Resupplying planetary debris to old white dwarfs with supernova blast waves

Dimitri Veras

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Resupplying planetary debris to old white dwarfs with supernova blast waves

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Supernova blast waves can resupply debris to old white dwarfs from their exo-Oort clouds, delivering metre-sized boulders at least once over a cooling age.

desk verdict A genuinely new analytic treatment of supernova debris resupply for old white dwarfs, with a solid orbital-mechanics core, but the headline boulder claim rests on an unjustified gamma=1 energy-coupling assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21667 v1 pith:DHJP6CBT submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Dimitri Veras This is my paper · ORCID

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

keywords planetsandsatellites:dynamicalevolutionstabilityplanet-starinteractionsstars:whitedwarfssupernovae:generalISM:supernovaremnantscelestialmechanicsexo-Oortcloudsdwarfpollution

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

Old and very old white dwarfs show signs of polluting debris, but their inner reservoirs (analogues of the asteroid and Kuiper belts) are depleted long before a 10 Gyr cooling age. This paper argues that supernova blast waves can resupply those systems from the outside: an impulsive kick from a nearby supernova can thrust small bodies orbiting at $10^4$ au in an exo-Oort cloud inward to within $100$ au of the white dwarf, where the usual planet-driven delivery can take over. The author derives the blast geometries, kick magnitudes, and resulting orbit types analytically, and connects them to debris size and the local supernova rate. The bottom line is a size ladder: micron dust and millimetre pebbles are ejected or redirected by essentially every relevant blast, objects above $10$ km are almost never delivered, and metre-sized boulders should be resupplied at least once to very old white dwarfs over their cooling ages. If correct, this provides a quantitative route for sustaining observable white-dwarf pollution without a long-lived inner reservoir.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the impulse approximation for a supernova blast, adopted from Jackson et al. (2014): the blast is treated as an instantaneous velocity kick $\Delta v = \sqrt{3\gamma E_{\mathrm{SN}}/(4\pi \rho R D_{\mathrm{SN}}^2)}$ applied to a small body on an eccentric orbit around a $0.6\,M_\odot$ white dwarf, with $\gamma$ the fraction of intercepted blast energy converted to translational kinetic energy (taken as 1). The kick direction is parameterised by polar angle $\theta$ and azimuthal angle $\phi$, and the post-blast semi-major axis, eccentricity, pericentre and apocentre are given by closed-form expressions. The argument then hinges on comparing three minimum kick thresholds — the kick needed to push the pericentre into the perturbation zone, the kick that makes the orbit leak past the Hill ellipsoid, and the kick that breaks the ellipse into a hyperbola — which together bound the geometries and true anomalies that permit repeated inner passages and set the maximum deliverable size $R_{\mathrm{max}}$.

What would settle it

Run a radiation-hydrodynamics simulation of a supernova blast wave sweeping over a metre-sized boulder at $10^4$ au and measure the fraction of intercepted energy that becomes bulk translation; a value of $\gamma$ much below 1 would push $R_{\mathrm{max}}$ in equation (47) below the metre scale and reduce the expected boulder delivery rate below once per cooling age.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a supernova blast wave acts as an impulsive velocity kick, $\Delta v$, on small bodies in an exo-Oort cloud, and that this kick can shrink their pericentre into the inner $\sim 100$ au perturbation zone where debris can eventually be accreted. The paper proves, within its impulse formalism, that for a post-blast elliptical orbit to stay entirely inside the white dwarf's Hill ellipsoid and yield repeated pericentre passages, the pre-blast true anomaly must lie in a restricted interval around apocentre; the maximum fraction of true anomalies that allow this is about 23 per cent. It further derives the maximum debris radius that can be delivered, $R_{\mathrm{max}} \propto \gamma E_{\mathrm{SN}} a_i (1-e_i^2)/[\rho M_\star D_{\mathrm{SN}}^2 (1+e_i \cos f_i)^2]$, and, combining this with a local supernova rate, concludes that micron dust and millimetre sand and pebbles are redirected or ejected in nearly every blast, metre boulders are resupplied at least once over a 10 Gyr cooling age, and asteroids larger than about 10 km are essentially never delivered unless the supernova goes off inside the cloud itself.

