Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Candidate Captured Interstellar Objects in the Solar System

T0 review · 4 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 paper argues that roughly ten interstellar planetesimals are now gravitationally bound to the solar system, most captured by Jupiter's gravitational braking, and that 25 observed objects are candidate members of that population.

desk verdict Qualitatively interesting and worth refereeing, but the '~10 bound ISOs' headline is not yet supported: the abstract and full text disagree by a factor of ~220, the survival-law prefactor is mis-normalized, and the heavy-tailed Weibull reaches beyond what the 1.9 Myr integrations can justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05905 v2 pith:DUR6KK5W submitted 2025-09-07 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Rainer Marquardt-Demen , Gongjie Li , James J. Wray This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarobjectsgravitationalcaptureJupiterbrakingHillsmechanismTisserandparameterN-bodysimulationslong-termorbitalevolutionplanetesimalformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that interstellar objects (ISOs) are not only transient passers-through but can be gravitationally captured, and that a small population of them is bound to the solar system today. The authors build a semi-analytic model of the incoming ISO flux near Jupiter, pair it with N-body simulations of capture and long-term ejection, and extend the same logic to binary interstellar objects captured through the Sun's Hills mechanism. Their central estimate is that about ten ISOs are currently bound, most captured by Jupiter's gravitational braking, with a steady-state orbital distribution concentrated near the Jupiter Tisserand boundary $T_J=3$ at high eccentricity and high inclination. From that predicted phase-space density they flag 18 observed objects as candidate Jupiter-captured ISOs and seven as candidate Hills-captured binaries. The result matters because any confirmed bound ISO would be a repeatedly observable sample of planetesimal material from another planetary system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gravitational slingshot at Jupiter, characterized by a two-body deflection angle $\delta=2\tan^{-1}(GM_J/(b v^2))$ that determines whether an incoming ISO leaves the encounter with negative heliocentric energy. The organizing variable for the resulting population is the Tisserand parameter with respect to Jupiter, $T_J\approx a_J/a + 2\sqrt{(a/a_J)(1-e^2)}\cos i$, whose $T_J=3$ boundary marks the transition from planet-dominated to Sun-dominated dynamics; captured ISOs pile up along it. The conversion from capture events to a present-day census is carried by a Weibull survival fit $P(t)\propto\exp(-(t/t_0)^k)$ with $t_0=1.9\times10^5\,\mathrm{yr}$ and $k=0.46$, applied to N-body integrations that include the other giant planets, radiation pressure, Poynting-Robertson drag, Yarkovsky drift, general-relativistic precession, and outgassing.

