Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

In-Situ Scattering of Warm Jupiters and Implications for Dynamical Histories

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Planet-planet scattering at sub-AU distances can excite the eccentricities of warm Jupiters, and the observed eccentricity distribution of solitary warm Jupiters implies that roughly 60 percent of them underwent such scattering.

desk verdict First systematic N-body study of scattering in the warm-Jupiter regime; the qualitative two-population picture holds, but the ~60% scattered fraction is softer than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04300 v2 pith:QEJMS4EW submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.EP

Kassandra R. Anderson , Dong Lai , Bonan Pu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords warmJupitersplanet-planetscatteringeccentricityexcitationN-bodysimulationsplanetarycollisionsplanetejectionstwo-populationmodel
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 asks whether the elongated orbits of warm Jupiters — giant planets with orbital periods of roughly 10 to 300 days — can be explained by the planets having violently scattered one another soon after formation. The authors simulate systems of three or four giant planets packed into initially unstable orbits between 0.1 and 1 AU, a distance range where the balance between planet collisions and ejections is roughly even, and catalogue what the surviving systems look like. They find that scattering yields two distinct survivor types: compact two-planet systems with low eccentricities, which form only when planets collide and merge, and single planets with higher eccentricities, which form once at least one planet is ejected. Comparing the simulated eccentricities with radial-velocity observations, they conclude that the eccentricity distribution of solitary warm Jupiters is best matched by a mix of two populations: roughly 60 percent that underwent scattering and 40 percent that had a quiet dynamical history. If correct, this establishes in-situ planet-planet scattering as a common mechanism for producing eccentric warm Jupiters, alongside a quiescent low-eccentricity population.

What carries the argument

The central object is the N-body scattering experiment: three or four giant planets started on nearly circular, nearly coplanar orbits spaced by a fixed number of mutual Hill radii (3 to 5), with the innermost planet drawn uniformly from 0.1 to 1 AU, integrated with a high-accuracy integrator that includes general-relativistic apsidal precession and treats any planet-planet contact as a perfectly inelastic merger conserving mass and momentum. The physical quantity that determines the outcome is the Safronov number — the squared ratio of surface escape velocity to orbital velocity — which is of order unity for warm Jupiters, placing them in the regime where encounters split between collisions and ejections. The branching between those two channels controls both the final multiplicities and the eccentricity distribution: collisions produce compact, low-eccentricity two-planet systems, while ejections raise the eccentricities of surviving single planets. The comparison tool is a two-population mixture model, $f(e) = F f_{\mathrm{circ}}(e) + (1-F) f_{\mathrm{scat}}(e)$, in which the quiescent component is a half-Gaussian peaked at $e = 0$ with a fitted width and the scattered component is the simulated eccentricity distribution; maximizing the likelihood over $F$ and the width gives the roughly 60-percent scattered fraction.

What would settle it

A decisive observational check would be long-baseline radial-velocity monitoring of the 83 solitary warm Jupiters: the scattering model predicts that many of these systems actually carry close companions with velocity semi-amplitudes of 10 to 100 m/s, and the mixture model predicts a specific full shape for the eccentricity distribution. If the companions are not found and the low-eccentricity peak is wider or narrower than the half-Gaussian-plus-scattering-tail mixture predicts, the 60-percent fraction would need substantial revision. A complementary calculation would simulate the grazing giant-planet collisions that dominate these experiments to test whether mergers, rather than hit-and-run events, set the true branching ratios.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At distances of 0.1 to 1 AU, the escape velocity from a giant planet's surface is comparable to its orbital velocity, so close encounters between planets end in a mixture of collisions and ejections rather than the ejection-dominated outcome familiar from cold Jupiters at several AU. In the authors' fiducial simulations of three planets with masses 0.5, 1, and 2 Jupiter masses spaced by four mutual Hill radii, the first planet loss is a planet-planet collision 65 percent of the time, an ejection 29 percent of the time, and a collision with the star 6 percent of the time; the final state is 52 percent one-planet and 48 percent two-planet systems. Every surviving two-planet system was produced by a collision, which gives these systems low eccentricities (average inner-planet eccentricity 0.15, with 90 percent below 0.34), low mutual inclinations (90 percent below about 13 degrees), and compact spacing (90 percent with a semi-major axis ratio below 3). One-planet systems carry higher eccentricities (average 0.30, with 90 percent below 0.55) because each suffered at least one ejection. When the simulated single-planet eccentricity distribution is combined with a quiescent, low-eccentricity population in a mixture model, the observed eccentricities of 83 solitary warm Jupiters are reproduced with roughly 60 percent of systems having scattered and the rest quiescent; the same model also exposes tensions, since scattering produces an excess of circular two-planet systems and more compact pairs than are observed.

