Chaotic rotation and evolution of asteroids and small planets in high-eccentricity orbits around white dwarfs

Dimitri Veras; Valeri V. Makarov

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Chaotic rotation and evolution of asteroids and small planets in high-eccentricity orbits around white dwarfs

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Asteroids on highly eccentric orbits around white dwarfs can break themselves apart through chaotic spin-up before entering the Roche radius, the paper argues.

desk verdict A worthwhile mechanism proposal that deserves a referee, but the self-regulation that makes it work is supported by only a single chaotic run. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04612 v1 pith:BSNWSHRT submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Valeri V. Makarov , Dimitri Veras This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP

keywords whitedwarfsplanetarydebrisasteroidschaoticrotationrotationalfissionhigh-eccentricityorbitsimpulseapproximationrandomprocesses

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 small bodies whose remains pollute white dwarf atmospheres can be destroyed by their own chaotic rotation, not only by tidal forces. On highly eccentric orbits, each periastron passage delivers a sudden gravitational kick to an elongated asteroid's spin. These kicks are random but not symmetric: the distribution of spin changes is biased so that the rotation rate stays in a bounded prograde range, a self-regulated random process. As a result, a body can spin fast enough to fly apart centrifugally while staying outside the white dwarf's Roche radius. If true, this creates a steady source of debris and slightly lowers the orbital eccentricity needed to explain observed white dwarf pollution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-dimensional spin-orbit equation $\ddot{\theta} + \frac{3}{2}n^2\sigma \frac{\sin(2\theta-2\nu)}{(1-e\cos E)^3}=0$, where $\sigma=(B-A)/C$ is the triaxiality parameter and $\nu$, $E$ are the true and eccentric anomalies. It is integrated over thousands of orbits at $e>0.95$ with adaptive step sizes that resolve periastron passages. The output is sampled apoastron to apoastron, and the sequence of spin rates and spin kicks is treated as a random process; ARMA(1,2) and GARCH(1,1) fits, together with kick-versus-spin maps, reveal the bounded asymmetric kick distribution that produces self-regulation.

What would settle it

A full three-dimensional integration with obliquity and tidal torques for a Proteus-like body on a 1.5 au, e=0.99 orbit around a 0.6 solar-mass white dwarf, run for 10,000 orbits; if the spin rate never reaches the critical fission value, the YORP-less fission claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that highly eccentric, elongated asteroids around white dwarfs are driven into chaotic rotation by periastron impulses, and this chaotic rotation can reach centrifugal fission before the body enters the Roche radius. The spin kicks are random but measurably asymmetric: at low spin rates prograde impulses are larger, at high spin rates retrograde impulses are larger, so the spin rate is self-regulated and stays prograde and bounded. As a result, the secular orbital changes that would follow from symmetric kicks—semimajor-axis shrinkage and eccentricity growth—are reduced or nullified. The authors call this YORP-less rotational fission, meaning a spin-up that does not rely on radiation-driven effects, and argue it supplies debris to white dwarfs without rapidly depleting the small-body population.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume the asteroid's rotation is planar and one-dimensional, with zero tilt and no tidal forces; if real three-dimensional tumbling or tidal dissipation damps the chaotic spin-up, the fission mechanism, self-regulation, and predicted debris supply would not operate at the described rates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Debris from rotational fission would populate a radial region extending beyond the white dwarf's Roche radius, not just material disrupted inside it.
The orbital eccentricity needed for a minor planet to contribute to white dwarf pollution is slightly lower than previously thought, because fission sets in before tidal break-up.
Because the spin process is self-regulated, the semimajor-axis shrinkage and eccentricity growth expected from symmetric impulses are reduced or nullified, allowing a steady stream of impactors without rapidly depleting the small-body population.
The spin-rate evolution is weakly stationary and bounded from below in the prograde direction, so high-eccentricity asteroids can remain in a chaotic but stable rotational state for long times.