What would settle it

Re-run the post-capture N-body integrations for at least 100 million years instead of 1.9 million years; if the ejection rate no longer follows the heavy-tailed Weibull law with $k\approx0.46$ and nearly all captured objects are ejected within a few million years, the predicted $\sim10$ bound ISOs would collapse. Observational check: a complete survey of the 25% highest-density contour near $T_J=3$ should find roughly two bound ISOs; finding zero after full sky coverage would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that gravitational braking by Jupiter is a small but steady capture channel for interstellar planetesimals: the simulations produce one bound ISO roughly every $4.85\times10^4$ years, and a Weibull survival law with $t_0=1.9\times10^5$ years and $k=0.46$ describes how long those captures stay bound before ejection. Integrating this capture-and-survival balance over 4.5 billion years yields about eight bound ISOs from Jupiter and two from Saturn, with the Hills mechanism contributing fewer than about three, for a total near ten. The captured population clusters at $T_J\approx3$ with semimajor axes beyond Jupiter's, eccentricities mostly $0.9$--$1$, and inclinations biased prograde at capture but reshaped toward high values by long-term survival. Comparing that phase-space region with the catalog of known solar system objects yields 18 single-ISO candidates and 7 binary-capture candidates, of which the paper expects roughly three and one, respectively, to be genuinely interstellar.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the solar system's capture conditions—the interstellar flux and the giant planets' orbits—have stayed roughly constant over 4.5 billion years, so that a survival curve measured from 1.9 million years of post-capture integration can be extrapolated to the present day.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central estimate holds, the solar system currently hosts a handful of bound extrasolar planetesimals, making them repeatable targets for orbit refinement and physical characterization rather than one-pass interlopers.
  • Bound ISOs should be searched for near $T_J=3$: high eccentricity, semimajor axes larger than Jupiter's, and inclinations biased to high values, a region of orbital space that known solar system populations populate only sparsely.
  • The model predicts that roughly three of the 18 flagged single-ISO candidates and one of the 7 binary candidates are genuinely interstellar; the strongest single candidate, 2024 XS15, sits in the 10% highest-density contour.
  • The prograde capture bias combined with high-inclination survival offers a dynamical explanation for part of the small prograde excess among Halley-type comets without invoking a large interstellar component.
  • Future wide-field surveys that cover the predicted phase-space region should find additional members, and the count would directly test the assumed interstellar number density because the bound population scales linearly with it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not pursue: because the predicted bound population scales linearly with the assumed interstellar number density, counting bound ISOs in a complete survey would measure $n_\mathrm{iso}$ independently of single-pass interloper detections.
  • The same capture physics should operate around massive planets in other planetary systems, so a $T_J\approx3$ pileup of captured bodies might be imprinted on the orbital distribution of debris or ejected planetesimals around stars with close-in giants.
  • Orbital position alone cannot certify interstellar origin; if the 25 candidates display the volatile or isotopic anomalies seen in known interstellar interlopers, the dynamical assignments would be strengthened, while native Kuiper-belt-like compositions would argue that most are solar system objects.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines a semi-analytic capture model with N-body simulations (REBOUND/REBOUNDx) to estimate the steady-state population of interstellar objects temporarily bound to the solar system. For single ISOs, 5e7 test particles are launched at Jupiter's Hill sphere; 1393 are captured, yielding a quoted rate of 1 bound ISO every 48,500 years. Post-capture survival is fit with a Weibull law and integrated over 4.5 Gyr to predict about 8 Jupiter-captured ISOs today, plus 2 from Saturn, concentrated near the Jupiter Tisserand boundary (TJ = 3) at high eccentricity and high inclination. For binary ISOs, the Hills mechanism is modeled with equal-mass circular binaries; the f = 1/50 case yields an estimated 3 currently bound objects. The predicted phase-space regions are compared with JPL small-body data, giving 18 single-ISO candidates and 7 ISBO candidates, with the caveat that only a few are expected to be genuinely interstellar.

