Oort Cloud Ecology. III. The Sun left the parent star cluster shortly after the giant planets formed

Shuo Huang (Leiden Observatory); Simon Portegies Zwart

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Oort Cloud Ecology. III. The Sun left the parent star cluster shortly after the giant planets formed

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Sun escaped its birth cluster within about 20 million years of giant-planet formation.

desk verdict A genuinely new timing constraint on the Sun's cluster escape, but it is conditional on an uncertain disk mass and an analytic extrapolation; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13666 v1 pith:BKO3AAFU submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Simon Portegies Zwart , Shuo Huang (Leiden Observatory) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

keywords Öpik-OortcloudsolarbirthclustergiantplanetformationstellarencountersN-bodysimulationsHillsKuiperbeltsystemhistory

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

The paper argues that the present mass of the Öpik-Oort cloud cannot be explained if the Sun spent its first hundred million years in a birth cluster. Direct N-body simulations show that a Sun inside a cluster never builds an appreciable outer Oort cloud, because passing stars strip the wide, barely bound orbits faster than the planets can populate them; only after the Sun becomes isolated can the cloud grow. Matching today's cloud mass of 0.2 to 2.0 Earth masses with a fast-rise and exponential-decay growth curve then requires the Sun to have left the cluster within about 20 million years after the giant planets finished forming and migrating. This matters because it dates the whole cluster phase of solar-system history, including the encounter that cut the Kuiper belt, Sedna's capture, and an early cratering spike, to the first twenty million years, and it makes the inner Oort cloud a surviving fossil of the Sun's birth environment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relative Oort-cloud mass $\mu_{\rm OO}=m_{\rm OO}/m_{\rm dm}$, the ratio of mass stored in the outer Öpik-Oort cloud to the leftover planetesimal disk mass after the giant-planet cores formed. The inversion uses a fast-rise-exponential-decay fit, $\mu_{\rm OO}(t)=\mu_{\rm OO,p}\,e^{t_{\rm rise}/t_{\rm decay}}\,e^{-t_{\rm rise}/t-t/t_{\rm decay}}$, which lets the authors extrapolate the simulated growth curve forward to 4.5 Gyr and read off the escape time at which the curve first crosses today's cloud mass. The mechanism that forces the early escape is adiabatic tidal stripping by cluster stars: at a semi-major axis of about $55\,000$ au a typical cluster velocity dispersion of $1$ km/s removes a comet in about 1.6 Myr, far shorter than the comets' orbital period, so the cloud cannot accumulate while the Sun remains a member.

What would settle it

The cleanest falsifier is a robust measurement of the leftover planetesimal disk mass or the current Öpik-Oort cloud mass outside the paper's assumed ranges: if the disk held substantially more than $\sim30\,M_\oplus$ after the giant-planet cores formed, or the cloud today is below 0.2 or above $2.0\,M_\oplus$, the inferred $t_{\rm esc}\lesssim20$ Myr no longer follows. A survey-level test is the predicted inner Oort-cloud population with $500\lesssim a\lesssim10^4$ au and $e\lesssim0.9$: finding none would contradict the early-escape scenario's most distinctive surviving signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Öpik-Oort cloud's current mass is a clock for the Sun's escape from its birth cluster. Simulating the Sun with its four giant planets and a planetesimal disk, the authors find that an isolated Sun builds an outer Oort cloud with a peak relative mass $\mu_{\rm OO}=0.027\pm0.006$ after about $226\pm24$ Myr, followed by slow Galactic erosion. The same planetary system embedded in a cluster forms essentially no Öpik-Oort cloud, because the cluster's stellar encounters destroy the weakly bound cloud faster than it grows, so formation can begin only after the Sun is ejected. Combining the measured growth curve with the observed cloud mass of $0.2$–$2.0\,M_\oplus$ gives an escape time $t_{\rm esc}\lesssim20$ Myr after giant-planet formation for a leftover disk mass below roughly $30\,M_\oplus$; for larger disks a later escape would still work, but such disks conflict with the eccentricity-damping constraint on the early solar system. The paper concludes that the Sun was ejected early from a dense, non-virial cluster and that signatures of this residence should remain in the outer solar system today.