Load-bearing premise

The entire size and rate argument assumes that all ($\gamma = 1$) of the supernova blast energy intercepted by a small body's geometric cross-section is converted into translational kinetic energy; if the real coupling is even a tenth of that, the maximum deliverable radius shrinks by an order of magnitude and the metre-boulder conclusion can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Micron-sized dust and millimetre-sized sand and pebbles in exo-Oort clouds around old white dwarfs are ejected or have their orbits significantly altered by essentially every local supernova blast; their size distribution in those clouds will become top-heavy unless continuously replenished.
Metre-sized boulders are, more likely than not, thrust into the inner perturbation zone at least once over the cooling age of a very old white dwarf.
Objects larger than about 10 km can only be delivered by a supernova occurring inside the exo-Oort cloud itself; for typical blast distances they are effectively unaffected.
Repeated pericentre passages — the condition for sustained delivery — require the small body to be near apocentre before the blast, and even then only at most about 23 per cent of true anomalies allow this; otherwise the post-blast orbit leaks or becomes hyperbolic and the debris passes through the inner region at most once.
Old white dwarfs can therefore maintain observable pollution without relying on long-lived inner debris belts, as long as an exo-Oort cloud exists and the system experiences sufficiently frequent nearby supernovae along its Galactic path.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's size ladder implies a time-ordering of pollution that is not spelled out: dust and pebbles are processed quickly by blasts, while metre boulders arrive on longer timescales, so younger-old versus very-old white dwarfs should show different characteristic grain sizes in their debris — a testable prediction against observed debris-disc spectral energy distributions.
Because the maximum deliverable radius scales linearly with the energy-coupling fraction $\gamma$, the metre-boulder conclusion is the least robust part of the paper: if real blast coupling is an order of magnitude below unity, the delivered objects are decimetre-scale, not metre-scale.
The 23 per cent bound on true anomalies suggests that many resupplied objects make only a single pass through the inner system; observable pollution from this channel may therefore be episodic or transient rather than steady, unless multiple blasts or replenished clouds keep resupplying the perturbation zone.
A white dwarf's Galactic trajectory controls the local supernova rate, so the mechanism predicts that pollution incidence among old white dwarfs should correlate with kinematics (thin-disc versus thick-disc or halo populations); Gaia-style kinematic samples could test this correlation statistically.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the first analytic treatment of supernova blast waves as a way to resupply debris to old white dwarfs, and the orbital mechanics part is genuinely solid. The size-dependent headline—metre-sized boulders resupplied at least once—rests on a gamma=1 energy coupling that is not physically justified, and the stress-test note is right that this is not just an uncertain parameter but the wrong scaling for a macroscopic boulder. For dust and mm pebbles the mechanism survives; for boulders, probably not.

What's new: the probability integrals for blast geometries (eqs 27/30), the kick thresholds for inward thrust, leaking and breaking (eqs 32-34), the 23% bound on true anomalies that allow repeated pericentre passages, and the Rmax formula (eq 47). The three Monte Carlo tests check out to within a few per cent, which gives confidence in the analytic machinery. The paper also does a good job of linking to the local supernova rate and tabulating expected numbers of events. This is a real contribution to the white dwarf pollution literature.

Where it's soft: the energy coupling in Sec 3. Adopting gamma=1 by fiat, with no physical justification, converts a small-body blast interaction into pure energy capture. The stress-test calculation shows that momentum transfer from the shocked gas alone gives a couple of orders of magnitude less delta-v for a 1 m boulder than eq (5). That makes the 'metre-sized boulders resupplied at least once' claim look like an artifact of the coupling model. The 23% bound is an approximate numerical maximum, not a theorem, though the author does phrase it 'within this formalism', so that's a minor complaint. Also, the paper does not consider radiation-driven effects, but those would mostly reduce the coupling further.

Bottom line: the geometry and kick-threshold derivations are worth refereeing and likely worth publishing after the coupling issue is addressed. The author should do a sensitivity analysis over gamma or a physically motivated coupling model, and the boulder claim should be downgraded until then. Send to a serious referee, not desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops an analytic framework for the impulsive action of a supernova blast wave on small bodies in white-dwarf exo-Oort clouds. It derives post-blast orbital elements, the fraction of blast geometries that lower a body's pericentre into the ~100 au perturbation zone, the minimum kicks needed for bounded, leaking, and escaping post-blast orbits, and a 23 per cent upper bound on the initial true anomalies that permit repeated pericentre passages. It then combines the kick threshold with an energy-coupling model for the blast to obtain a maximum deliverable body size Rmax and, using the local supernova rate, estimates the number of inward pericentre thrusts over a white dwarf cooling age, concluding that dust and millimetre pebbles are always affected and that metre-sized boulders are resupplied at least once to very old white dwarfs.