Significance. If the quantitative estimate were fully supported, this would be a valuable prediction: a small, dynamically distinctive population of bound interstellar planetesimals, with candidate lists that can be followed up by surveys. The paper has real strengths: an independent semi-analytic capture check (1011 vs 1393), explicit inclusion of non-gravitational effects and the four giant planets, a public GitHub repository, and a candidate-selection procedure that does not tune the dynamical model to the observed candidates. The qualitative phase-space prediction (TJ < 3, high eccentricity, high inclination) is likely robust to the issues below. However, the headline number of ~10 currently bound objects is not reproducible from the text as written because of an abstract/full-text discrepancy, a normalization inconsistency in Eq. (15), an unvalidated survival-law extrapolation, and a missing derivation of the Monte Carlo rate factor. These issues are fixable with corrected derivations and either longer integrations or a more cautious statement of the prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5.1] The abstract reports a mean capture interval of about 220 years, whereas §5.1 states that 1393 captures out of 5e7 simulated particles correspond to 1 bound ISO every 48,500 years. These numbers differ by more than two orders of magnitude, and the 48,500-year value is the one used for all population estimates; the abstract's interval is therefore not supported by the paper. Please correct the abstract and also state explicitly whether the '~10 currently bound ISOs' is the sum of the eight Jupiter-capture objects, the two Saturn objects, and the up-to-three ISBO objects, since these contributions are never summed in the text.
  2. [§5.1, Eq. (15)] The prefactor 2.79e-5 in Eq. (15) is 1393 / 5e7, the fraction of simulated particles that are captured; it is not the per-year capture rate quoted in §5.1 (about 2.06e-5 yr^-1). The sentence 'This is the capture rate multiplied by the rate of ejection' is therefore dimensionally inconsistent, and integrating the stated P_iso(t) over 4.5 Gyr gives a population roughly 35% larger than integration with the quoted per-year rate. Please replace the prefactor with the physical rate, or explain exactly what quantity Eq. (15) is meant to represent, and recompute the inferred current populations (the values 8 and 9 in §5.1).
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (15) and Fig. 5] The steady-state population estimate relies on a Weibull survival law fit to 1.9 Myr of post-capture integration. At the end of the simulated interval (t = 1.9e6 yr, about 10 t0), the survival fraction is exp[-(10)^0.46] about 0.056, so 78 of the 1393 captured particles are still bound; the fitted tail beyond 1.9 Myr contributes roughly one-third of the 4.5 Gyr integral. This tail is not validated by data, and the simulation duration is short relative to the orbital periods of the long-lived objects (periods up to about 2e5 yr, semi-major axes up to 3500 au, as reported in §5.1.1). Please extend the integrations for surviving particles, provide a sensitivity analysis to the Weibull tail (for example, versus a power-law tail), and report how much of the predicted ~10 comes from extrapolation beyond the simulated time.
  4. [§4.1, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The conversion from 1393 captured particles to a physical per-year rate is not shown explicitly. In Eq. (11), the geometric factor is written as 4 pi^2 r_max^2 n_iso times a Monte Carlo average over sampled velocities and directions. If the velocity directions are sampled uniformly over the inward hemisphere, the unbiased estimator for the flux integral in Eq. (10) requires an additional factor of 2 pi from the uniform hemisphere measure, because the cos(theta) factor is part of the integrand; as written, the rate would be low by a factor of two unless the sampling is cosine-weighted. Please provide the explicit unbiased estimator, including all factors of 2 pi and the sampling measure, or otherwise demonstrate that 1393 / 5e7 corresponds to 2.06e-5 yr^-1. This is load-bearing because the 48,500-year interval is a direct input to the final population estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] Please use standard scientific notation (10^6, 3e6, etc.) in Table 1; as typeset, '106' and '3·106' are ambiguous and likely to be misread.
  2. [Table 3] The name '96P/Macholz' in Table 3 is spelled '96P/Machholz' in the text and in the cited literature; please make the spelling consistent.
  3. [§5.1.2] The sentence 'Many of these objects have not been studied well and represent excellent candidates for future surveys' would be more informative if accompanied by a quantitative statement of how many of the 18 candidates have measured physical properties (colors, activity, or albedo) and by a machine-readable table in the GitHub repository.
  4. [§5.2] The scaling discussion for the ISBO capture rate (C proportional to f^4 for high f) is terse; a short derivation connecting Eq. (12) to the collision and encounter probability would help the reader verify the claimed scaling.
  5. [§3 and §4.2] The maximal-dot-product assumption in Eq. (8) and the equal-mass circular-binary assumption are stated clearly, but the paper would benefit from a brief quantitative estimate of how much these assumptions could bias the ISBO capture rate in either direction, beyond the qualitative over- and underestimate discussion in §5.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: capture rates come from independent N-body and semi-analytic calculations, the survival law is fit to simulation output rather than to the candidate list, and the candidate search is a downstream application of the model.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: (i) initial conditions are sampled from an assumed isotropic flux and a log-normal velocity distribution (Section 4.1); (ii) the capture probability is estimated both by Monte Carlo N-body integration (1393 captured out of 50 million) and by a semi-analytic gravitational-slingshot integral (1011 predicted), providing two independent routes to the capture rate; (iii) post-capture survival is fit to a Weibull distribution from 1.9 Myr of N-body ejection statistics (Equation 15, Figure 5) and then integrated to 4.5 Gyr to estimate roughly eight currently bound single ISOs; and (iv) the simulated orbital-element density contours are used only as a search filter over the JPL catalog to nominate candidates. At no point are the 18 ISO candidates or 7 ISBO candidates fed back into the capture-rate or survival-law fits, so the candidate lists are not tuning the model. The author-overlap citations (Sekhar et al. 2017 and Moore et al. 2020, both coauthored by G. Li) are peripheral: they support the discussion of 96P/Machholz's inclination oscillation and of ISBO ejection by stellar flybys, and they do not supply the capture mechanism, the survival law, or the predicted population size. There are real quantitative concerns, such as the normalization mismatch in Equation 15 (the prefactor 2.79e-5 is the per-particle capture probability 1393/50e6 rather than the stated per-year capture rate 1/48500) and the abstract/full-text inconsistency between 220-year and 48,500-year capture intervals, but these are internal-consistency and extrapolation issues, not circular reductions. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs; concerns about the unvalidated Weibull tail are correctness risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers depend on several externally estimated quantities (ISO number density, velocity distribution, ISBO properties) and on modeling assumptions about capture and long-term stability. The paper is transparent about most of these, but the choice of f=1/50 as the favored ISBO parameter and the 4.5 Gyr steady-state extrapolation are load-bearing.