Load-bearing premise

The whole timing argument depends on the assumption that the leftover disk of planetesimals from which the Oort cloud formed was no more massive than roughly 30 Earth masses; if the true disk were substantially heavier, the Sun could have left its cluster much later and still explain today's Oort cloud.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The stellar encounter that carved the Kuiper cliff at about 50 au, the capture of Sedna from another star, and other cluster-induced perturbations are all pushed into the first roughly 20 Myr after giant-planet formation, before the Sun left the cluster.
The Sun's birth cluster must have been dense and short-lived, with half-mass density above roughly $10^3$ stars per cubic parsec and a non-virial start, rather than a long-lived cluster that dissolved after 100 Myr or more.
The distinctive surviving signature is a population of inner Oort-cloud objects with $500\lesssim a\lesssim10^4$ au and eccentricity $e\lesssim0.9$; finding such objects would confirm the early-escape history, while their absence would count against it.
Early-escape models produce roughly five times more near-Earth objects at the time the Oort cloud peaks, implying an early episode of cratering on the Moon and inner planets that a late-escape or isolated Sun would not produce.
The timing also accommodates a nearby supernova at 8–10 Myr after cluster birth, which could supply the solar system's short-lived radionuclides and help explain the observed tilt of the ecliptic to the Sun's equator.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the width of the accepted Oort-cloud mass range (0.2 to 2.0 $M_\oplus$) is the main lever on the escape time; a survey that narrows that range would place a proportionally tighter bound on $t_{\rm esc}$, so long-period-comet counts are the fastest test.
The same early-escape logic should apply to other field stars: a star that today hosts a massive outer Oort cloud must have left a dense cluster very early, which turns Oort-cloud retention into a statistical probe of how quickly different birth environments disperse.
Because the favored scenario puts the Sun in a dense, short-lived cluster for only about 20 Myr, surviving solar siblings should still share a chemical tag and a common ejection epoch; astrometric searches for co-moving, chemically tagged low-mass stars could look for that signature, although such a search is far beyond current data.

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

The paper has a real result: it gives a quantitative argument, based on today's Oort cloud mass, that the Sun left its birth cluster within ~20 Myr after the giant planets formed. That timing constraint is new and worth taking seriously. The simulations are careful: 27 realizations, standard integrators, published code and data, and a sensible check of chaotic divergence.

What it does well: the core physics is convincing. In a cluster environment, the outer Oort cloud cannot assemble because passing stars strip wide orbits on a short timescale. The authors show this directly, and the contrast with isolated evolution is clean. They also anchor the calculation to external measurements – current Oort mass and disk-mass constraints – rather than only to their own simulations. The citation pattern is fair; they engage with alternatives like capture of free-floating planetesimals and explain why that route fails.

The soft spot is the disk-mass normalization, and the authors are transparent about it. They quote an allowed mdm of 15–170 M⊕, but the ~20 M⊕ anchor comes from Nesvorný & Morbidelli's eccentricity-damping argument. Figure 3 shows the degeneracy: if mdm is 50–100 M⊕, an escape at several tens of Myr can still produce today's Oort cloud. The paper dismisses that region by appealing to the external constraint, whose uncertainty is neither derived nor propagated. So the 'within ~20 Myr' statement is conditional on the low end of the disk-mass range. If that constraint is wrong, the timing shifts.

Second soft spot: the tesc–mdm contours are computed with a FRED function fitted to the isolated run and the one tesc = 20 Myr run. The extrapolation across other escape times is an analytic model, not direct N-body output. That is not circular in a damning sense – the fit is tested against observed Oort mass and disk-mass constraints – but it means the quantitative bound is softer than the abstract suggests.