Significance. The orbital-mechanics core is a genuine strength: the analytic geometry predictions agree with three Monte Carlo suites to within a few per cent (Section 8), the 23 per cent bound is derived rather than calibrated, and the only fitted element is the correction factor k≈0.87. If the kick-coupling assumption were physically justified, the mechanism would offer a quantitative route for maintaining pollution in old and very old white dwarfs without long-lived inner reservoirs, and the paper's analytic expressions would be reusable. The main weakness is that the size and rate conclusions are controlled by an energy-coupling prescription in Section 3 that is explicitly unvalidated and, as argued below, has the wrong physical scaling for macroscopic bodies.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Eqs. (4)-(5); Section 9.1, Eq. (47); Table 1] The energy-coupling prescription is load-bearing and, as written, physically problematic for the size regime the paper emphasizes. Equation (4) assumes that a fraction γ of the blast energy intercepted by the body's geometric cross-section is converted into translational kinetic energy of the body, and Eq. (5) then gives Δv ∝ [γ E_SN/(ρ R D_SN^2)]^{1/2}. For a macroscopic solid body in a blast wave, however, momentum is transferred by the ram pressure of the shocked gas, giving Δv ~ C_d Σ_gas v_shock/(ρ_body R), with Σ_gas the shell column density. For the fiducial parameters of Section 9 (D_SN=20 pc, R=1 m, ρ=1500 kg/m^3, v_shock≈350 km/s) this yields Δv ~ 0.05 m/s, about three orders of magnitude below the ~75 m/s threshold implied by Eq. (32), whereas Eq. (5) with γ=1 yields Δv≈200 m/s. Equation (47) and Table 1 inherit this problem: Rmax scales linearly with γ, and the 'metre-sized boulders' conclusion is an artifact of an energy-coupling model that violates momentum conservation for bodies much more massive than the intercepted gas mass. The manuscript itself notes the lack of physical justification for γ=1; I recommend replacing Eq. (5) with a momentum-drag-based kick and recomputing Rmax, Table 1, and the abstract's size claims.
[Section 9.2 and Table 1] Equation (48) defines N as the number of inward pericentre thrusts per small body over a cooling age, and the Table 1 entries for D_SN=20 pc give N ≈ 0.025-0.15 t_cool Γ. With Γ≈0.4 Gyr^-1 (one 20 pc supernova per 2.5 Gyr) and t_cool=10 Gyr, N is below unity for every row, so the statement in the abstract that 'metre-sized boulders [are] resupplied at least once' is a statement about a population of many boulders rather than about an individual body. Because the manuscript does not specify the exo-Oort cloud boulder population or its size distribution, the population-level probability of at least one resupply event is not computed; the abstract overstates what Eq. (48) and Table 1 can support. I recommend either adding a population model or qualifying the claim to per-object probabilities.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5.2] The phrase 'A then relevant question' should read 'A relevant question'.
[Section 1 and Section 10] There are typographical errors: 'repleneshed' in Section 1 should be 'replenished', and 'exo-Oort cloulds' in Section 10 should be 'exo-Oort clouds'.
[Section 9.2] The sentence 'I assume that D_SN does not vary across the white dwarf cooling age' is in tension with the preceding paragraph, which emphasizes that Γ depends on D_SN(t); the assumption should be explicitly labelled as a simplification for the estimates in Table 1.
[Figure 1] The right-hand y-axis label 'Number of supernovae needed' is the reciprocal of the plotted probability, but this is not stated; please clarify that the number of supernovae is 1/P and assumes independent blasts.
[Abstract and Section 7.6] The word 'prove' is strong for a result obtained with series expansions and the small-qf/ai approximation; consider using 'show' or 'demonstrate'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained algebra from published impulse equations; the only fitted element is a minor numerical correction factor (k≈0.87) used to approximate an exact integral.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is a sequence of derived results: equations (7)–(13) give post-blast orbital elements from the impulse equations of Jackson et al. (2014); equations (31)–(34) bound the kick magnitudes needed for inward pericentre thrust, orbital leaking, and orbital breaking; equations (27)–(30) give the geometric probability; equations (42)–(43) give the claimed 'at most 23 per cent of true anomalies' bound; equation (47) gives Rmax by algebraically equating the energy-coupling kick (equation 5) with the minimum kick (equation 32); and equation (48) composes these with the external supernova rate from Quintana et al. (2025). None of these results is fitted to the data it claims to predict. The 23 per cent bound is a derived consequence of comparing equations (32) and (33), not an input. The only calibrated element is k≈0.87 in equation (30), a correction factor for the approximation P(Δθ,Δϕ)≈P(Δθ)P(Δϕ); it is verified against the paper's own independent Monte Carlo blast-geometry tests (Section 8, Test #1–3), which reproduce the exact integral (27) to within a few per cent, so the calibration is a legitimate numerical check of an approximation, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citation of Jackson et al. (2014), on which the author is a coauthor, is real published support and does not smuggle in the target conclusion: the impulse formalism is external to the present paper, and the supernova-resupply scenario is independently motivated by the simulations of Smith et al. (2024), which the paper explicitly builds upon. The adoption of γ=1 in equations (4)–(5) is an acknowledged physical assumption, not a circular step; its effect on Rmax is linear and could alter the metre-boulder conclusion if real coupling is smaller, but that is a physics/correctness risk, not circularity. Overall, the derivations are self-contained and no step reduces by construction to its own inputs; the score of 2 reflects only the minor self-citation and the minor fitted correction factor, neither of which is load-bearing.

