Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Hierarchical Three-Body Problem at High Eccentricities = Simple Pendulum III: Precessing Quadrupole

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At high eccentricities, a precessing quadrupole turns hierarchical three-body dynamics into a simple pendulum.

desk verdict A genuine simplification of the resonant precessing-quadrupole problem to a simple pendulum, with honest numerical checks; the averaging assumption needs quantification, but the core result holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06893 v1 pith:PM4QVDGL submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.HEmath.DS

Ygal Y. Klein , Boaz Katz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.HEmath.DS MSC 70F1570K42
keywords hierarchicalthree-bodyproblemKozai-Lidovcyclesprecessingquadrupolepotentialsimplependulummodelhigheccentricityresonanceseculardynamicsangularmomentumevolution
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 establishes that a test particle on a high-eccentricity orbit perturbed by a quadrupole potential precessing at a steady rate behaves, near resonance, like a simple pendulum. The pendulum angle is the phase difference between the particle's Kozai-Lidov cycle and the precession, and the pendulum velocity is the frequency mismatch. That identification lets the authors predict analytically how much the particle's angular momentum component $j_z$ swings, for both librating and rotating cycles, and explains why the response peaks when the two frequencies match. The same pendulum description also applies to the unperturbed high-eccentricity Kozai-Lidov cycles themselves, giving analytic cycle frequencies. A reader should care because these oscillations drive extreme eccentricities and orbital flips in triple-star and planetary systems.

What carries the argument

The central identity is the change of variables of Appendix A, $e_x=\sqrt{8/45}\,x$, $j_y=\sqrt{8/27}\,y$, $e_z=\sqrt{16/135}\,z$, under which the KLC equations at $j_z=0$ become $\dot{x}=-yz$, $\dot{y}=xz$, $\dot{z}=-xy$; these are exactly the equations of a simple pendulum with velocity proportional to $e_x$, with libration corresponding to $C_K<0$ and rotation to $C_K>0$. For the precessing problem, averaging over a KLC with constant $\phi$ gives $\dot{\delta}=-\alpha (45/2)\langle f_C\rangle (d\omega_0/dC_K)\sin\phi$, where $\delta=\omega_0-\beta$ for librating cycles and $\delta=\omega_0-\beta-\langle f_\Omega\rangle j_z$ for rotating cycles. The cycle averages $\langle f_C\rangle$ and $\langle f_{j_z}\rangle$, together with the analytic derivative $d\omega_0/dC_K$ expressed in complete elliptic integrals, close the pendulum equations and provide the affine connection $\dot{\delta}\propto\langle\dot{j}_z\rangle$.