Reading between the lines

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

A consequence the paper leaves open: the same mechanism could apply to super-Earth exoplanets on eccentric white-dwarf orbits, where the orbital feedback terms scale with mass and would be much larger.
A testable distinction from tidal-only models is that polluted white dwarfs may show debris at radial distances beyond the Roche radius; searching for such material would test whether YORP-less fission operates.
Because more prolate bodies produce larger and more asymmetric spin kicks, the mechanism predicts that triaxiality, not just orbit and size, controls which bodies break up; bodies with higher triaxiality should fission at lower eccentricity.

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

Here's the take: this is a genuinely new mechanism proposal, not a demonstrated effect. The authors couple chaotic rotation to orbital evolution for e > 0.99 asteroids around white dwarfs and show, via a clean impulse approximation, that spin-up during periastron passages can shatter a body outside the Roche radius. That's worth having on the record.

What's good: the energy and angular momentum update equations (5)-(8) are simple and correct. Framing the spin and orbital evolution as random processes is a reasonable move, and the authors are admirably honest that their ARMA and GARCH fits don't capture the full distribution. The Fig. 4 left map, if it holds up, shows a plausible self-regulating asymmetry: prograde impulses dominate at low spin, retrograde impulses at high spin.

Where it's soft: the self-regulation is the load-bearing piece, and it rests on a single 9000-orbit realization. No error bars, no multi-initial-condition ensemble, no quantitative test that the negative bias at high spin is statistically significant rather than a transient. The authors themselves say the fitted parameters vary between simulations, that their experiments are insufficient to verify the orbital effect, and that they cannot give a fission probability. The 1D coplanar model overestimates spin-up, as they note, and tides are ignored. The stress-test concern is fair: if the asymmetry is transient, the orbital feedback picture is undone. But the paper doesn't oversell; it says 'may be' and 'indication.' So this is missing support, not internal contradiction.

The paper is for white dwarf pollution and small-body dynamics readers. It identifies a plausible new pathway to debris outside the Roche radius and slightly lowers the eccentricity threshold for pollution. The central claim clearly needs follow-up with more runs.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. A serious referee can push for a multi-run statistical analysis, which is exactly the missing piece. The paper is clearly written, the physics is sound, and the authors are appropriately cautious. It's a solid seed for a more thorough study.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the coupled spin-orbit evolution of triaxial asteroids on highly eccentric (e > 0.95) orbits around white dwarfs. The authors integrate a one-dimensional coplanar rigid-body equation, treat the periastron torques as impulsive, and derive energy and angular-momentum conservation equations (Eqs. 5-8) that link changes in rotation rate to changes in semimajor axis and eccentricity. They report that a 9000-orbit simulation shows chaotic, bounded prograde rotation with an asymmetric impulse distribution, leading to the claims that (i) chaotic spin-up can drive rotational fission outside the Roche radius at lower eccentricities than tidal disruption, and (ii) the asymmetric impulse distribution may be self-regulating, reducing or nullifying the secular orbital decay and providing a steady debris supply to polluted white dwarfs. The evidence for the central statistical claims is a single long realization plus Monte-Carlo impulse histograms at two fixed velocities; the authors explicitly concede that the stochastic fits are inadequate and that the long-term orbital effect is not verified.

Significance. If established, the proposed YORP-less rotational fission outside the Roche radius would be a genuinely new channel for producing debris around white dwarfs, with consequences for the radial distribution of debris and the eccentricity threshold for pollution. The analytic conservation-law derivations, Eqs. (5)-(8), are transparent, internally consistent, and free of fitted parameters, and the impulse approximation is well matched to the e > 0.95 regime. The Monte-Carlo impulse histograms are a useful first probe of the distribution of periastron spin updates. However, the paper's headline conclusions about self-regulation and a steady debris stream currently rest on a single chaotic trajectory, despite the authors' own statements in Sections 5 and 6 that the evidence is insufficient. As a first exploration the paper is valuable, but the statistical foundations and model-robustness checks needed to support the central claims are not yet present.

major comments (3)