Minor: cluster runs discard destroyed planetary systems before analysis. That is survivorship, but since we condition on the Sun surviving, it is defensible; a sensitivity test would still be good.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. The central idea is solid, the presentation is honest, and the conditional nature of the timing claim is acknowledged. For someone working on solar system formation or early cluster evolution, this is a useful, citable paper after revision. I'd engage with it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses direct N-body simulations of the Solar System, both in isolation and embedded in model star clusters, to compute the growth and erosion of the Öpik-Oort cloud as a function of time. The simulated mass evolution is fitted with an analytic fast-rise-exponential-decay (FRED) function, and the fitted curve is inverted to infer the time tesc at which the Sun must have left its birth cluster in order for the present-day Oort cloud mass (0.2-2.0 M⊕) to be reproduced. The authors conclude that the Sun left the cluster within about 20 Myr after giant-planet formation, that essentially no Öpik-Oort cloud forms while the Sun remains a cluster member, and that this early escape has observable consequences for the inner Oort-Hills cloud, the Kuiper cliff, and the earliest cratering record.

Significance. If the central timing claim holds, the paper turns an otherwise unconstrained event - the Sun's escape from its birth cluster - into a quantitatively bounded, early episode in Solar System history, and it connects that episode to a falsifiable prediction about low-eccentricity inner Oort-cloud objects. The work is reproducible in principle: the simulations are described in enough detail to be repeated, the AMUSE-based code and LonelyPlanets script are public, and the authors report statistical uncertainties on fitted parameters (e.g., µÖO = 0.027 ± 0.006, tmax = 226 ± 24 Myr). The paper also engages carefully with earlier Oort-cloud formation calculations. However, the headline conclusion is conditional on an external planetesimal disk-mass constraint whose uncertainty is not propagated into the quoted tesc value; because that conditionality is load-bearing for the abstract's central claim, the manuscript needs revision before the timing statement can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)