What would settle it

Integrate the double-averaged equations numerically for a rotating KLC with $C_K^0>0$ chosen so that $\omega_0(C_K^0)=\beta$ with $\alpha=1^\circ$, and compare the maximal $j_z$ excursion with the pendulum prediction; the paper already reports that the model captures the maximum but not the negative slope of $\Delta j_z$ with $C_K^0$. A stronger test is to measure the phase $\phi$ over a single KLC: if it changes by more than a small fraction during one cycle while $\alpha$ is small, the averaging assumption fails and the pendulum model would not describe the dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a slightly aligned precessing quadrupole potential, the paper solves the resonant high-eccentricity problem analytically. When the precession rate $\beta$ is close to the unperturbed KLC frequency $\omega_0(C_K)$, the phase difference $\phi=(\omega_0-\beta)\tau+\Omega^0_{\hat{j}_{\rm outer}}$ is slowly varying, and averaging the double-averaged equations over a KLC at $j_z=0$ yields pendulum equations: $\dot{\phi}=\delta$ and $\dot{\delta}\propto-\sin\phi$, with coefficients evaluated at the initial $C_K^0$. The pendulum velocity $\delta$ is affinely related to the slow evolution of $\langle j_z\rangle$, so the maximal and minimal values of $j_z$ are obtained from the pendulum's turning points. This works for both librating ($C_K<0$) and rotating ($C_K>0$) cycles, with a correction for rotating cycles from the slow precession of the eccentricity vector. The model maps the amplitude of $\Delta j_z$ across the $C_K$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ parameter space, reproduces the resonance broadening with $\alpha$, and identifies the regime where the approximation breaks down.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that during each Kozai-Lidov cycle the phase difference with the precessing potential stays nearly constant, and that the constant separating librating from rotating cycles keeps its sign; both assumptions are needed for the pendulum coefficients to be frozen at their initial values, and the paper shows that the link between pendulum speed and angular momentum diverges at the edges of that constant's range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The location of the largest $j_z$ swings is fixed by the resonance condition $\omega_0(C_K)=\beta$, so observed eccentricity spikes in triple systems can be used to read off the effective precession rate.
  • The analytic pendulum gives not only the location but the amplitude of $\Delta j_z$, including how the resonance broadens as the outer inclination $\alpha$ increases.
  • The same pendulum model handles librating and rotating cycles, with only a correction for the slow precession of the eccentricity vector in the rotating case.
  • High-eccentricity regular KLCs have an exact pendulum formulation whose period is written in terms of complete elliptic integrals, so the unperturbed frequency used in the resonance condition is analytic rather than fitted.
  • For rotating KLCs the simple pendulum reproduces the maximum $\Delta j_z$ but not the negative slope near resonance, which delineates a concrete boundary of the approximation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the pendulum only requires the phase difference to be slow, other sources of slow frequency drift, such as general-relativistic precession or a slowly changing outer binary, could be folded into the same $\delta$ and treated with the same equations.
  • The divergence of the $\delta$-$j_z$ connection at $C_K=-1.5$ and $C_K=1$ marks a boundary between the two KLC families; an action-angle treatment that remains regular across this boundary might connect the librating and rotating cases more smoothly.
  • The abrupt numerical jumps at $\omega_0=\beta/2$ suggest a second-order resonance web; extending the averaging to second order in $\alpha$ could yield a forced-pendulum description or a resonance-overlap criterion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This Letter extends the authors' previous work on high-eccentricity Kozai-Lidov cycles by treating a test particle in a Keplerian orbit perturbed by a slightly inclined, uniformly precessing quadrupole potential. The central claim is that near the 1:1 resonance between the KLC frequency and the precession rate, the slow evolution of the angular momentum component j_z is governed by a simple pendulum, and that this model predicts the maximal deviation of j_z for both librating and rotating KLCs. The derivation uses explicit averaging of the double-averaged equations over an unperturbed KLC, with coefficients evaluated at the initial C_0^K, and the predictions are compared to numerical integrations of the double-averaged equations over ranges of alpha, beta, and initial conditions. The paper also presents a pendulum description of pure KLCs at j_z = 0 in Appendix A.

