Choksi, N., & Dai, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10206, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10206

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    Lissauer, J. J. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 129, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.001021

    1993

  45. [53]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/122

    Lithwick, Y., Xie, J., & Wu, Y. 2012, ApJ, 761, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/122

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    N., & Jacobson, S

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

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Stewart, S

    Lock, S. J., Stewart, S. T., Petaev, M. I., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 123, 910, doi: 10.1002/2017JE005333

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0129

    Luger, R., Sestovic, M., Kruse, E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0129

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    P., Leleu, A., et al

    Luque, R., Osborn, H. P., Leleu, A., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 932, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06692-3

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    1991, PASJ, 43, 859

    Makino, J. 1991, PASJ, 43, 859

    1991

  51. [59]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08659

    Malamud, U., & Perets, H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08659. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08659

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J., & Canup, R

    Marchi, S., Walker, R. J., & Canup, R. M. 2020, Science Advances, 6, eaay2338, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aay2338

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 1935, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16804.x

    Miguel, Y., & Brunini, A. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1935, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16804.x

    2010

  54. [62]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01517-7

    Morbidelli, A., Baillié, K., Batygin, K., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01517-7

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09271, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09271

    Morbidelli, A., Kleine, T., & Nimmo, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.09271, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.09271

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    F., Tsiganis, K., & Gomes, R

    Morbidelli, A., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., & Gomes, R. 2005, Nature, 435, 462, doi: 10.1038/nature03540

    2005 doi

  57. [65]

    2007, AJ, 134, 1790, doi: 10.1086/521705

    Gomes, R. 2007, AJ, 134, 1790, doi: 10.1086/521705

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    2015, International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 201, doi: 10.1017/S1473550414000263

    Alibert, Y. 2015, International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 201, doi: 10.1017/S1473550414000263

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics Nesvorný, D., Vokrouhlický, D., Bottke, W. F., & Levison, H. F. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 878, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0564-3 Nesvorný, D., Vokrouhlický, D., & Deienno, R. 2014, ApJ, 784, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/22

    1999 doi

  60. [68]

    V., & Efroimsky, M

    Noyelles, B., Frouard, J., Makarov, V. V., & Efroimsky, M. 2014, Icarus, 241, 26, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.05.045 O’Brien, D. P., Morbidelli, A., & Bottke, W. F. 2007, Icarus, 191, 434, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.05.005

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65d5

    Ogihara, M., Morbidelli, A., & Kunitomo, M. 2024, ApJ, 972, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65d5

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 587, 117537, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117537

    Olson, P., Sharp, Z., & Garai, S. 2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 587, 117537, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117537

    2022

  63. [71]

    L., & Sharp, Z

    Olson, P. L., & Sharp, Z. D. 2023, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 622, 118418, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2023.118418

    2023

  64. [72]

    W., & Huang, Y

    Ormel, C. W., & Huang, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.04016, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.04016

    2025 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    W., & Liu, B

    Ormel, C. W., & Liu, B. 2018, A&A, 615, A178, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732562

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Szuszkiewicz, E. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 153, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09427.x

    2005

  67. [75]

    C., Pichierri, G., Davies, M

    Petit, A. C., Pichierri, G., Davies, M. B., & Johansen, A. 2020, A&A, 641, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038764 Portegies Zwart, S., Torres, S., Cai, M. X., & Brown, A. G. A. 2021, A&A, 652, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040096

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

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

    2012 doi

  69. [77]

    M., Tamayo, D., et al

    Rein, H., Hernandez, D. M., Tamayo, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5490, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz769

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    A., & Militzer, B

    Seager, S., Kuchner, M., Hier-Majumder, C. A., & Militzer, B. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1279, doi: 10.1086/521346

    2007 doi

  71. [79]

    2017, ApJL, 840, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa70ea

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Petrovich, C., & Murray, N. 2017, ApJL, 840, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa70ea

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

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

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    Tanaka, H., & Ward, W. R. 2004, ApJ, 602, 388, doi: 10.1086/380992

    2004 doi

  74. [82]

    M., Sprung, P., Fonseca, R

    Thiemens, M. M., Sprung, P., Fonseca, R. O. C., Leitzke, F. P., & Münker, C. 2019, Nature Geoscience, 12, 696, doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0398-3

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    Thommes, E., Nagasawa, M., & Lin, D. N. C. 2008, ApJ, 676, 728, doi: 10.1086/526408

    2008 doi

  76. [84]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc40

    Timpe, M., Reinhardt, C., Meier, T., Stadel, J., & Moore, B. 2023, ApJ, 959, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc40

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Nature, 435, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature03539

    2005 doi

  78. [86]

    P., Bai, X.-N., & Fu, R

    Weiss, B. P., Bai, X.-N., & Fu, R. R. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eaba5967, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba5967

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    N., Lee, D

    Wiechert, U., Halliday, A. N., Lee, D. C., et al. 2001, Science, 294, 345, doi: 10.1126/science.1063037

    2001 doi

  80. [88]

    2012, Nature Geoscience, 5, 18, doi: 10.1038/ngeo1350

    Laskar, J., & Rambaux, N. 2012, Nature Geoscience, 5, 18, doi: 10.1038/ngeo1350

    2012 doi

  81. [89]

    Woo, J. M. Y., Grimm, S., Brasser, R., & Stadel, J. 2021, Icarus, 359, 114305, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114305 18

    2021

  82. [90]

    Woo, J. M. Y., Nesvorný, D., Scora, J., & Morbidelli, A. 2024, Icarus, 417, 116109, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116109

    2024

  83. [91]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, L13, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae102

    Wu, Y., & Chen, Y.-X. 2025, MNRAS, 536, L13, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae102

    2025 doi

  84. [92]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a09

    Wu, Y., Malhotra, R., & Lithwick, Y. 2024, ApJ, 971, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a09

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    W., Huang, S., & Petit, A

    Yi, T., Ormel, C. W., Huang, S., & Petit, A. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01736, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01736

    2025 doi arXiv

  86. [94]

    D., Shahar, A., & Schlichting, H

    Young, E. D., Shahar, A., & Schlichting, H. E. 2023, Nature, 616, 306, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05823-0

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.