free parameters (8)
  • ISO number density n_iso = 0.1 au^-3
    Assumed from prior estimates (Dehnen et al. 2021; Siraj & Loeb 2019; Do et al. 2018). Current count scales linearly with this; authors note it could be 0.2 au^-3, doubling the expected number.
  • Velocity distribution log-normal parameters mu, sigma = mu=0.624, sigma=3.715
    Taken from the local stellar velocity distribution (Eubanks et al. 2021). Shapes the capture rate.
  • ISBO number density fraction = 0.1 * n_iso
    Assumed; authors state ISBO density is poorly constrained and could be negligible.
  • Binary separation distribution log-normal parameters = mu=1.23, sigma=8.44
    Inferred from Kuiper belt binaries (Noll et al. 2008). Used to sample binary separations.
  • Binary mass density rho = 3 g/m^3
    Assumed; authors note comet densities could be an order of magnitude lower, which increases tidal radii.
  • f = binary separation / component radius = varied 1/5 to 1/200; favored 1/50
    The Hills mechanism results and current ISBO count depend strongly on f. The paper selects f=1/50 as the most likely combination.
  • Particle diameter = 1 km
    Assumed for collision criteria; affects direct collision removal.
  • Higher-order physical parameters (beta, albedo, A1-A3) = see Appendix A
    Estimated from 'Oumuamua or Jupiter-family comets; applied uniformly to all particles.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption During Jupiter encounter, the Sun's gravity can be neglected for capture dynamics (Section 2, Eqs. 1-4).
    Justified by short timescales and proximity to Jupiter; the analytical capture count underestimates the N-body result by 28%, suggesting some error from this assumption.
  • domain assumption Incoming interstellar objects have an isotropic velocity distribution at the Hill sphere (Section 4.1).
    Standard assumption; no evidence against it.
  • domain assumption Capture and ejection rates are statistically independent over long timescales (Section 5.1, before Eq. 15).
    The paper notes this approximation; if false, the steady-state integral changes.
  • domain assumption Solar system capture and ejection conditions have been constant over 4.5 Gyr (Section 5.1).
    Used to integrate the survival function over the solar system's lifetime; early solar system conditions likely differed.
  • ad hoc to paper ISBOs are equal-mass binaries on circular orbits, and the energy change at tidal disruption is evaluated with maximal dot product (Section 3, Eq. 8).
    Simplifications stated by the authors; they acknowledge real binaries are likely unequal mass and phases vary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Candidate Captured Interstellar Objects in the Solar System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUR6KK5W

@misc{pith2026250905905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Candidate Captured Interstellar Objects in the Solar System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUR6KK5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05905}
}
read the original abstract