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

The central claim rests on the impulse formalism of Jackson et al. (2014), an assumed perfect energy coupling (gamma=1), three hand-chosen distance scales (rimp, resc, rpert), a calibrated numerical correction k, and a fixed density. None of these are derived in this paper, and the gamma choice is the main lever on the size conclusions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

gamma (energy coupling fraction) = 1
Equation (4)-(5): fraction of intercepted supernova energy converted to kinetic energy of the small body. Adopted as 1 with no physical justification; Rmax scales linearly with gamma.
k (probability correction factor) = 0.87
Equation (30): numerical factor correcting the approximation P(Delta-theta, Delta-phi) approx P(Delta-theta)P(Delta-phi), calibrated against the Monte Carlo tests in Section 8.
rimp (inner impulse-approximation boundary) = 9,000 au
Section 2: chosen so orbital periods are at least 20 times the estimated 0.05 Myr blast duration. Sets the minimum semi-major axis used in the 23 per cent maximum.
resc (Hill ellipsoid escape boundary) = 125,000 au
Section 2: adopted from the Hill ellipsoid of a 0.6 solar mass star near the Solar neighbourhood. Sets the leak boundary and the extreme resc/ai ratio used for the 23 per cent bound.
rpert (perturbation zone radius) = 100 au
Section 2: defined as the inner region where existing planetary architecture can deliver debris to the white dwarf. Affects the inward-thrust probability and Rmax.
rho (small body density) = 1.5 g cm^-3
Section 2: adopted from Ryugu-like rocks; weakly affects results, but enters Rmax through the kick formula.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The supernova blast is an instantaneous impulse on the small body when ri >= 9,000 au.
Section 2: impulse approximation requires orbital period much larger than blast duration; validity inside 9,000 au is not established.
domain assumption Supernova directions are isotropically distributed on the sky and all supernovae release E_SN = 10^44 J.
Section 3 and 6.2: used to compute geometry probabilities; real blast asymmetries and energy spread are ignored.
standard math The Jackson et al. (2014) impulse equations (Eqs. 7, 10-13) give the post-blast orbital elements.
The paper adopts these published relations without rederiving them; they are the foundation of all kick threshold formulas.
ad hoc to paper gamma = 1: all intercepted supernova energy is converted to translational kinetic energy of the small body.
Section 3, Eq. (4)-(5): explicitly adopted without a physical justification; controls the maximum deliverable debris size.
domain assumption Small bodies are uniform spheres with density rho and only translational kinetic energy matters; radiation pressure and stellar winds are negligible for old white dwarfs.
Section 2 and 3: simplifies the kick formula; ignored for very small grains near the blow-out limit.
standard math Asymptotic approximations e_i^2 << 1 and resc/ai >> 1 for the 23 per cent maximum fraction.
Section 7.6, equations (41)-(43): the 'proof' of the 23 per cent bound relies on these expansions; outside this regime the bound is not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resupplying planetary debris to old white dwarfs with supernova blast waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DHJP6CBT