[§4, Fig. 4 (left); §5] The self-regulation claim and the resulting cancellation of orbital decay rest on the asymmetry of the impulse map inferred from a single 9000-orbit realization. Equation (6) shows that the secular change of the semimajor axis depends on E[2ω dω + dω^2]; a small conditional bias E[dω|ω] at high ω can change the sign of the drift, so the sign and magnitude of this bias are load-bearing. In a chaotic system with a short Lyapunov time, one trajectory cannot establish the invariant distribution or the stationarity of this bias. The authors themselves state in Section 5 that "our limited numerical experiments are not sufficient to verify this" and in Section 6 that they "are unable to obtain a likelihood of rotational fission." A revision should present an ensemble of long integrations with varied initial conditions, report the distribution of impulse maps, estimate E[dω|ω] with uncertainties, and propagate these statistics through Eqs. (6) and (8) to give the expected drift of a and e. Without this, the claims of "self-regulated" rotation and "reduced or nullified" orbital decay are unsupported.
[§4, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The formal characterization of the rotation velocity as a random time process is not robust. The authors report that ARMA(1,2) fit parameters "vary between simulations," that the ARMA model does not "adequately represent" the velocity curve, and that the GARCH variance parameter is "perhaps of limited use" for the observed concave impulse distribution. These admissions mean the fitted stochastic models are descriptive summaries of single runs rather than validated models of the process. Please provide a quantitative goodness-of-fit assessment or an alternative state-dependent model of the conditional distribution of dω given ω, and test it on independent realizations, before claiming a formal random-process characterization.
[§2, §6] The fission-outside-Roche mechanism is sensitive to the assumptions of coplanar, one-dimensional rotation and neglect of tidal dissipation. The paper states that the 1D model "is likely to slightly overestimate the associated acceleration," but no quantitative estimate of this overestimate is given, and Section 6 notes tidal dissipation in tumbling asteroids without a concrete assessment of its effect on the spin-up rate. If three-dimensional tumbling or tidal damping substantially reduces the chaotic spin-up, the mechanism may not operate at the claimed rates. Please include a sensitivity analysis (for example, a 3D tumbling model, a range of triaxiality and inertia values, or an order-of-magnitude tidal-damping bound) to show that the fission threshold is still reached under less idealized assumptions.

minor comments (6)

[§5, Eq. (8)] In deriving Eq. (8), the term proportional to (1 − e^2) da/a from the angular-momentum variation is dropped without comment; for e > 0.95 this is a small correction, but the authors should state the condition under which this approximation is valid.
[§5] There is a typo in the sentence "Our limited numerical experiments are nor sufficient to verify this"; it should read "are not sufficient."
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption for Fig. 4 should specify the initial conditions and integration parameters for the 9000-orbit run (these currently appear only in the body text).
[§4, Eq. (4)] For the GARCH(1,1) unconditional variance κ/(1 − α1 − β1) to be finite and the process weakly stationary, the condition should be stated as α1 + β1 < 1, not simply that α1 and β1 lie between 0 and 1.
[§2] The phrase "for non-vanishing parameters of triaxiality σ" is unclear; it would read more clearly as "for nonzero triaxiality σ" or "for finite triaxiality σ."
[References] The two "Handbook of Exoplanets" entries (Vanderburg & Rappaport 2018 and Zuckerman & Young 2018) lack chapter or article numbers; please check the journal's reference style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central spin-orbit coupling derivation is self-contained, and the stochastic models are descriptive fits, not predictive inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Equation (1) is a standard planar rigid-body rotation ODE from Danby (1962); its parameters are adopted physical constants rather than fitted to the target phenomena. The velocity impulses domega are obtained by direct numerical integration, and the orbital-update equations (5)-(8) follow from conservation of total energy and angular momentum; no term in these equations is defined in terms of the claimed outcome. The fitted ARMA(1,2) and GARCH(1,1) models in Section 4 are explicitly judged inadequate by the authors ('we do not find the fitted ARMA(1,2) process to adequately represent the simulated velocity curve') and are not used to generate the fission or self-regulation conclusions. The asymmetry and self-regulation claim is an empirical reading of the simulated return map (Fig. 4, left), not an input assumption or fitted target; the paper even cautions that its limited numerical experiments are not sufficient to verify the orbital effect and that the authors are 'unable to obtain a likelihood of rotational fission.' The only relevant self-citation (Makarov et al. 2018, for tidal dissipation scaling) is used as supporting physical input, not as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and that cited result does not contain the present paper's conclusions. The statistical robustness of the single-trajectory evidence is a correctness concern, not a circularity.