Load-bearing premise

The whole picture rests on treating every planet-planet collision as a perfect merger that conserves mass and momentum; if real giant-planet collisions are often hit-and-run or shed substantial mass, the balance between collisions and ejections changes and the fitted 60-percent scattering fraction would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Planet-planet scattering at 0.1 to 1 AU is an effective eccentricity-excitation mechanism: the simulated single-planet eccentricity distribution reproduces the moderate-to-high eccentricity tail observed among solitary warm Jupiters.
  • Scattered systems carry recognizable hallmarks: compact two-planet systems with low mutual inclinations arise exclusively from collisions, while a high-eccentricity single planet implies at least one ejection occurred.
  • The observed solitary-warm-Jupiter eccentricities imply a two-population history: roughly 60 percent scattered in situ and roughly 40 percent remained quiescent, the latter consistent with the observed warm Jupiters that host low-mass neighbors.
  • Extrapolating the same scattering inward to hot-Jupiter distances would overproduce compact two-planet systems that are not observed, suggesting hot Jupiters and warm Jupiters often have distinct formation and dynamical histories.
  • The observed eccentric, hierarchical two-planet systems with semi-major axis ratios above 3 are not reproduced by sub-AU scattering, so those systems require a different origin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper test that the authors do not perform: the scattered fraction should rise with host-star metallicity, since more metals favor forming multiple giant planets; measuring eccentricity distributions in metal-poor versus metal-rich subsamples would test the 60-percent split directly.
  • If hot and warm Jupiters have distinct histories as the paper argues, a testable consequence is that hot Jupiters should show a very different close-companion frequency than the compact two-planet systems this model produces.
  • Because the simulations show that grazing collisions dominate the merger events, the assumption of perfect mergers could be the first thing to revisit: if many grazing encounters are hit-and-run, more planets survive and the collision-to-ejection ratio shifts, which would change the fitted scattering fraction.
  • An observational follow-up suggested by the model: eccentric solitary warm Jupiters should more often show signs of a depleted outer region (no distant companions) than circular ones, a difference that could be tested with extended radial-velocity monitoring.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether in-situ planet-planet scattering among 3-4 giant planets at 0.1-1 AU can explain the eccentricity distribution of warm Jupiters. The authors run a large suite of rebound N-body simulations with a range of masses, spacings, and initial semi-major axes, including general relativistic precession, and catalogue the branching ratios into one-planet and two-planet systems and the resulting eccentricity distributions. They find that two-planet systems arise almost exclusively from planet-planet collisions and are dynamically cold, while one-planet systems come from a mix of collisions and ejections and have higher eccentricities. Comparing with the observed sample of 83 solitary WJs and 24 WJs with an external giant companion, they find that the combined eccentricity distribution is reproduced, but the separate one- and two-planet distributions are not. They then fit a two-population mixture model to the solitary WJ eccentricities, with a quiescent half-Gaussian component and a scattered component taken from the fiducial simulations, obtaining a maximum-likelihood quiescent fraction F≈0.35 and thus concluding that roughly 60% of solitary WJs have undergone in-situ scattering.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper establishes planet-planet scattering at sub-AU distances as a common and effective mechanism for producing eccentric warm Jupiters, with a sizeable quiescent component. The study is systematic and clearly presented: it uses standard, publicly available tools (rebound/reboundx), checks timestep convergence, integrates two-planet systems to 10^8 orbits and a subset to 10^9 orbits, and provides branching ratios as a function of mass, spacing, and semi-major axis. The mixture-model analysis is transparent, with a maximum-likelihood fit and confidence contours. The main quantitative conclusion, however, is contingent on the treatment of planet-planet collisions as perfect inelastic mergers, a simplification the paper explicitly flags in Appendix A but does not quantify. Because the simulated single-planet eccentricity template directly controls the inferred 60% fraction, this is a load-bearing uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4 and Appendix A] The headline result that roughly 60% of solitary WJs have experienced in-situ scattering is obtained by fitting a mixture model (Eq. 4-5) in which fscat is the single-planet eccentricity template from the fiducial simulations. Those simulations adopt rebound's built-in collision routine, which merges any pair whose separation falls below the sum of the physical radii, conserving mass and momentum. Appendix A itself calls this treatment 'clearly a simplification,' and Fig. A1 shows that the collisions are predominantly grazing, with bcoll/(R1+R2)~1 and vcoll/v0~1. In giant-planet impact physics, this is precisely the regime where a substantial fraction of encounters are expected to be hit-and-run rather than mergers. A hit-and-run outcome would change the branching ratios (fpp, fej, f1p/f2p) and alter the survivor eccentricity distribution, directly shifting the fitted F. The quoted 95% interval F=0.18-0.54 does not include this systematic effect. Please provide a sensitivity test, for example a simple hit-and-run prescription or a bracketing model based on published giant-impact results, or at minimum rephrase the abstract and Section 3.4 to state explicitly that the 60% estimate is conditional on the perfect-merger assumption.