@misc{pith2026250621667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resupplying planetary debris to old white dwarfs with supernova blast waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DHJP6CBT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21667}
}

abstract

One challenge with explaining how high levels of planetary debris can enrich, or "pollute", old ($\sim$3 Gyr) and very old ($\sim$10 Gyr) white dwarfs is that debris reservoirs deplete on shorter timescales, akin to the solar system's already eviscerated Main Belt and Kuiper Belt. Here, I explore how these extrasolar reservoirs can be resupplied through supernovae that propel distant ($\gtrsim 10^4$ au) dust, sand and pebbles, and potentially boulders and comets, into the inner ($\lesssim 10^2$ au) planetary system. I analytically constrain the geometry of these blast waves, and derive expressions for the probability of apt blast configurations occurring. I then derive the minimum kick magnitudes needed to generate stable, leaky and broken post-blast orbits, and prove that within this formalism, at most 23 per cent of true anomalies along an eccentric orbit could allow for resupplied planetary debris to experience repeated pericentre passages. By linking these kick magnitudes with debris sizes and relating these quantities to the local neighbourhood supernova rate, I conclude that the probabilities for ejection or resupply per supernova blast are $\approx$100 per cent for micron-sized dust and millimetre-sized pebbles and sand, and $\approx$0 per cent for asteroids larger than $\sim$10 km. In between these extremes, I expect metre-sized boulders to be resupplied at least once to very old white dwarfs over their cooling ages. The efficacy of this debris delivery mechanism is dependent on the time-varying sources and sinks in an exo-Oort cloud and how its parent white dwarf has, throughout its cooling age, traversed the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21667 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Probabilities of supernova blast directions which propel orbital pericentres of small bodies inwards, from equation (27) or (30); both equations produce results that are visually indistinguishable on the plot. The x-axis is represented by the parameter ei , and the small body’s initial semi-major axis and final pericentre are given by the different curves. The values given on the y-axes assume that the supernova exp… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Comparison of minimum kick formulations. On both plots, the solid black curve (“pert”; equation 32) is the minimum kick required to change the orbit of a small body so that its post-blast pericentre is within the perturbation zone (qf ⩽ 100 au). The green curves labelled “leak” indicate all branches of equation (33) which yield positive kick values; the smaller of these indicates the minimum kick needed to generate … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Pre-blast orbital properties (ai , ei) that can allow for repeated post-blast pericentre passages of the small body in the perturbation zone, for some range (not specified here) of fi . The shaded region, above the curve (equation 37), indicates the combinations of initial eccentricities and semi-major axes which may allow for these repeated pericentre passages to occur. The region below the curve indicates where t… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The effective size of the region around the initial apocentre where the “pert” curves are lower than all others (e.g. see left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Numerical tests to compare with the values of equations (24), (25), (27), (30), and (32). Each row corresponds to a different simulation where (1.0 × 106 , 2.25 × 105 , 4.0 × 106 ) supernova blast wave geometries were sampled, respectively. The right panels display onl…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Radii limits of small bodies which are susceptible to inward pericentre thrusts to the perturbation zone as a function of supernova blast wave distance (diagonal lines) and an assumed initial architecture (horizontal lines), from equations (5) and (32). The orbital arc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

[1]

2024, ApJL, 966, 1, L4

Akiba, T., McIntyre, S., & Madigan, A.-M. 2024, ApJL, 966, 1, L4. Alcock, C., Fristrom, C. C., & Siegelman, R. 1986, ApJ, 302,

work page 2024
[12]

P., Veras, D., Wyatt, M

Shannon, A., Jackson, A. P., Veras, D., Wyatt, M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2,

work page 2015
[14]

& Heyl, J

Caiazzo, I. & Heyl, J. S. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3,

work page 2017
[22]

Miller, J. A. & Fields, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 934, 1,

work page 2022
[24]