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

The model uses a handful of chosen physical parameters and initial conditions, plus four explicit assumptions about the dynamics. The most fragile is the single-realization asymmetry of the impulse distribution, which carries the self-regulation and orbital-feedback results.

free parameters (5)

Semimajor axis a = 1.5 au
Chosen for computational feasibility (Section 2); authors expect results to be qualitatively similar for larger a.
Triaxiality sigma = (B-A)/C = 0.05
Assigned from a Proteus-like shape; central dynamics are sensitive to sigma but only one value is simulated.
Coefficient of inertia xi = 0.35
Assumed value for the asteroid's internal mass distribution, used in Eqs. (5)-(8).
Initial spin and orientation (theta(0), theta'(0)) = Varied, e.g., theta'(0) = 800 n to 801 n
Chaotic trajectories depend extremely sensitively on initial conditions; the conclusions rely on a small set of starting states.
Orbital eccentricity e = 0.99 for main runs
Within the regime e > 0.95; no sweep over e is used to test the fission threshold or self-regulation.

assumptions (4)

standard math The planar spin-orbit ODE (Eq. 1), with torque proportional to sigma and inversely proportional to (1 - e cos E)^3, is the correct dynamical model for a triaxial body orbiting a point mass.
Taken from Danby (1962) and Wisdom et al. (1984); it is the standard equation for planar rotation of an elongated body.
domain assumption The impulse approximation: all significant spin-orbit interaction occurs during the periastron passage, so apoastron samples and delta-omega impulses sufficiently describe the process.
Introduced in Section 4; valid for long-period, e > 0.95 orbits, but not rigorously bounded.
domain assumption Tidal dissipation in the asteroid and star is negligible on the timescales considered (Eq. 5 conserves total mechanical energy).
Section 6 argues tidal effects in the asteroid are small, but the star's tide may circularize over stellar ages; ignoring both may change long-term outcomes.
ad hoc to paper The asymmetric, finite-support distribution of velocity impulses inferred from one 9000-orbit integration is a stable, generic property of the chaotic system.
This is the load-bearing empirical input for the self-regulation claim; it is not derived analytically and has no multi-realization statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chaotic rotation and evolution of asteroids and small planets in high-eccentricity orbits around white dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BSNWSHRT

@misc{pith2026190804612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chaotic rotation and evolution of asteroids and small planets in high-eccentricity orbits around white dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BSNWSHRT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04612}
}

abstract

Observed planetary debris in white dwarf atmospheres predominately originate from the destruction of small bodies on highly eccentric ($>0.99$) orbits. Despite their importance, these minor planets have coupled physical and orbital evolution which has remained largely unexplored. Here, we present a novel approach for estimating the influence of fast chaotic rotation on the orbital evolution of high-eccentricity triaxial asteroids, and formally characterize the propagation of their angular rotation velocities and orbital elements as random time processes. By employing the impulse approximation, we demonstrate that the violent gravitational interactions during periastron passages transfer energy between the orbit and asteroid's rotation. If the distribution of spin impulses were symmetric around zero, then the net result would be a secular decrease of the semimajor axis and a further increase of the eccentricity. We find evidence, however, that the chaotic rotation may be self-regulated in such a manner that these effects are reduced or nullified. We discover that asteroids on highly eccentric orbits can break themselves apart --- in a type of YORP-less rotational fission --- without actually entering the Roche radius, with potentially significant consequences for the distribution of debris and energy requirements for gravitational scattering in metal-polluted white dwarf planetary systems. This mechanism provides a steady stream of material impacting a white dwarf without rapidly depleting the number of small bodies in the stellar system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04612 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Simulated evolution of apoastron rotation velocity of a Proteus-like asteroid orbiting a white dwarf on a highly eccentric (e = 0.99), long-period (a = 1.5 AU) orbit. prudent to use outside this orbit phase interval, i.e., for 99.9% of the orbit. The ODE (1) can be integrated with two additional boundary conditions for θ(0) and θ ′ (0) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A segment of the simulated rotation velocity curve for the model described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Left: Normalized perturbations of spin rate versus apoastron values of spin rate computed in a numerical simulation of 9000 orbits for e = 0.99 and star-planet parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.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