Significance. If the result holds, this is an elegant and useful contribution: it reduces a nontrivial secular three-body problem to a one-degree-of-freedom pendulum with no fitted parameters, explains the location of the resonances, and provides quantitative predictions for Delta j_z. The derivation is transparent, the coefficients are computed from the unperturbed KLC rather than fitted to the target data, and the model is tested against numerical integration of the original double-averaged equations. The paper also honestly discloses known limitations, including the divergence near the C_K boundaries and a discrepancy for rotating KLCs. The remaining issues concern the quantitative validity regime of the averaging approximation, not the overall value of the approach.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Eqs. (8)-(11)] The averaging over a KLC is performed while holding the phase phi constant, but the paper neither states nor verifies the actual small parameter |delta|/omega_0 << 1. The text says 'with dot(omega_0)/omega_0 << 1' at Eq. (13), which is a different condition. Near resonance omega_0 is close to beta, and the pendulum equations (13)-(14) allow delta to reach values of order sqrt(alpha), because delta-dot is of order alpha sin(phi); for the alpha values used in Figure 4 this gives delta/omega_0 of order 0.2-0.5, so the phase can drift by a substantial fraction of 2 pi during one KLC. This is not merely a formal issue: if the averaging fails, the connection between delta and j_z expressed in Eqs. (17) and (24) is invalid. Please provide an a posteriori check of max|delta|/omega_0 for the trajectories in Figures 4 and 5, or an a priori error estimate in terms of alpha and C_K, and state the regime in which the pendulum model is quantitatively controlled.
  2. [Section 7.1, Figure 4] For rotating KLCs (C_0^K > 0) the model fails to reproduce the negative slope of the maximal Delta j_z versus C_0^K that appears in the numerical data as alpha increases. The paper explicitly notes this discrepancy ('for rotating KLCs ... it does not reproduce the negative slope') but offers no explanation. Since rotating KLCs are one of the two classes the abstract claims are 'solved', this unexplained failure is a gap in the central claim. Please either identify the mechanism (e.g., breakdown of the constant-phi averaging, higher-order terms in j_z, or incompleteness of the Omega_e correction in Eqs. 23-24) or quantify the region of parameter space where the model is not expected to be accurate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Section 7.1] The abstract says the problem is 'solved' for both rotating and librating KLCs, but the unresolved rotating-KLC slope in Section 7.1 makes this wording too strong; please qualify the claim.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The phrase 'with dot(omega_0)/omega_0 << 1' at Eq. (13) is misleading because the relevant small parameter for the averaging is |delta|/omega_0, not the fractional change of omega_0; please clarify.
  3. [Figure 2 / Section 5] The averaged coefficients <f_jz> and <f_C> are computed numerically as functions of C_K; please state explicitly in the text or caption that these are fixed functions obtained from the unperturbed KLC and not fitted to the numerical data, to avoid any impression of circularity.
  4. [Section 3.1, Eq. (5)] It would be helpful to state explicitly that T is the full period of the j oscillation and twice the eccentricity period, and to specify the elliptic parameter convention used for K(m) and E(m).
  5. [Data Availability] The data availability statement promises code 'on reasonable request'; given the paper's reliance on numerically computed coefficients and integrations, placing the code in a public repository would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Eqs. (23)-(24)] Minor typographical inconsistency: f_jz is written with a capital Z in Eqs. (23)-(24) but with a lowercase z elsewhere; please make the notation uniform.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pendulum model is derived from the secular equations with parameter-free averaged coefficients and benchmarked against independent numerical integration.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The slow equations for j_z and C_K (Eq. 7) are obtained from the original double-averaged equations (Eq. 2) to first order in α, and the averaged coefficients ⟨f_jz⟩ and ⟨f_C⟩ (Eq. 12) are computed from the unperturbed KLC at j_z=0 as functions of C_K alone; they are independent of β and are not fitted to the predicted Δj_z. The simple-pendulum form then follows from the identity δdot = (dω0/dC_K) ⟨C_Kdot⟩ (Eqs. 13-14), with dω0/dC_K given analytically (Eqs. 15-16) and the KLC frequency ω0 derived in Appendix A through an explicit change of variables to a pendulum. The numerical integration of the full double-averaged equations (Eqs. 1-2) provides an external benchmark. References to the authors' prior papers are for context and approach, but the load-bearing formulas are re-derived here or taken from external work (Katz et al. 2011 for ⟨f_Ω⟩), and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The unquantified assumption that φ is constant over a KLC and the documented negative-slope discrepancy for rotating KLCs are accuracy and validity concerns, not circularity, because the model's predictions do not reduce to its inputs by construction.

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

The central claim rests on the secular approximation, the small-α expansion, and the fast-slow averaging that replaces KLC oscillations with their mean. No parameters are fitted to the numerical data; all coefficients are computed from the unperturbed problem.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The double-averaged secular equations (Equations 2) faithfully describe the long-term orbital evolution.
    Invoked in Section 2; standard in secular three-body theory, ignoring non-secular and short-period effects.
  • domain assumption The perturbation is small, α ≪ 1, and only first-order terms in α are retained (Equation 7).
    Required for the slow equations; numerical tests use α = 1 degree.
  • domain assumption The test particle remains in the high-eccentricity regime |j_z| ≪ 1 and C_K does not change sign during the evolution.
    Restricts the phase space; stated in Sections 3 and 8; the authors restrict numerical comparisons to trajectories where C_K keeps its sign.
  • domain assumption Averaging over KLCs at j_z = 0 with the phase difference φ assumed constant is a valid approximation for the slow variables (Section 5, Equations 9-11).
    This is the core averaging procedure of the paper; its validity is not proven analytically but is checked numerically.
  • standard math The complete elliptic integrals K and E are standard mathematical functions with known properties (Equations 15-16).
    Used to express frequencies and derivatives.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Three-Body Problem at High Eccentricities = Simple Pendulum III: Precessing Quadrupole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PM4QVDGL

@misc{pith2026241206893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Three-Body Problem at High Eccentricities = Simple Pendulum III: Precessing Quadrupole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PM4QVDGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06893}
}
read the original abstract