[Section 3 and Fig. 3] The central inference tesc <~ 20 Myr is conditional on the disk-mass range mdm <~ 30 M⊕, yet the paper itself quotes an allowable range of mdm = 15-170 M⊕ in Section 2. The low end of that range is anchored to the eccentricity-damping argument of Nesvorný & Morbidelli (2012), but that external estimate is neither re-derived nor propagated with an uncertainty in this paper. For mdm near the upper end of the quoted range, Fig. 3's contours allow tesc of several tens of Myr while still producing mÖO = 0.5-2 M⊕ today. The sentence 'which contradicts the constraints in Nesvorný & Morbidelli 2012' is therefore an appeal to an external estimate rather than an internal exclusion, and the abstract's unconditional phrasing 'best explained if the Sun left the nest within ~20 Myr' overstates what the simulations alone establish. Please either propagate the disk-mass uncertainty into a joint constraint on (mdm, tesc), or present the conclusion explicitly as conditional on the Nesvorný-Morbidelli disk-mass bound.
[Appendix E, Eq. (E.1), and Fig. 3] The tesc versus mdm contours in Fig. 3 are computed by evaluating the analytic FRED model, not by direct N-body simulations at each escape time. The published N-body calibration is only for the isolated case and for tesc = 20 Myr; the shape parameters of Eq. (E.1) are fitted to those two cases and then assumed to hold across the entire tesc grid. The inversion in Fig. 3 is thus a fitted model extrapolation, not a measurement from the simulations, and the inferred tesc inherits any error in the assumed FRED shape. The authors note in Appendix E that 'this inversion problem is not possible' and therefore fit and invert the curve, but the extrapolation error is not quantified. Please validate the FRED extrapolation with direct N-body runs at at least one or two other escape times, or bound the resulting systematic error on the recovered tesc.
[Section 2, Fig. 1, and Appendix A] The conclusion that 'no appreciable Oort cloud forms' while the Sun is in the cluster is based on cluster simulations with particular density profiles and encounter histories. The authors support this with an adiabatic-perturbation argument in Section 3, which is reasonable, but the parameter range of the cluster models (virialized Plummer spheres with half-mass densities from 3.7 to 6000 pc^-3, plus one hydrodynamic collapse realization) may not cover all plausible birth environments, especially highly substructured or rapidly dispersing clusters. Since the abstract presents the early-escape conclusion as generic, I ask the authors to state explicitly whether the no-cloud result holds for all models in Appendix D or only for the sampled range, and to clarify what fraction of the simulated planetary systems were destroyed before the end of the run.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] There are typographical errors in the abstract: 'Opic-Oort' should be 'Öpik-Oort', and 'extend' should be 'extent'.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'Blue dots (top left)' and 'Orange points (bottom)' but the reader must infer that the labeled curves correspond to the simulations; please state explicitly which symbols are cluster models and which are isolated models, and define the shaded regions in the caption text.
[Section 3, final paragraph] The statement about migration timescales - 'if migration time scale exceeds ~20 Myr ... the Sun should have left before the migration ends' - is an interesting consequence but not demonstrated by a simulation in this paper; please label it as a prediction or provide supporting runs.
[Appendix B] The definition of the inner edge of the Öpik-Oort cloud as r_inner = 30,000 au is used throughout, but Eq. (E.2) and Eq. (E.3) show a strong dependence of µÖO and trise on r_inner; a brief discussion of how the uncertainty in r_inner propagates into the fitted parameters would improve confidence in the inversion.
[References] The reference list appears to contain duplicate entries for the same work: 'de Sousa, R. R., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2020' and 'de Sousa Ribeiro, R., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2020' likely refer to the same paper; please consolidate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ~20 Myr escape-time claim is a model inversion against externally measured Oort-cloud mass and disk-mass constraints, not a self-referential fit.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a forward model calibrated on self-run N-body simulations, followed by a standard inversion against external observables. The FRED parameters (μ=0.027, trise=10 Myr, tdecay=4000–13000 Myr) are fitted to the authors' own simulated mass-evolution curves (Eq. E.1 and Fig. E.1), but the target quantity tesc is not one of the fitted parameters; it enters as an input scenario (e.g., the tesc=20 Myr simulation is a forward run, not a fit). The observed Öpik-Oort cloud mass (0.2–2.0 M⊕, from Francis 2005; Kaib & Volk 2022) and the disk-mass constraint (~20 M⊕, from Nesvorný & Morbidelli 2012) are external to the simulation fit. Section 3's inference that mdm<~30 M⊕ and tesc<~20 Myr is obtained by evaluating the calibrated analytic model at t=4.5 Gyr and comparing with these external values. The result is conditional on the external disk-mass estimate, and the paper itself quotes a wider 15–170 M⊕ range that would allow later escape at the high end; this is a robustness and external-constraint concern, not circularity. Self-citations (Hanse et al. 2018; Pfalzner et al. 2024a,b; Jílková et al. 2015, 2016) are supporting numerical results with their own methods and assumptions; none defines the target quantity or replaces an independent measurement. No step reduces by construction to its inputs, so no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of fitted parameters (the FRED peak, rise time, and decay time), an arbitrary inner-edge choice, and two external observational constraints (current Oort cloud mass and initial disk mass). No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted FRED parameters are not independent of the simulations, but the comparison to external Oort mass and disk mass constraints provides a check outside the model.