A White Dwarf with Transiting Circumstellar Material Far Outside the Roche Limit
astro-ph.SR 2019-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

ZTF J0139+5245 is a white dwarf whose recurring 15-25 day, 20-45% deep transits every 107.2 days reveal circumstellar planetary debris orbiting far outside the Roche limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

C., & Bloch, A

Adams, F. C., & Bloch, A. M.\ 2013, ApJL, 777, L30

2013
[2]

C., & Siegelman, R.\ 1986, ApJ, 302, 462

Alcock, C., Fristrom, C. C., & Siegelman, R.\ 1986, ApJ, 302, 462

1986
[3]

V., & Rafikov, R

Bochkarev, K. V., & Rafikov, R. R.\ 2011, ApJ, 741, 36

2011
[4]

J., & Wyatt, M

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

2011
[5]

Bonsor, A., & Veras, D.\ 2015, MNRAS, 454, 53

2015
[6]

Bonsor, A., & Xu, S.\ 2017, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 229

2017
[7]

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

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

2017
[8]

S.\ 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2750

Caiazzo, I., & Heyl, J. S.\ 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2750

work page 2017

Show all 87 references

[9]

Danby, J.M.A. 1962. Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics. MacMillan, New York

1962
[10]

H., Walsh, K

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

2012
[11]

Dosopoulou, F., & Kalogera, V.\ 2016a, ApJ, 825, 70
[12]

Dosopoulou, F., & Kalogera, V.\ 2016b, ApJ, 825, 71
[13]

Efroimsky, M.\ 2012, ApJ, 746, 150

2012
[14]

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

2016
[15]

E., & Saha, P.\ 2005, AJ, 130, 295

Flynn, A. E., & Saha, P.\ 2005, AJ, 130, 295

2005
[16]

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

2014
[17]

Gallet, F., Bolmont, E., Mathis, S., Charbonnel, C., & Amard, L.\ 2017, A&A, 604, A112

2017
[18]

S., Farihi, J., et al.\ 2012, ApJ, 749, 154

Girven, J., Brinkworth, C. S., Farihi, J., et al.\ 2012, ApJ, 749, 154

2012
[19]

M., Benecchi, S

Grundy, W. M., Benecchi, S. D., Porter, S. B., Noll, K. S.\ 2014, Icarus, 237, 1

2014
[20]

D.\ 1963, Icarus, 2, 440

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

1963
[21]

S., & Portegies Zwart, S

Hamers, A. S., & Portegies Zwart, S. F.\ 2016, MNRAS, 462, L84

2016
[22]

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

2018
[23]

A., G \"a nsicke, B

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

2018
[24]

D.\ 2014, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 45

Jura, M., & Young, E. D.\ 2014, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 45

2014
[25]

J., Bromley B

Kenyon S. J., Bromley B. C., 2017a, ApJ, 844, 116
[26]

J., Bromley B

Kenyon S. J., Bromley B. C., 2017b, ApJ, 850, 50
[27]

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

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

2014
[28]

V., & Shevchenko, I

Kouprianov, V. V., & Shevchenko, I. I.\ 2005, Icarus, 176, 224

2005
[29]

Kunitomo, M., Ikoma, M., Sato, B., Katsuta, Y., & Ida, S.\ 2011, ApJ, 737, 66

2011
[30]

Livio, M., & Soker, N.\ 1984, MNRAS, 208, 763

1984
[31]

Madappatt, N., De Marco, O., & Villaver, E.\ 2016, MNRAS, 463, 104

2016
[32]

V., Berghea, C

Makarov, V. V., Berghea, C. T., Efroimsky, M. \ 2018, , 857, 142

2018
[33]

J., et al

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

2019
[34]