Belyaev, M. A. & Rafikov, R. R. 2010, ApJ, 723, 2,

work page 2010
[26]

2020, AJ, 160, 3,

Higuchi, A. 2020, AJ, 160, 3,

work page 2020
[27]

P., & Yap, T

Herbst, W., Greenwood, J. P., & Yap, T. E. 2021, PSJ, 2, 3,

work page 2021
[29]

Frewen, S. F. N. & Hansen, B. M. S. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3,

work page 2014

Show all 71 references

[32]

1997, Icarus, 127, 1,

Morbidelli, A. 1997, Icarus, 127, 1,

1997
[33]

R., Ag¨ ueros, M

Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Kosakowski, A., Brown, W. R., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Blouin, S. 2020, ApJ, 898, 1,

2020
[42]

2024, Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Giant branch planetary systems: Dynamical and radiative evo- lution, arXiv:2405.09399

Mustill, A. 2024, Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Giant branch planetary systems: Dynamical and radiative evo- lution, arXiv:2405.09399. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.09399 Mustill, A. J., Villaver, E., Veras, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Bon- sor, A. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3,

2024 doi arXiv
[54]

2020, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 132, 2,

doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9 Saillenfest, M. 2020, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 132, 2,

2020 doi
[57]

A., & Fields, B

Smith, L., Miller, J. A., & Fields, B. D. 2024, ApJL, 974, 2, L29. Stern, S. A. & Shull, J. M. 1988, Nature, 332, 6163,

2024
[61]

Li, Y., Bonsor, A., Shorttle, O., Rogers, L. K. 2025, MN- RAS, 537, 2,

2025
[63]

Bottke, W. F. et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 9,

2023
[69]

Correa-Otto, J. A. & Calandra, M. F. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2,

2019
[70]

Weissman, P. R. & Levison, H. F. 1997, ApJL, 488, 2, L133. Williams, J. T., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Swan, A., O’Brien, M. W., Izquierdo, P., Cutolo, A.-M., Cunningham, T. 2024, A&A, 691, A352. Wyatt, M. C., Bonsor, A., Jackson, A. P., Shannon, A. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3,

1997
[73]

G., Bonsor, A., & Malamud, U

Brouwers, M. G., Bonsor, A., & Malamud, U. 2022, MN- RAS, 509, 2,

2022
[74]

O’Brien, M. W. et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3,

2024
[84]

G., Taylor, A

Levine, W. G., Taylor, A. G., Seligman, D. Z., Hoover, D. J., Jedicke, R., Bergner, J. B., Laughlin, G. P. 2023, PSJ, 4, 7,

2023
[93]

P., Wyatt, M

Jackson, A. P., Wyatt, M. C., Bonsor, A., Veras, D. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 4,

2014
[94]

& Nesvorn´ y, D

Batygin, K. & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2024, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 136, 3,

2024
[110]

& Kokubo, E

Higuchi, A. & Kokubo, E. 2015, AJ, 150, 1,

2015
[124]

J., & Davies, M

Li, D., Mustill, A. J., & Davies, M. B. 2022, ApJ, 924, 2,

2022
[134]

A., G¨ ansicke, B

Hollands, M. A., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Koester, D. 2018, MN- RAS, 477, 1,

2018
[148]

A., & Tonry, J

Do, A., Tucker, M. A., & Tonry, J. 2018, ApJL, 855, 1, L10. Dones, L., Brasser, R., Kaib, N., Rickman, H. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 197, 191 Duncan, M., Quinn, T., & Tremaine, S. 1987, AJ, 94,

2018
[168]

M., Avillez, M

Breitschwerdt, D., Feige, J., Schulreich, M. M., Avillez, M. A. De., Dettbarn, C., Fuchs, B. 2016, Nature, 532, 7597,

2016
[188]

Su, K. Y. L. et al. 2007, ApJL, 657, 1, L41. Tiscareno, M. S. & Malhotra, R. 2009, AJ, 138, 3,

2007
[197]

F., Nesvorn´ y, D., Jedicke, R

Granvik, M., Morbidelli, A., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Bottke, W. F., Nesvorn´ y, D., Jedicke, R. 2017, A&A, 598, A52. Grishin, E. & Veras, D. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1,

2017
[229]