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (5), and Tables 3-4] The likelihood treats the simulated template fscat as fixed, so the confidence contours in Fig. 11 reflect only Poisson/sampling noise in the observed eccentricities, not uncertainty in the shape of fscat. The template is sensitive to the assumed initial planet masses and planet number: for example, the near-eq-mass simulations produce one-planet systems with mean eccentricity 0.47 versus 0.30 in fiducial (Table 3), and the 4-planet run has f1p=0.75 versus 0.52 for fiducial (Tables 1 and 4). Since F is inferred by matching the shape of fscat, the true uncertainty range for the quoted scattering fraction is larger than the plotted 95% contour. A propagation of the mass-function and planet-number variations, and ideally the collision prescription, is needed before the claim 'roughly 60% of systems' can be taken at face value.
  3. [Sections 3.1, 3.3, and 4.2] The mixture model is fit only to the eccentricities of 83 solitary WJs, but the same scattering model has a strong implication for the relative numbers of one- and two-planet systems that is not incorporated into the inference. The fiducial simulation yields N1/N2 ≈ 1 due to f1p=0.52, f2p=0.48, and all other three-planet runs give N1/N2 between roughly 0.5 and 1.5, whereas the observed ratio is N1/N2 ≈ 2.3-3.5 (Section 3.3). If 65% of solitary WJs are scattered remnants, the same scattering events would produce a large population of compact two-planet systems, which is not observed. The paper discusses this discrepancy qualitatively, but a joint likelihood over both the eccentricity distributions and the multiplicity ratio would be a more robust basis for the two-population conclusion. As written, the 'scattered + quiescent' model is not self-consistently tested against all the data presented.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4] The Gaussian kernel-density estimate used to construct a smooth fscat(e) is not accompanied by a stated bandwidth; the inferred F may depend on this choice, so please report the bandwidth and check the sensitivity.
  2. [Section 3.4] The likelihood neglects uncertainties in the observed eccentricities; a short Monte Carlo test perturbing the eccentricities within their error bars would justify this assumption.
  3. [Section 2.4 and Table 1] For fiducial-K-5 the initial eccentricities are increased to make instabilities practical, so the K-dependence is convolved with a change in initial eccentricity; this is explained in the text but should be flagged more prominently in Table 1 or its caption.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.4] The abstract states 'roughly 60%' scattered, which corresponds to 1-F at the MLE, but the 95% confidence range (F=0.18-0.54, i.e., 46-82% scattered) is quite wide; quoting this range in the abstract or conclusions would be more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scattering templates are forward-simulation outputs, and the mixture-model fit is a transparent statistical comparison rather than a derivation that reuses its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, that roughly 60% of solitary warm Jupiters may have undergone in-situ scattering, comes from a two-population likelihood fit (Eqs. 4-5) in which f_scat is the eccentricity distribution of one-planet survivors from an N-body sample and f_circ is a half-Gaussian with fitted width. Neither template is derived from the observed eccentricities used in the likelihood: the fiducial simulations draw initial masses, spacings, eccentricities, and inclinations from physically motivated distributions (Section 2.1), and the observed Exoplanet Orbit Database sample enters only at the comparison stage. The collision prescription, perfect merger conserving mass and momentum, is explicitly flagged as a simplification in Appendix A and affects the shape of f_scat, but this is model dependence rather than circularity because the observed distribution is not used to tune the collision outcome. Self-citations such as Anderson & Lai (2017) provide context and prior related work, but they are not load-bearing for the scattering simulations or the mixture fit. The mixture model is a transparent fit with reported confidence contours, not a prediction disguised as an independent check, so no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central population claim rests on a forward model with fitted mixture weights (F, sigma), on a simplified collision treatment, and on an unbiased observed sample; these are the main assumptions beyond standard N-body integration.