V., & Shevchenko, I

Melnikov, A. V., & Shevchenko, I. I.\ 2008, CMDA, 101, 31

2008
[35]

D., Rafikov, R

Metzger, B. D., Rafikov, R. R., & Bochkarev, K. V.\ 2012, MNRAS, 423, 505

2012
[36]

R.\ 2018, ApJ, 857, 135

Miranda, R., & Rafikov, R. R.\ 2018, ApJ, 857, 135

2018
[37]

J., & Villaver, E.\ 2012, ApJ, 761, 121

Mustill, A. J., & Villaver, E.\ 2012, ApJ, 761, 121

2012
[38]

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
[39]

M.\ 1998, A&A, 335, L85

Nelemans, G., & Tauris, T. M.\ 1998, A&A, 335, L85

1998
[40]

S.\ 2013, MNRAS, 432, 500

Nordhaus, J., & Spiegel, D. S.\ 2013, MNRAS, 432, 500

2013
[41]

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

1962
[42]

L., Thirouin, A., Campo Bagatin, A., et al.\ 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2315

Ortiz, J. L., Thirouin, A., Campo Bagatin, A., et al.\ 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2315

2012
[43]

Parriott, J., & Alcock, C.\ 1998, ApJ, 501, 357

1998
[44]

J., Veras, D., Holman, M

Payne, M. J., Veras, D., Holman, M. J., G\" a nsicke, B. T.\ 2016, MNRAS, 457, 217

2016
[45]

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

Payne, M. J., Veras, D., G \"a nsicke, B. T., & Holman, M. J.\ 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2557

2017
[46]

J.\ 2017, ApJ, 834, 116

Petrovich, C., & Mu \ n oz, D. J.\ 2017, ApJ, 834, 116

2017
[47]

Polishook, D., Moskovitz, N., Thirouin, A., et al.\ 2017, Icarus, 297, 126

2017
[48]

W., Scheirich, P., et al.\ 2005, Icarus, 173, 108

Pravec, P., Harris, A. W., Scheirich, P., et al.\ 2005, Icarus, 173, 108

2005
[49]

R.\ 2011a, MNRAS, 416, L55

Rafikov, R. R.\ 2011a, MNRAS, 416, L55
[50]

R.\ 2011b, ApJL, 732, L3

Rafikov, R. R.\ 2011b, ApJL, 732, L3
[51]

R., & Garmilla, J

Rafikov, R. R., & Garmilla, J. A.\ 2012, ApJ, 760, 123

2012
[52]

Rao S., et al., 2018, A&A, 618, A18

2018
[53]

L., Martin, R

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

2018
[54]

Soker, N.\ 1998, AJ, 116, 1308

1998
[55]

S., & Madhusudhan, N.\ 2012, ApJ, 756, 132

Spiegel, D. S., & Madhusudhan, N.\ 2012, ApJ, 756, 132

2012
[56]

E., De Marco, O., Wood, P., Galaviz, P., & Passy, J.-C.\ 2016, MNRAS, 458, 832

Staff, J. E., De Marco, O., Wood, P., Galaviz, P., & Passy, J.-C.\ 2016, MNRAS, 458, 832

2016
[57]

P., Naoz, S., & Zuckerman, B.\ 2017, ApJL, 844, L16

Stephan, A. P., Naoz, S., & Zuckerman, B.\ 2017, ApJL, 844, L16

2017
[58]

P., Naoz, S., & Gaudi, B

Stephan, A. P., Naoz, S., & Gaudi, B. S.\ 2018, AJ, 156, 128

2018
[59]

D., & Loeb, A.\ 2015, MNRAS, 448, 188

Stone, N., Metzger, B. D., & Loeb, A.\ 2015, MNRAS, 448, 188

2015
[60]

N.\ 2018, arXiv:1812.02273

Tommasini, D., & Olivieri, D. N.\ 2018, arXiv:1812.02273

2018 arXiv
[61]

& Rasio, F

Valsecchi, F. & Rasio, F. A.\ 2014, ApJ, 786, 102

2014
[62]

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

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

2015
[63]