The very long-term evolution of the hierarchical restricted three-body problem with a slightly aligned precessing quadrupole potential is investigated analytically and solved for both rotating and librating Kozai-Lidov cycles (KLCs) with high eccentricities. We describe the finding of a striking similarity between librating and rotating KLCs for some range of precession rates. We show that the main effect occurs in both categories when the KLC frequency is equal to the precession rate of the perturbing potential. We solve the resonant dynamics analytically and show that it is equivalent to a simple pendulum model allowing us to map the strikingly rich structures that arise for precession rates similar to the Kozai-Lidov timescale (ratio of a few) and explain the similarity and when it vanishes. Additionally, we show that the regular KLCs at high eccentricities can also be described using a simple pendulum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06893 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. | ⟨ 𝑓𝐶 ⟩ | (solid blue) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: 𝜔0 (Equations 4-6) vs. 𝐶𝐾 . A vertical black line denotes the value 𝛽 = 1.8 and red dashed horizontal lines denote the values 𝐶𝐾 ≈ −0.38 and 𝐶𝐾 ≈ 0.42 where 𝜔0 = 𝛽 = 1.8 (through Equations 4-6). Bottom panel: Δ𝑗𝑧 vs. 𝐶0 𝐾 from numerical integration (up to 𝜏 = 300) of Equations 1-2 with 𝛼 = 1 ◦ and 𝛽 = 1.8 for randomly selected initial conditions with 𝑗 0 𝑧 = 0 (uniformly distributed in 𝑒𝑥 , 𝑗𝑦 , 𝑒𝑧) . The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of a numeric integration of the double averaged equations (blue) (Equations 2) along with the result of a simple pendulum (red, Equa￾tions 13-14,17 in the top panel and Equations 23,24, bottom panel). Presented are two examples, librating KLC (top panel) and rotating KLC (bottom panel). The values of the initial conditions are shown above each plot. Shown is 𝑗𝑧 as a function of (normalized) time. The two gre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Amplitude of the change in 𝑗𝑧 vs. 𝐶0 𝐾 for precession rate of 𝛽 = 1.8 and different values of 𝛼 (written explicitly inside each subplot). Shown are initial conditions with 𝑗 0 𝑧 = 𝑗 0 𝑥 = 𝑒 0 𝑦 = 0 and randomly chosen values from a uniformly distributed 𝑗𝑦 , 𝑒𝑧 and Ω0 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    P., Isaacson H., Howard A

    Angelo I., Naoz S., Petigura E., MacDougall M., Stephan A. P., Isaacson H., Howard A. W., 2022, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6094 , 163, 227

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6094 2022

  3. [3]

    Antognini J. M. O., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1552 , 452, 3610

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1552 2015

  4. [4]

    B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...27A 757, 27

    Antonini F., Perets H. B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...27A 757, 27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/27 2012

  5. [5]

    Breiter S., Vokrouhlický D., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv361 , 449, 1691

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv361 2015

  6. [6]

    W., 1936a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/97.1.56 , 97, 56

    Brown E. W., 1936a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/97.1.56 , 97, 56

    doi:10.1093/mnras/97.1.56

  7. [7]

    W., 1936b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/97.1.62 , 97, 62

    Brown E. W., 1936b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/97.1.62 , 97, 62

    doi:10.1093/mnras/97.1.62

  8. [8]

    W., 1936c, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/97.2.116 , 97, 116

    Brown E. W., 1936c, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/97.2.116 , 97, 116

    doi:10.1093/mnras/97.2.116

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    W., Petrovich C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894...15B 894, 15

    Bub M. W., Petrovich C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894...15B 894, 15

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Fabrycky D., Tremaine S., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/521702 , 669, 1298

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Hirata C

    Fang X., Thompson T. A., Hirata C. M., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 4234

    2018

  4. [12]

    B., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac706 , 512, 4993

    Grishin E., Perets H. B., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac706 , 512, 4993

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    B., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx3005 , 474, 3547

    Grishin E., Lai D., Perets H. B., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx3005 , 474, 3547

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    S., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx035 , 466, 4107

    Hamers A. S., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx035 , 466, 4107

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Lai D., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1319 , 470, 1657