& Fabrycky, D

Bailey, N. & Fabrycky, D. 2019, AJ, 158, 2,

2019
[357]

Pearce, T. D. 2024, Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, De- bris disks around main-sequence stars, arXiv:2403.11804. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.11804 Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2,

2024 doi arXiv
[407]

D., & Loeb, A

Stone, N., Metzger, B. D., & Loeb, A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1,

2015
[462]

& Fields, B

Athanassiadou, T. & Fields, B. D. 2011, New Astronomy, 16, 4,

2011
[708]

& Scheeres, D

Veras, D. & Scheeres, D. J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2,

2020
[827]

E., Raddi, R

Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Camisassa, M. E., Raddi, R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2,

2021
[930]

& Wyatt, M

Bonsor, A. & Wyatt, M. C. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 4,

2012
[1059]

J., & Wyatt, M

Bonsor, A., Mustill, A. J., & Wyatt, M. C. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2,

2011
[1080]

P., Ertel, S., Birtcil, E., Villaver, E., Kemper, F., Boffin, H., Scicluna, P., Kamath, D

Marshall, J. P., Ertel, S., Birtcil, E., Villaver, E., Kemper, F., Boffin, H., Scicluna, P., Kamath, D. 2023, AJ, 165, 1,

2023
[1330]

K., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B

Elms, A. K., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Koester, D., Hollands, M. A., Gentile Fusillo, N.-P., Cunningham, T., Apps, K. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3,

2022
[1367]

N., Izidoro, A., & Kaib, N

Raymond, S. N., Izidoro, A., & Kaib, N. A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1, L72. Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Solano, E., Xu, S., Rodrigo, C., Jim´ enez-Esteban, F. M., Torres, S. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3,

2023
[1557]

2022, MNRAS, 510, 3,

Veras, D., Birader, Y., & Zaman, U. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3,

2022
[1651]

Planetary Systems Now

Marino, S. 2022, book “Planetary Systems Now”, to be published by World Scientific, Edited by: Luisa M Lara and David Jewitt, Planetesi- mal/Debris discs, Pages:381–408, arXiv:2202.03053. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2202.03053 Marois, C., Zuckerman, B., Konopacky, Q. M., Macintosh, B.,...

2022 doi arXiv
[1718]

Belousov, D. V. & Pavlov, A. K. 2024, Icarus, 415, 116066. Ben ´ ıtez, N., Ma ´ ız-Apell´ aniz, J., & Canelles, M. 2002, Phys- ical Review Letters, 88, 8, 081101. Blouin, S. & Xu, S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1,

2024
[1753]

Trilling, D. E. et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, 2, L38. Veras, D., Wyatt, M. C., Mustill, A. J., Bonsor, A., El- dridge, J. J. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 3,

2017
[1955]

& Rein, H

Pham, D. & Rein, H. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3,

2024
[2059]

L., Martin, R

Smallwood, J. L., Martin, R. G., Livio, M., Lubow, S. H. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1,

2018
[2104]

& Evans, N

Veras, D. & Evans, N. W. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1,

2013
[2214]

doi:10.1093/mnras/staf182 Manser, C. J. et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1, L27. Marino, S., Bonsor, A., Wyatt, M. C., Kral, Q. 2018, MN- RAS, 479, 2,

2024 doi
[2404]

A., Lamy, P

Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1,

1979
[2437]

& Hinkley, S

Veras, D. & Hinkley, S. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2,

2021
[2442]

Gentile Fusillo, N. P. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3,

2021
[2477]

Fields, B. D. et al. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 35, 21008. Firestone, R. B. 2014, ApJ, 789, 1,

2020
[2495]

O’Brien, M

Cunningham, T., Tremblay, P.-E., & W. O’Brien, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2,

2024
[2526]

X., Brown, A

Portegies Zwart, S., Torres, S., Cai, M. X., Brown, A. G. A. 2021, A&A, 652, A144. Quintana, A. L., Wright, N. J., & Mart ´ ınez Garc ´ ıa, J. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 3,

2021
[2548]

& Lai, D

Rodet, L. & Lai, D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4, 11664. Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., 2025, A&ARv, 33,

2024
[2750]

Chen, D.-C. et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3,

2019
[2794]

Veras, D., Eggl, S., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3,

2015
[2814]