A.\ 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, 37

Vanderburg, A., & Rappaport, S. A.\ 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, 37

2018
[64]

C., Mustill, A

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

2011
[65]

D., & Tout, C

Veras, D., Hadjidemetriou, J. D., & Tout, C. A.\ 2013a, MNRAS, 435, 2416
[66]

A., G\" a nsicke, B

Veras, D., Jacobson, S. A., G\" a nsicke, B. T.\ 2014a, MNRAS, 445, 2794
[67]

T.\ 2014b, MNRAS, 445, 4175

Veras, D., Shannon, A., G\" a nsicke, B. T.\ 2014b, MNRAS, 445, 4175
[68]

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

Veras, D., Leinhardt, Z. M., Bonsor, A., G\" a nsicke, B. T.\ 2014c, MNRAS, 445, 2244
[69]

T.\ 2015a, MNRAS, 451, 2814

Veras, D., Eggl, S., G \"a nsicke, B. T.\ 2015a, MNRAS, 451, 2814
[70]

M., Eggl, S., G \"a nsicke, B

Veras, D., Leinhardt, Z. M., Eggl, S., G \"a nsicke, B. T.\ 2015b, MNRAS, 451, 3453
[71]

Veras, D.\ 2016, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150571

2016
[72]

J., G \"a nsicke, B

Veras, D., Mustill, A. J., G \"a nsicke, B. T., et al.\ 2016, MNRAS, 458, 394

2016
[73]

\ 2019a, MNRAS, 485, 708

Veras, D., Higuchi, A., Ida, S. \ 2019a, MNRAS, 485, 708
[74]

Veras, D. et al. \ 2019b, MNRAS, In Press
[75]

Villaver, E., & Livio, M.\ 2007, ApJ, 661, 1192

2007
[76]

Villaver, E., & Livio, M.\ 2009, ApJL, 705, L81

2009
[77]

J., & Siess, L.\ 2014, ApJ, 794, 3

Villaver, E., Livio, M., Mustill, A. J., & Siess, L.\ 2014, ApJ, 794, 3

2014
[78]

F., Chesley, S

Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Bottke, W. F., Chesley, S. R., et al.\ 2015, Asteroids IV, 509

2015
[79]

J., Michel, P., Richardson, D

Walsh, K. J., Michel, P., Richardson, D. C.\ 2008, Nature, 454, 188

2008
[80]

D., Harris, A

Warner, B. D., Harris, A. W., Pravec, P.\ 2009, Icarus, 202, 134

2009
[81]

T., Farihi, J., Tout, C

Wickramasinghe, D. T., Farihi, J., Tout, C. A., Ferrario, L., & Stancliffe, R. J.\ 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1984

2010
[82]

J., Mignard, F.\ 1984, Icarus, 58, 137

Wisdom, J., Peale, S. J., Mignard, F.\ 1984, Icarus, 58, 137

1984
[83]

Wisdom, J.\ 1987, , 94, 1350

1987
[84]

C., Farihi, J., Pringle, J

Wyatt, M. C., Farihi, J., Pringle, J. E., & Bonsor, A.\ 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3371

2014
[85]

D.\ 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, 14

Zuckerman, B., & Young, E. D.\ 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, 14

2018
[86]

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
[87]

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]

C., & Bloch, A

Adams, F. C., & Bloch, A. M.\ 2013, ApJL, 777, L30

2013

[2] [2]

C., & Siegelman, R.\ 1986, ApJ, 302, 462

Alcock, C., Fristrom, C. C., & Siegelman, R.\ 1986, ApJ, 302, 462

1986

[3] [3]

V., & Rafikov, R

Bochkarev, K. V., & Rafikov, R. R.\ 2011, ApJ, 741, 36

2011

[4] [4]

J., & Wyatt, M

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

2011

[5] [5]

Bonsor, A., & Veras, D.\ 2015, MNRAS, 454, 53

2015

[6] [6]

Bonsor, A., & Xu, S.\ 2017, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 229

2017

[7] [7]

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

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

2017

[8] [8]

S.\ 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2750

Caiazzo, I., & Heyl, J. S.\ 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2750

work page 2017