Interstellar objects (ISOs) provide direct probes of planetesimal formation and ejection in other planetary systems. While most ISOs that pass through the Solar System escape it after a single passage, a small fraction can become temporarily bound through gravitational interactions. We develop a self-consistent semi-analytic framework that couples analytic modeling of the interstellar object flux near Jupiter with N-body simulations of capture and long-term dynamical evolution, allowing us to predict the steady-state phase-space distribution of bound interstellar objects. Using an analytic model to construct initial conditions and N-body integrations to simulate capture and ejection, we compute capture rates and orbital distributions consistent with previous analytical estimates, finding a mean capture interval of approximately 220 years. We show that post-capture survival strongly reshapes the observable population: although capture initially favors prograde orbits, long-term stability is dominated by highly inclined objects that encounter planets less frequently and thus are less likely to be ejected. The resulting steady-state population is therefore concentrated at high inclinations, providing a potential dynamical discriminant for identifying candidates. However, most captured objects occupy semimajor axes comparable to the inner Oort cloud, making them difficult to distinguish from native long-period comets. The predicted phase-space distribution contains 122 known Solar System objects within the highest-density region of our model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05905 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The gravitational slingshot. v is the velocity of the ISO relative to Jupiter. In Jupiter’s frame, the magnitude of the velocity is unchanged after deflection by the angle δ. The distance b is the impact parameter. In the heliocentric frame, vJ is Jupiter’s velocity, and vi is the initial velocity of the ISO. The angle θ lies in between vi and vJ . vf is given by Equation 1, and does not necessarily have the same ma… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of the Hills mechanism. 1 is the trajectory of the incoming ISBO. As it reaches the tidal disruption radius RT , it disrupts, causing one of the binary components to escape into a hyperbolic trajectory (2), and the other component to become bound into an elliptical orbit (3). Note that vectors and distances are not drawn to scale. The tidal force experienced by the binary is approximately given by: f ≈ 2GM⊙m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sampled velocity distribution of ISOs at infinity. N is the number of particles sampled with the corresponding velocity for this simulation. The red line shows the probability density function used to generate the distribution, which is given by f(v) = 1 vσ√ 2π exp (− (ln v−µ 2 ) 2 2σ2 ), with parameters σ = 3.715 and µ = 0.624. For more information on the velocity distribution, see T. M. Eubanks et al. (2021). Afte… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sampled initial separation of ISBO components. N is the number of particles sampled with the corresponding separation for this simulation. The red line shows the probability density function used to generate the distribution, which is given by f(v) = 1 vσ√ 2π exp (− (l…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative number of ISOs ejected as a function of years after being captured. The data is fit to a Weibull cumulative function: A(1 − exp(−( t t0 ) k ), with parameters A = 1393, t0 = 1.9 · 105 years, and k = 4.6 · 10−1 . The shape parameters of the Weibull function s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Orbital element distribution of the single ISOs. The red lines on the semi-major axis plot (b) indicate the semi-major axes of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Note that the semi-major axis (b) and period (c) plots have been bounded for ease of presentation. The s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of Tisserand parameter (without inclination) and perihelion distance in au over time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normalized density of simulated ISOs in log10(a) and e parameter space using a Gaussian kernel density estimate. The contours represent the highest density region (HDR), the smallest area containing the corresponding fraction of probability. The red line corresponds to…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of orbital elements (log10(a) and e) between simulated ISO results in blue circles and well-defined comet orbit families (Jupiter-Family comets in red squares, Centaurs in green x’s, Halley-type comets in purple triangles, and Trans-Neptunian objects in blac…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Orbital element distribution for captured ISBOs with f = 1/50 at 150000 years after capture. Note that the semi-major axis (b) and period (c) plots are bound for ease of presentation. The semi-major axis distribution extends up to 9000 au, and periods extend up to 900…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized density of simulated ISBOs in q and i parameter space using a Gaussian kernel density estimate. The contours represent the highest density region, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of orbital elements between simulated ISBO results in blue circles and well-defined comet orbit families (Jupiter-Family comets in red squares, Apollo asteroids in green x’s, and Halley-type comets in purple triangles). The black dashed contours represent t…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Lamy, P

    Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 1979

  2. [2]

    A., Roth, N

    Cordiner, M. A., Roth, N. X., Kelley, M. S. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18209, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18209

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18209 2025

  3. [3]

    O., & Sch¨ onrich, R

    Dehnen, W., Hands, T. O., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 4078–4085, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3666