free parameters (2)
  • F (quiescent fraction) = 0.35 (95% interval 0.18-0.54)
    Free parameter in the mixture model f(e) = F f_circ(e) + (1-F) f_scat(e), fit by maximum likelihood to the eccentricities of 83 observed solitary WJs (Section 3.4).
  • sigma (width of quiescent half-Gaussian) = 0.07 (best fit)
    Width of the half-Gaussian assumed for the low-eccentricity, quiescent population; fit jointly with F (Section 3.4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Three or four giant planets on closely spaced, low-eccentricity orbits at 0.1-1 AU represent plausible post-disk-disposal configurations for warm Jupiters.
    Initial conditions in Section 2.1 are motivated by in-situ formation or disk migration, but are not derived from a formation model.
  • domain assumption Planet-planet collisions are treated as completely inelastic mergers conserving mass and momentum (radius 1.6 RJ).
    Appendix A acknowledges this simplification; real collisions may be hit-and-run or involve mass loss, which would alter outcomes.
  • ad hoc to paper The quiescent population's eccentricity distribution is a half-Gaussian peaked at e=0.
    Equation (4) in Section 3.4; a specific functional form chosen for convenience, with sigma explored over [0,0.2].
  • domain assumption Observed eccentricity uncertainties are negligible for the likelihood calculation.
    Stated in Section 3.4: 'For simplicity, we neglect the uncertainties of observed eccentricities.'
  • domain assumption The observed solitary WJ sample from exoplanets.org is representative without correction for RV detection biases.
    Section 3 uses 83 systems; no completeness or selection function is modeled, which could bias the eccentricity distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-Situ Scattering of Warm Jupiters and Implications for Dynamical Histories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QEJMS4EW

@misc{pith2026190804300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-Situ Scattering of Warm Jupiters and Implications for Dynamical Histories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QEJMS4EW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04300}
}
read the original abstract

Many warm Jupiters (WJs) have substantial eccentricities, which are linked to their formation and migration histories. This paper explores eccentricity excitation of WJs due to planet-planet scattering, beginning with 3-4 planets in unstable orbits, with the innermost planet placed in the range (0.1 - 1)AU. Such a setup is consistent with either in-situ formation or arrival at sub-AU orbits due to disk migration. Most previous N-body experiments have focused on "cold" Jupiters at several AU, where scattering results in planet ejections, efficiently exciting the eccentricities of surviving planets. In contrast, scattering at sub-AU distances results in a mixture of collisions and ejections, and the final eccentricities of surviving planets are unclear. We conduct scattering experiments for a range of planet masses and initial spacings, including the effect of general relativistic apsidal precession, and systematically catalogue the scattering outcomes and properties of surviving planets. A comparable number of one-planet and two-planet systems are produced. Two-planet systems arise exclusively through planet-planet collisions, and tend to have low eccentricities/mutual inclinations and compact configurations. One-planet systems arise through a combination of ejections and collisions, resulting in higher eccentricities. The observed eccentricity distribution of solitary WJs (lacking detection of a giant planet companion) is consistent with roughly 60% of the systems having undergone in-situ scattering, and the remaining experiencing a quiescent history.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fraction of one, two, and three-planet systems as a function of time for the fiducial set of simulations. Left: “Phase 1” of the integration, in which the initial three-planet system was evolved using the IAS15 integrator in rebound. After 106 initial orbital periods of the innermost planet have elapsed, nearly all of the three-planet systems have become destabilized, due to a combination of planet collisions and ej… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Branching ratios for the fiducial simulations, illustrating the “decay” of the unstable three planet-planet systems into one￾planet and two-planet systems. We also display the final average planet eccentricities. Note the relations fpp,2p +f (1) pp,1p +f (1) ps,1p +f (1) ej,1p = 100% and fpp,2p +f (2) pp,1p +f (2) ps,1p +f (2) ej,1p = 100%. All stable two-planet systems arise due to planet-planet collisions, so that… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two-planet systems (open blue circles) that emerge from three-planet scattering (from the fiducial simulations), along with the 24 observed WJ systems with external giant planet companions (filled cyan circles). Panel (a): ain versus aout. Scattering tends to result in compact two-planet systems. Over 90% of systems satisfy aout/ain . 3. Panel (b): ein versus eout. Scattering results in a wide range of eccentricitie… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One-planet systems that are formed from the fiducial simulations (open red circles), along with observed “solitary WJs” (without any identified giant planet companions), shown as filled cyan circles. This observational sample consists of 83 systems at present. Left: Ec…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependence of the scattering outcomes on the initial inner planet semi-major axis a1, from the fiducial simulations. Top panel: Fractions of systems resulting in planet-planet colli￾sions (fpp), planet-star collisions (fps), and planet ejections (fej) for the first (or…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of two-planet system properties on a1 of the initial three-planet system, from the fiducial simulations. The vertical axes show the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of various quantities, as labeled. Top left and right: Inner and outer planet eccentricities.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Eccentricities of WJs after scattering, illustrating the dependence on planet masses. The middle and right panels show the eccentricities of one-planet systems and the inner planet eccentricity of the two-planet systems respectively (similarly depicted in Figs. 3 and 4…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial velocity semi-amplitude versus orbital period for the outer planet. The fiducial simulations are shown as open blue circles, while observed systems are shown as filled cyan cir￾cles. An isotropic distribution of sky-projected inclinations has been assumed in cal…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Properties of two-planet systems produced from 4-planets (labeled “4p”), along with those from fiducial for ref￾erence (labeled “3p”). Observed two-planet systems are shown in cyan (see also Section 3). 4-planets consists of systems of four ini￾tially unstable planets …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The effect of imposing an RV cut on the fiducial one-planet and two-planet systems. The left panel depicts eccentricities of one-planet systems and the right panel depicts inner planet eccentricities of two-planet systems. The black histograms depict the original simu…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: Estimated parameters of the mixture model discussed in Section 3.4 (see equation[4]). The cross indicates the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE), and the contours indicate the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. Bottom: Resulting eccen￾tricity distribution from the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Laughlin G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00081-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Icar..163..290A 163, 290