free parameters (5)

mu_OO (peak Öpik-Oort cloud mass relative to disk mass) = 0.027 +/- 0.006
Fitted to 27 isolated N-body simulations (Fig. B.1); used in FRED model Eq. (E.1) and in the tesc inversion.
trise (Oort cloud rise time) = 10 Myr (isolated), 80 Myr (escaped at 20 Myr)
Fitted to simulated mass evolution (Appendix E); the escape-time reconstruction in Fig. 2 is sensitive to this parameter.
tdecay (Oort cloud erosion timescale) = 4000 to 13000 Myr
Assumed range from the authors' simulations and from Hanse et al. (2018); controls how much the Oort cloud erodes by today.
r_inner (inner edge of the Öpik-Oort cloud) = 30000 au (adopted)
An arbitrary boundary choice; the paper itself shows mu_OO and trise depend on it via Eqs. (E.2) and (E.3).
mdm (initial planetesimal disk mass after giant planet core formation) = 15 to 170 M_sun_earth, with preferred ~20 M_sun_earth
Taken from external constraints (Nesvorný & Morbidelli 2012); the tesc <= 20 Myr inference holds only for mdm <~30 M_sun_earth (Section 3, Fig. 3).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Oort cloud is formed by scattering of planetesimals by the four giant planets, with no other significant source.
Standard assumption in the field, invoked in the Introduction; capture from free-floating debris is discussed in Section 4 and argued to be subdominant.
domain assumption Planetesimals are massless test particles that do not interact with each other or back-react on the planets.
Stated in Appendix A and Appendix D; this simplifies the N-body calculation and is standard for Oort cloud studies.
domain assumption A stellar cluster suppresses outer Oort cloud formation regardless of cluster mass, because the cluster density within the Sun's Hill sphere is roughly independent of cluster mass.
Argued in Section 3 using adiabatic perturbation estimates (Hut & Tremaine 1985) and supported by the cluster simulations in Fig. 1.
ad hoc to paper The fast-rise-exponential-decay (FRED) function (Eq. E.1) accurately describes the Oort cloud mass evolution.
The FRED form is chosen by the authors to fit their simulated mass curves; the inferred escape time is obtained by inverting this fitted model.
domain assumption The current mass of the Öpik-Oort cloud is between 0.2 and 2.0 Earth masses.
Taken from Francis (2005) and Kaib & Volk (2022); this observed range sets the target that the model must reproduce.
domain assumption The initial circumstellar disk mass in solids after giant planet core formation was about 20 Earth masses, with an upper bound near 30 Earth masses.
Based on the eccentricity-damping constraint of Nesvorný & Morbidelli (2012), cited in Section 2; this is the key external constraint that makes the early-escape conclusion binding.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Oort Cloud Ecology. III. The Sun left the parent star cluster shortly after the giant planets formed." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKO3AAFU

@misc{pith2026250513666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Oort Cloud Ecology. III. The Sun left the parent star cluster shortly after the giant planets formed},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKO3AAFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13666}
}

abstract

The Sun was born in a clustered environment with 10,000 other stars. Being an isolated star today, the Sun must have left the nest. We do not directly know when that happened, how violent the ejection was, or how far the Solar siblings have drifted apart. The mass of the fragile outer Opic-Oort cloud, (between $r_{\rm inner} \sim 30,000$\,au and $200\,000$au from the Sun) and the orbital distribution of planetesimals in the inner Hills-Oort cloud (between $\sim 1000$\,au and $\sim 30\,000$ au) are sensitive to the dynamical processes involving the Sun in the parent cluster. We aim at understanding the extend to which observing the Oort cloud constrains the Sun's birth environment. This is achieved by a combination of theoretical arguments and N-body simulations. We show that the current mass of the Opic-Oort cloud (between 0.2 and $2.0$ Earth masses) is best explained if the Sun left the nest within $\sim 20$\,Myr after the giant planets formed and migrated. As a consequence, the possible dynamical encounter with another star carving the Kuiper belt, the Sun's abduction of Sedna, and other perturbations induced by nearby stars then must have happened shortly after the giant planets in the Solar system formed, but before the Sun left the parent cluster. Signatures of the time spend in the parent cluster must still be visible in the outer parts of the Solar system today. The strongest constraints will be the discovery of a population of relatively low-eccentricity ($e < 0.9$) inner Oort-cloud (but $500 < a < 10^4$\,au) objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13666 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Relative mass (µÖO ≡ mÖO/mdm) evolution of the Öpik-Oort cloud. Blue dots (top left) result from simulating 1000 Myr evolution of the Oort cloud for an isolated Solar system. Orange points (bottom) represent the formation of an Öpik-Oort cloud in a stellar cluster; no appreciable Oort cloud forms in these models. The red dots give the mass evolution of the Oort cloud if the Sun left the parent cluster at an age of 2… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Today’s Oort cloud mass (mÖO, shades) as a function of the planetesimal disk-mass (mdm) and the Sun’s escape time tesc. Here mdm is the leftover mass of the debris disk after the giant planets’ cores formed (here the mass in planets’ cores is mpc). Along the top axis we express mdm in terms of the planet-formation efficiency ϵpae ≡ mdm/(mdm + mpc). The curves indicate the current mass of the ÖpikOort cloud (in unit… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** fig. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Probing the origins. III. Exoplanet demographics across Galactic birth radii
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Giant-planet hosts preferentially formed in the metal-rich inner Galaxy and later migrated, while rocky-only systems are less centrally concentrated and show smaller radial excursions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