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3666 2021

  4. [4]

    A., & Tonry, J

    Do, A., Tucker, M. A., & Tonry, J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaae67

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaae67 2018

  5. [5]

    L., Knight, M

    Eisner, N. L., Knight, M. M., Snodgrass, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0f42

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab0f42 2019

  6. [6]

    M., Hein, A

    Eubanks, T. M., Hein, A. M., Lingam, M., et al. 2021, https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03289

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    2024, in Comets III, ed

    Pfalzner, S. 2024, in Comets III, ed. K. J

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    O., & Dehnen, W

    Hands, T. O., & Dehnen, W. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L59, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz186

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz186 2020

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    M., Eubanks, M., Hibberd, A., et al

    Hein, A. M., Eubanks, M., Hibberd, A., et al. 2022, Bulletin of the AAS, 53, doi: 10.3847/25c2cfeb.7273f358 24

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687, doi: 10.1038/331687a0

    1988 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.06475

    Jewitt, D. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.06475

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jewitt, D., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 197, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054221

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    J., & Bromley, B

    Kenyon, S. J., & Bromley, B. C. 2004, Nature, 432, 598, doi: 10.1038/nature03136

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935229

    Kramer, T., & L¨ auter, M. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935229

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, Planet

    Moore, K., Courville, S., Ferguson, S., et al. 2021, Planet. Space Sci., 197, 105137, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2020.105137

    2021

  8. [16]

    Moore, N. W. H., Li, G., & Adams, F. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb08f

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 908–921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2317

    Mukherjee, D., Siraj, A., Trac, H., & Loeb, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 908–921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2317

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Adams, F

    Napier, K. J., Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2021a, PSJ, 2, 53, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abe76e/53

    doi

  11. [19]

    J., Adams, F

    Napier, K. J., Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2021b, PSJ, 2, 217, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac29bb

    doi

  12. [20]

    Nobili, A., & Roxburgh, I. W. 1986, in IAU

    1986

  13. [21]

    L., & Kern, S

    Margot, J. L., & Kern, S. D. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, A. Morbidelli, & R. Dotson, 345–363, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0703134

    2008 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    H., & Kavelaars, J

    Parker, A. H., & Kavelaars, J. J. 2010, ApJL, 722, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L204

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1380–1386, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02349-x

    Pfalzner, S., Govind, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1380–1386, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02349-x

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

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

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Schleicher, D. G. 2008, AJ, 136, 2204, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2204

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 1405–1414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx548

    Vaubaillon, J., & Li, G. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 1405–1414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx548

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    Sekhar, A., Vaubaillon, J., Asher, D. J., et al. 2023, in LPI Contributions, Vol. 2851,

    2023

  20. [28]

    2018, AJ, 155, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabd37

    Seligman, D., & Laughlin, G. 2018, AJ, 155, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabd37

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Z., & Moro-Mart´ ın, A

    Seligman, D. Z., & Moro-Mart´ ın, A. 2022, Contemporary Physics, 63, 200, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2023.2203976

    2022

  22. [30]

    Z., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al

    Seligman, D. Z., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.02757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.02757

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sersante, B., Penoyre, Z., & Rossi, E. M. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08499

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2019, ApJL, 872, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab042a

    Siraj, A., & Loeb, A. 2019, ApJL, 872, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab042a

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, Astrobiology, 22, 1459–1470, doi: 10.1089/ast.2021.0189

    Siraj, A., & Loeb, A. 2022, Astrobiology, 22, 1459–1470, doi: 10.1089/ast.2021.0189

    2022

  26. [34]

    A., Protopapa, S., Freeman, M., et al

    Stern, S. A., Protopapa, S., Freeman, M., et al. 2024, Planet. Space Sci., 241, 105850, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2024.105850

    2024

  27. [35]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 2885–2901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz421

    Veras, D., Higuchi, A., & Ida, S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz421

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    H., & Brasser, R

    Wang, J. H., & Brasser, R. 2014, A&A, 563, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322508

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab700d

    Wiegert, P., Brown, P., Pokorn´ y, P., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab700d

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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