    Adams F. C., Laughlin G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00081-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Icar..163..290A 163, 290

    doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00081-2 2003

  2. [2]

    R., Lai D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2250 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3692A 472, 3692

    Anderson K. R., Lai D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2250 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3692A 472, 3692

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2250 2017

  3. [3]

    R., Storch N

    Anderson K. R., Storch N. I., Lai D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2906 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3671A 456, 3671

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2906 2016

  4. [4]

    S., Lithwick Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/174 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..174A 152, 174

    Antonini F., Hamers A. S., Lithwick Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/174 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..174A 152, 174

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/174 2016

  5. [5]

    Baruteau C., et al., 2014, @doi [Protostars and Planets VI] 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch029 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014prpl.conf..667B pp 667--689

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch029 2014

  6. [6]

    H., Laughlin G

    Batygin K., Bodenheimer P. H., Laughlin G. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829..114B 829, 114

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/114 2016

  7. [7]

    Beaug \'e C., Nesvorn \'y D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751..119B 751, 119

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/119 2012

  8. [8]

    C., Granados Contreras A

    Boley A. C., Granados Contreras A. P., Gladman B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817L..17B 817, L17

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/l17 2016

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    E., Wetherill G

    Chambers J. E., Wetherill G. W., Boss A. P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1996.0019 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Icar..119..261C 119, 261

    1996

  2. [10]

    B., Matsumura S., Rasio F

    Chatterjee S., Ford E. B., Matsumura S., Rasio F. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590227 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..580C 686, 580

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    Correia A. C. M., Laskar J., Farago F., Bou \'e G., 2011, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1007/s10569-011-9368-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CeMDA.111..105C 111, 105

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Marcy G

    Cumming A., Butler R. P., Marcy G. W., Vogt S. S., Wright J. T., Fischer D. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASP..120..531C 120, 531

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    I., Chiang E., 2014, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1256943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Sci...346..212D 346, 212

    Dawson R. I., Chiang E., 2014, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1256943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Sci...346..212D 346, 212

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    I., Johnson J

    Dawson R. I., Johnson J. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    I., Murray-Clay R

    Dawson R. I., Murray-Clay R. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L24 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767L..24D 767, L24

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    I., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/89 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...89D 791, 89

    Dawson R. I., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/89 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...89D 791, 89

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Dong S., Katz B., Socrates A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781L...5D 781, L5

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Chiang E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/94 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...94D 812, 94

    Duffell P. C., Chiang E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/94 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...94D 812, 94