Adams , F. C. 2010, , 48, 47

work page 2010
[4]

& Kokubo , E

Arakawa , S. & Kokubo , E. 2023, , 670, A105

work page 2023
[5]

J., & Parker , R

Arnold , B., Wright , N. J., & Parker , R. J. 2022, , 515, 2266

work page 2022
[6]

A., & Nesvorn \'y , D

Batygin , K., Mardling , R. A., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2021, , 920, 148

work page 2021
[7]

2024, Terrestrial planet formation during giant planet formation and giant planet migration I: The first 5 million years

Brasser, R. 2024, Terrestrial planet formation during giant planet formation and giant planet migration I: The first 5 million years

work page 2024
[8]

J., & Levison , H

Brasser , R., Duncan , M. J., & Levison , H. F. 2006, , 184, 59

work page 2006

Show all 76 references

[9]

J., & Levison , H

Brasser , R., Duncan , M. J., & Levison , H. F. 2007, , 191, 413

2007
[10]

J., & Levison , H

Brasser , R., Duncan , M. J., & Levison , H. F. 2008, , 196, 274

2008
[11]

2017, , 599, A91

Breslau , A., Vincke , K., & Pfalzner , S. 2017, , 599, A91

2017
[12]

X., Portegies Zwart , S., Kouwenhoven , M

Cai , M. X., Portegies Zwart , S., Kouwenhoven , M. B. N., & Spurzem , R. 2019, , 489, 4311

2019
[13]

& de la Fuente Marcos , R

de la Fuente Marcos , C. & de la Fuente Marcos , R. 2024, , 527, L110

2024
[14]

R., Morbidelli , A., Raymond , S

de Sousa , R. R., Morbidelli , A., Raymond , S. N., et al. 2020, , 339, 113605

2020
[15]

N., et al

de Sousa Ribeiro, R., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2020, Icarus, 339, 113605

2020
[16]

Desch , S. J. 2007, , 671, 878

2007
[17]

R., Levison , H

Dones , L., Weissman , P. R., Levison , H. F., & Duncan , M. J. 2004, Oort cloud formation and dynamics , ed. M. C. Festou , H. U. Keller , & H. A. Weaver , 153

2004
[18]

1987, , 94, 1330

Duncan , M., Quinn , T., & Tremaine , S. 1987, , 94, 1330

1987
[19]

V., Asher , D

Emel'Yanenko , V. V., Asher , D. J., & Bailey , M. E. 2007, , 381, 779

2007
[20]

Fernandez , J. A. 1980, , 42, 406

1980
[21]

Fernandez , J. A. & Ip , W. H. 1984, , 58, 109

1984
[22]

2020, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 132, 43

Fouchard , M., Emel'yanenko , V., & Higuchi , A. 2020, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 132, 43