    Hamers A. S., Lai D., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1319 , 470, 1657

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Safarzadeh M., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 99

    Hamers A. S., Safarzadeh M., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 99

    2020

  9. [17]

    S., Perets H

    Hamers A. S., Perets H. B., Antonini F., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv452 , 449, 4221

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Ito T., Ohtsuka K., 2019, @doi [Monographs on Environment, Earth and Planets] 10.5047/meep.2019.00701.0001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MEEP....7....1I 7, 1

    2019

  11. [19]

    arXiv:1211.4584

    Katz B., Dong S., 2012, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1211.4584 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1211.4584K p. arXiv:1211.4584

    2012 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Katz B., Dong S., Malhotra R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.181101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhRvL.107r1101K 107, 181101

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Y., Katz B., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aceae7 , 953, L10

    Klein Y. Y., Katz B., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aceae7 , 953, L10

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Y., Katz B., 2024a, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad18b6 , 167, 80

    Klein Y. Y., Katz B., 2024a, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad18b6 , 167, 80

    doi

  15. [23]

    Y., Katz B., 2024b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae088 , 535, L26

    Klein Y. Y., Katz B., 2024b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae088 , 535, L26

    doi

  16. [24]

    Y., Katz B., 2024c, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae089 , 535, L31

    Klein Y. Y., Katz B., 2024c, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae089 , 535, L31

    doi

  17. [25]

    Kozai Y., 1962, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/108790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962AJ.....67..591K 67, 591

    1962 doi

  18. [26]

    Lidov M., 1962, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 , 9, 719

    1962 doi

  19. [27]

    Lithwick Y., Naoz S., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/94 , 742, 94

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Liu B., Lai D., 2018a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty3432 , 483, 4060

    doi

  21. [29]

    Liu B., Lai D., 2018b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad09f , 863, 68

    doi

  22. [30]

    Luo L., Katz B., Dong S., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw475 , 458, 3060

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee0 , 960, 39

    Melchor D., Mockler B., Naoz S., Rose S. C., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee0 , 960, 39

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Petrovich C., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/abc564 , 904, L3

    Muñoz D. J., Petrovich C., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/abc564 , 904, L3

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Naoz S., 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 441

    2016

  26. [34]

    M., Lithwick Y., Rasio F

    Naoz S., Farr W. M., Lithwick Y., Rasio F. A., Teyssandier J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.473..187N 473, 187

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Rasio F

    Naoz S., Farr W. M., Rasio F. A., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L36 , 754, L36

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Lithwick Y., Rasio F

    Naoz S., Farr W. M., Lithwick Y., Rasio F. A., Teyssandier J., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt302 , 431, 2155

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    E., Liu B., Lai D., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3723 , 501, 507

    O’Connor C. E., Liu B., Lai D., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3723 , 501, 507

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Shappee B

    Pejcha O., Antognini J. M., Shappee B. J., Thompson T. A., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 943

    2013

  31. [39]

    Petrovich C., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/27 , 799, 27

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    Petrovich C., Antonini F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..146P 846, 146

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Loeb A., Berger E., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5dc8 , 888, L3

    Safarzadeh M., Hamers A. S., Loeb A., Berger E., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5dc8 , 888, L3

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Soderhjelm S., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....42..229S 42, 229

    1975

  35. [43]

    P., Naoz S., Ghez A

    Stephan A. P., Naoz S., Ghez A. M., Witzel G., Sitarski B. N., Do T., Kocsis B., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1220 , 460, 3494

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Naoz S., Gaudi B

    Stephan A. P., Naoz S., Gaudi B. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac22a9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922....4S 922, 4

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    A., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/166 , 779, 166

    Teyssandier J., Naoz S., Lizarraga I., Rasio F. A., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/166 , 779, 166

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    A., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 82

    Thompson T. A., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 82

    2011

  39. [47]

    Tremaine S., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1029 , 522, 937

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    M., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Will C. M., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063003 , 103, 063003

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    von Zeipel H., 1910, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.19091832202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1910AN....183..345V 183, 345

    1910 doi

  42. [50]

    A., 2004, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/424937 , 128, 2518

    Ćuk M., Burns J. A., 2004, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/424937 , 128, 2518

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.