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Fabrycky D., Tremaine S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521702 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669.1298F 669, 1298

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    B., Rasio F

    Ford E. B., Rasio F. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590926 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..621F 686, 621

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Havlickova M., Rasio F

    Ford E. B., Havlickova M., Rasio F. A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.2001.6588 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Icar..150..303F 150, 303

    2001

  14. [22]

    A., Petrovich C., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190603266F p

    Frelikh R., Jang H., Murray-Clay R. A., Petrovich C., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190603266F p. arXiv:1906.03266

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Goldreich P., Sari R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346202 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...585.1024G 585, 1024

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Antonini F., Lithwick Y., Perets H

    Hamers A. S., Antonini F., Lithwick Y., Perets H. B., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2370 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..688H 464, 688

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Huang C., Wu Y., Triaud A. H. M. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/98 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825...98H 825, 98

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Juri \'c M., Tremaine S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590047 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..603J 686, 603

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125523 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    Kley W., Nelson R. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125523 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Kozai Y., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1086/108790 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962AJ.....67..591K 67, 591

    1962 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Chiang E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817...90L 817, 90

    Lee E. J., Chiang E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817...90L 817, 90

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Chiang E., Ormel C

    Lee E. J., Chiang E., Ormel C. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...95L 797, 95

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    L., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962P

    Lidov M. L., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962P

    1962 doi

  24. [32]

    Lin D. N. C., Ida S., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303738 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...477..781L 477, 781

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    Lin D. N. C., Bodenheimer P., Richardson D. C., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/380606a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.380..606L 380, 606

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    Lithwick Y., Wu Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/31 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...31L 739, 31

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    Lithwick Y., Wu Y., 2014, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1308261110 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PNAS..11112610L 111, 12610

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Aarseth S

    Mardling R. A., Aarseth S. J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03974.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..398M 321, 398

    2001

  29. [37]

    Marzari F., Nagasawa M., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A.121M 625, A121

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Lai D., Liu B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw983 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1086M 460, 1086

    Mu \ n oz D. J., Lai D., Liu B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw983 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1086M 460, 1086

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Davies M

    Mustill A. J., Davies M. B., Johansen A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx693 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3000M 468, 3000

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Nagasawa M., Ida S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/72 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...72N 742, 72

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    Nagasawa M., Ida S., Bessho T., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529369 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678..498N 678, 498

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Rasio F

    Naoz S., Farr W. M., Rasio F. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L36 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754L..36N 754, L36

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    Petrovich C., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/27 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...27P 799, 27

    doi

  36. [44]

    Petrovich C., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/75 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...75P 805, 75

    doi

  37. [45]

    Petrovich C., 2015c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/120 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808..120P 808, 120

    doi

  38. [46]

    Petrovich C., Tremaine S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/132 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829..132P 829, 132

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Petrovich C., Tremaine S., Rafikov R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..101P 786, 101

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    Petrovich C., Wu Y., Ali-Dib M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaeed9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157....5P 157, 5

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Lodato G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4460R 474, 4460

    Ragusa E., Rosotti G., Teyssandier J., Booth R., Clarke C. J., Lodato G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4460R 474, 4460

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Ford E

    Rasio F. A., Ford E. B., 1996, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.274.5289.954 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Sci...274..954R 274, 954

    1996 doi

  43. [51]

    N., Barnes R., Veras D., Armitage P

    Raymond S. N., Barnes R., Veras D., Armitage P. J., Gorelick N., Greenberg R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L98 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696L..98R 696, L98

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    Rein H., Liu S.-F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  45. [53]

    S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2164 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1424R 446, 1424

    Rein H., Spiegel D. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2164 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1424R 446, 1424

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Rein H., Tamayo D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1257 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..376R 452, 376

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324713 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565.1257T 565, 1257

    Tanaka H., Takeuchi T., Ward W. R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324713 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565.1257T 565, 1257

    2002 doi

  48. [56]

    Teyssandier J., Lai D., Vick M., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190105006T

    2019

  49. [57]

    J., Cumming A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/113 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782..113T 782, 113

    Tsang D., Turner N. J., Cumming A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/113 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782..113T 782, 113

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz354 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5645V 484, 5645

    Vick M., Lai D., Anderson K. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz354 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5645V 484, 5645

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Wisdom J., Holman M., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....102.1528W 102, 1528

    1991 doi

  52. [60]

    Wu Y., Murray N., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/374598 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589..605W 589, 605

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.