2020
[23]

Francis , P. J. 2005, , 635, 1348

2005
[24]

C., Porter , S

Fraser , W. C., Porter , S. B., Peltier , L., et al. 2024, , 5, 227

2024
[25]

2007, , 59, 1095

Fujii , M., Iwasawa , M., Funato , Y., & Makino , J. 2007, , 59, 1095

2007
[26]

Goodwin , S. P. 2009, , 324, 259

2009
[27]

Goodwin , S. P. & Bastian , N. 2006, , 373, 752

2006
[28]

C., Lega , E., & Morbidelli , A

Griveaud , P., Crida , A., Petit , A. C., Lega , E., & Morbidelli , A. 2024, , 688, A202

2024
[29]

2024, , 682, A43

Gurrutxaga , N., Johansen , A., Lambrechts , M., & Appelgren , J. 2024, , 682, A43

2024
[30]

Y., Hopkins , P

Guszejnov , D., Grudi \'c , M. Y., Hopkins , P. F., Offner , S. S. R., & Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. 2021, , 502, 3646

2021
[31]

& Tremaine , S

Hadden , S. & Tremaine , S. 2024, , 527, 3054

2024
[32]

O., Dehnen , W., Gration , A., Stadel , J., & Moore , B

Hands , T. O., Dehnen , W., Gration , A., Stadel , J., & Moore , B. 2019, , 490, 21

2019
[33]

F., & Pelupessy , F

Hanse , J., J \' lkov \'a , L., Portegies Zwart , S. F., & Pelupessy , F. I. 2018, , 473, 5432

2018
[34]

& Tremaine , S

Heisler , J. & Tremaine , S. 1986, , 65, 13

1986
[35]

D., Podolak , M., & Schubert , G

Helled , R., Anderson , J. D., Podolak , M., & Schubert , G. 2011, , 726, 15

2011
[36]

& Kokubo , E

Higuchi , A. & Kokubo , E. 2015, , 150, 26

2015
[37]

Hills , J. G. 1981, , 86, 1730

1981
[38]

& Tremaine , S

Hut , P. & Tremaine , S. 1985, , 90, 1548

1985
[39]

2014, , 570, A20

J \"a nes , J., Pelupessy , I., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2014, , 570, A20

2014
[40]

2016, , 457, 4218

J \' lkov \'a , L., Hamers , A., Hammer , M., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2016, , 457, 4218

2016
[41]

2015, , 453, 3157

J \' lkov \'a , L., Portegies Zwart , S., Pijloo , T., & Hammer , M. 2015, , 453, 3157

2015
[42]

Kaib , N. A. & Quinn , T. 2008, , 197, 221

2008
[43]

Kaib , N. A. & Volk , K. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.00010

2022 arXiv
[44]

& Ida , S

Kokubo , E. & Ida , S. 1998, Icarus, 131, 171

1998
[45]

F., Duncan , M

Levison , H. F., Duncan , M. J., Brasser , R., & Kaufmann , D. E. 2010, Science, 329, 187

2010
[46]

N., & Jacobson , S

Liu , B., Raymond , S. N., & Jacobson , S. A. 2022, , 604, 643

2022
[47]

& Aarseth , S

Makino , J. & Aarseth , S. J. 1992, , 44, 141

1992
[48]

S., Mukhin , L

Marochnik , L. S., Mukhin , L. M., & Sagdeev , R. Z. 1988, Science, 242, 547

1988
[49]

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

Meech , K. J., Weryk , R., Micheli , M., et al. 2017, , 552, 378

2017
[50]

& Clarke , C

Moeckel , N. & Clarke , C. J. 2011, , 415, 1179

2011
[51]

& Morbidelli , A

Nesvorn \'y , D. & Morbidelli , A. 2012, , 144, 117

2012
[52]

Oort , J. H. 1950, , 11, 91

1950
[53]

1932, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 67, 169

\"O pik , E. 1932, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 67, 169

1932
[54]