2019, MNRAS, 485, 1,

Veras, D., Higuchi, A., & Ida, S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1,

2019
[2990]

2024, Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, White Dwarf Systems: the Composition of Exoplanets, arXiv:2409.13294

Bonsor, A. 2024, Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, White Dwarf Systems: the Composition of Exoplanets, arXiv:2409.13294. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.13294 Bottke, W. F., Durda, D. D., Nesvorn´ y, D., Jedicke, R., Morbidelli, A., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Levison, H. F. 2005, Icarus, 179, 1,

2024 doi arXiv
[3379]

& Rosengren, A

Veras, D. & Rosengren, A. J. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4,

2023
[3385]

K., & Blouin, S

Xu, S., Rogers, L. K., & Blouin, S. 2024, Reviews in Min- eralogy and Geochemistry, The chemistry of extra-solar materials from white dwarf planetary systems, Volume 90 on ”Exoplanets: Compositions, Mineralogy, and Evo- lution” edited by Natalie Hinkel, Keith Putirka, and Siyi...

2024 doi arXiv
[3602]

H., Walsh, K

Debes, J. H., Walsh, K. J., & Stark, C. 2012, ApJ, 747, 2,

2012
[3757]

2017, ApJL, 850, 2, L36

Jewitt, D., Luu, J., Rajagopal, J., Kotulla, R., Ridgway, S., Liu, W., Augusteijn, T. 2017, ApJL, 850, 2, L36. Jewitt, D. & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, ARA&A, 61,

2017
[3877]

Gladman, B. J. et al. 1997, Science, 277,

1997
[3939]

F., Beaug´ e, C., Faherty, J., Emmart, C., Parker, J

Nesvorn´ y, D., Dones, L., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Levison, H. F., Beaug´ e, C., Faherty, J., Emmart, C., Parker, J. P. 2025, ApJ, 983, 1,

2025
[3990]

K., Tremblay, P.-E., O’Brien, M

Roberts, E. K., Tremblay, P.-E., O’Brien, M. W., B´ edard, Antoine, Cunningham, T., Byrne, C. M., Cukanovaite, E. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 4,

2025
[4178]

E., Lai, D., & Seligman, D

© 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–16 16 O’Connor, C. E., Lai, D., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4,

2023
[4557]

A., Toal´ a, J

Estrada-Dorado, S., Guerrero, M. A., Toal´ a, J. A., Maldon- ado, R. F., Lora, V., Vasquez-Torres, D. A., Chu, Y.-H. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3,

2025
[6181]

& Alcock, C

Parriott, J. & Alcock, C. 1998, ApJ, 501, 1,

1998
[6257]

J., & Bonsor, A

Veras, D., Mustill, A. J., & Bonsor, A. 2024, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, The Evolution and Deliv- ery of Rocky Extra-Solar Materials to White Dwarfs, Vol- ume 90 on ”Exoplanets: Compositions, Mineralogy, and Evolution” edited by Natalie Hinkel, Keith Putirka, and ...

2024 doi
[8687]

E., Teyssandier, J., & Lai, D

O’Connor, C. E., Teyssandier, J., & Lai, D. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3,

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2024, ApJL, 966, 1, L4

Akiba, T., McIntyre, S., & Madigan, A.-M. 2024, ApJL, 966, 1, L4. Alcock, C., Fristrom, C. C., & Siegelman, R. 1986, ApJ, 302,

work page 2024

[2] [12]

P., Veras, D., Wyatt, M

Shannon, A., Jackson, A. P., Veras, D., Wyatt, M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2,

work page 2015

[3] [14]

& Heyl, J

Caiazzo, I. & Heyl, J. S. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3,

work page 2017

[4] [22]

Miller, J. A. & Fields, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 934, 1,

work page 2022

[5] [24]

Belyaev, M. A. & Rafikov, R. R. 2010, ApJ, 723, 2,

work page 2010

[6] [26]

2020, AJ, 160, 3,

Higuchi, A. 2020, AJ, 160, 3,

work page 2020

[7] [27]

P., & Yap, T

Herbst, W., Greenwood, J. P., & Yap, T. E. 2021, PSJ, 2, 3,

work page 2021

[8] [29]

Frewen, S. F. N. & Hansen, B. M. S. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3,

work page 2014