I., J \"a nes , J., & Portegies Zwart , S

Pelupessy , F. I., J \"a nes , J., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2012, , 17, 711

2012
[55]

Perets , H. B. & Kouwenhoven , M. B. N. 2012, , 750, 83

2012
[56]

2024 a , Nature Astronomy, 8, 1380

Pfalzner , S., Govind , A., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2024 a , Nature Astronomy, 8, 1380

2024
[57]

Pfalzner , S., Govind , A., & Wagner , F. W. 2024 b , , 972, L21

2024
[58]

S., et al

Polak , B., Mac Low , M.-M., Klessen , R. S., et al. 2024 a , , 690, A207

2024
[59]

S., et al

Polak , B., Mac Low , M.-M., Klessen , R. S., et al. 2024 b , , 690, A94

2024
[60]

2019, , 622, A69

Portegies Zwart , S. 2019, , 622, A69

2019
[61]

& McMillan , S

Portegies Zwart , S. & McMillan , S. 2018, Astrophysical Recipes; The art of AMUSE

2018
[62]

2020, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulations, 85, 105240

Portegies Zwart , S., Pelupessy , I., Mart \' nez-Barbosa , C., van Elteren , A., & McMillan , S. 2020, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulations, 85, 105240

2020
[63]

Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2009, , 696, L13

2009
[64]

Portegies Zwart , S. F. & J \' lkov \'a , L. 2015, , 451, 144

2015
[65]

F., McMillan , S

Portegies Zwart , S. F., McMillan , S. L. W., & Gieles , M. 2010, , 48, 431

2010
[66]

2014, , 444, 2808

Punzo , D., Capuzzo-Dolcetta , R., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2014, , 444, 2808

2014
[67]

& Perets , H

Rozner , M. & Perets , H. B. 2023, , 955, 134

2023
[68]

& Torbett , M

Smoluchowski , R. & Torbett , M. 1984, , 311, 38

1984
[69]

X., Spurzem , R., Kouwenhoven , M

Stock , K., Cai , M. X., Spurzem , R., Kouwenhoven , M. B. N., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2020, , 497, 1807

2020
[70]

1968, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 5, 506

Strang, G. 1968, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 5, 506

1968
[71]

& Toomre , J

Toomre , A. & Toomre , J. 1972, , 178, 623

1972
[72]

M., Hubbard , W

Wahl , S. M., Hubbard , W. B., Militzer , B., et al. 2017, , 44, 4649

2017
[73]

& Tremaine , S

Wiegert , P. & Tremaine , S. 1999, , 137, 84

1999
[74]

Wilhelm , M. J. C., Portegies Zwart , S., Cournoyer-Cloutier , C., et al. 2023, , 520, 5331

2023
[75]

2016, Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 28, 2295

Wittmann, M., Hager, G., Zeiser, T., Treibig, J., & Wellein, G. 2016, Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 28, 2295

2016
[76]

1979, , 187, 445

Yabushita , S. 1979, , 187, 445

1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

[3] [3]

Adams , F. C. 2010, , 48, 47

work page 2010

[4] [4]

& Kokubo , E

Arakawa , S. & Kokubo , E. 2023, , 670, A105

work page 2023

[5] [5]

J., & Parker , R

Arnold , B., Wright , N. J., & Parker , R. J. 2022, , 515, 2266

work page 2022

[6] [6]

A., & Nesvorn \'y , D

Batygin , K., Mardling , R. A., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2021, , 920, 148

work page 2021

[7] [7]

2024, Terrestrial planet formation during giant planet formation and giant planet migration I: The first 5 million years

Brasser, R. 2024, Terrestrial planet formation during giant planet formation and giant planet migration I: The first 5 million years

work page 2024

[8] [8]

J., & Levison , H

Brasser , R., Duncan , M. J., & Levison , H. F. 2006, , 184, 59

work page 2006