Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

From Planetesimals to Dwarf Planets by Pebble Accretion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pebble accretion built the Kuiper Belt's dwarf planets

desk verdict Honest, well-caveated quantitative case for pebble accretion shaping hot TNOs; the inferred parameters are real only if the primordial IMF shape matched today's cold belt. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04016 v2 pith:7YB7IW7Z submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.EP

Chris W. Ormel , Yukun Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords pebbleaccretionKuiperBelttrans-Neptunianobjectssizedistributiondwarfplanetsplanetesimalformationprotoplanetarydiskstreaminginstability
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 argues that the excess of massive bodies in the dynamically hot Kuiper Belt, including the dwarf planets, is not a primordial feature but was produced by pebble accretion after planetesimal formation. It assumes the hot belt started with the same exponentially tapered mass distribution as today's cold classicals, and shows that pebble accretion, acting only above a sharp threshold mass, flattens the high-mass end exactly as observed. If correct, the bright end of the trans-Neptunian size distribution becomes a fossil record of protoplanetary disk conditions, and the dwarf planets are simply the bodies that crossed the accretion threshold. The fit also turns the size distribution into a probe of the disk, yielding a pebble aerodynamic size near $\tau_s \sim 10^{-2}$, a turbulent diffusivity near $\alpha_D \sim 10^{-3}$, and roughly $10\,m_\oplus$ of accreted pebbles if growth happened in a dust ring.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pebble-accretion settling rate $dq/dt = A_{\rm peb}\, q\tau_s\, f_{\rm set}^2 / t_0$, with a modulation factor $f_{\rm set}$ that suppresses accretion below the threshold mass $m_* = \sigma^3\tau_s\,M_\odot$. This threshold is what makes pebble accretion act only on the most massive bodies, producing the flattened tail of the size distribution; the MCMC fit constrains the degenerate product $\tau_s\sigma^3$ rather than either parameter alone.

What would settle it

A complete, albedo-corrected census of hot trans-Neptunian objects showing the mass distribution is a single power law all the way to the brightest objects, with no flattening above about $10^{23}\,$g, would falsify the claim that pebble accretion reshaped the high-mass end.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Pebble accretion acts as a mass filter. Bodies below a critical mass $m_* = \sigma^3\tau_s\,M_\odot$ grow slowly by gravitational focusing, while bodies above it capture pebbles through the settling mechanism and grow much faster, so the cumulative size distribution flattens at the bright end. Fitting the reconstructed population of dynamically hot trans-Neptunian objects within 48 au fixes the combination $\log_{10}\tau_s + 3\log_{10}\sigma = -10.05$, corresponding to $m_* \approx 1.6\times 10^{23}\,$g, with bodies above about $10^{22}\,$g growing several tenfold and becoming dwarf planets. The likelihood alone cannot separate a laminar from a turbulent velocity field, but the smooth-disk laminar option is disfavored on timescale and pebble-budget grounds, and an environment where pebbles are entrained by a pressure maximum, as in protoplanetary dust rings, is preferred.

Load-bearing premise

The entire fit assumes that the primordial belt started with the same exponentially tapered mass distribution as today's cold classicals, with only the break mass allowed to vary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bodies in the primordial belt above roughly $10^{22}\,$g grew several tenfold by pebble accretion and became the dwarf planets, while smaller bodies kept their initial streaming-instability mass function.
  • The observed flattening at the bright end of the hot TNO size distribution is a direct signature of a threshold accretion process, not of a different initial mass function.
  • Growth from an inward-drifting pebble stream in a smooth disk is unlikely because it would require about $10^3\,m_\oplus$ of passing pebbles and accretion times rivaling the disk lifetime; a ring where pebbles are trapped is the preferred setting.
  • Combining the size-distribution constraint with ring-width measurements gives typical pebble aerodynamic size $\tau_s\sim 10^{-2}$ and turbulent diffusivity $\alpha_D\sim 10^{-3}$, with pebble accretion completing in roughly $0.1$–$1\,$Myr.
  • Trans-Neptunian objects that grew by a factor of ten or more through pebble accretion and have final masses above about $10^{-4}\,m_\oplus$ should satisfy the round-shape dwarf-planet criterion, a prediction testable by stellar occultations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same threshold logic implies that any exoplanetary system with a streaming-instability-formed planetesimal population near tens of au and a dust ring should show a dwarf-planet-sized bump in its size distribution; future direct-imaging surveys could look for this signature.
  • If pebble accretion made the dwarf planets, hot-belt objects above the threshold should be systematically rounder and less porous than cold classicals of equal size; a shape survey via occultations could isolate the pebble-grown population.
  • The inferred ~10 Earth masses of accreted pebbles in a ring gives a direct link between TNO sizes and millimeter-observed dust ring masses, suggesting that massive rings around young stars could be calibrated by the dwarf-planet record.
  • Because the paper assumes the primordial hot-belt mass function had the same shape as today's cold classicals, deeper surveys that resolve the low-mass hot population could test that assumption and, if it fails, force revisions of the inferred pebble parameters.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that pebble accretion in the primordial planetesimal belt (20-30 au), operating preferentially on bodies above a threshold mass, reshaped the high-mass end of the belt's initial mass function before these bodies were implanted into the hot TNO population. The authors reconstruct a census of dynamically hot TNOs within 48 au (P48) from the MPC database and the OSSOS++ debiased distribution, model growth by Safronov and pebble accretion in dimensionless form, and fit the model parameters to the reconstructed size distribution with MCMC. They find a tight degeneracy between pebble aerodynamic size tau_s and relative velocity sigma, expressed as log10(tau_s sigma^3) ~ -10.05, implying a threshold mass m* ~ 10^23 g above which pebble accretion is efficient. They argue that a laminar, smooth-disk pebble stream is disfavored by timescale and mass-budget arguments, and that an ALMA-ring-like environment with turbulent velocity fits the data, yielding tau_s ~ 10^-2 and alpha_D ~ 10^-3 when combined with ring-width constraints. They further suggest that bodies above ~10^-4 m_earth that underwent significant pebble accretion satisfy the IAU dwarf-planet roundness criterion.

Significance. If the central inference holds, the paper provides a direct connection between the TNO size distribution, pebble accretion physics, and disk conditions at the time of planet formation. It offers a concrete mechanism for forming dwarf planets from planetesimals and yields falsifiable predictions that future surveys (LSST, CLASSY) can test. The authors are transparent about their model assumptions, report posterior ranges, and explicitly acknowledge degeneracies and low-number statistics in the high-mass tail. The MCMC framework and the combination of TNO size-distribution constraints with ALMA ring-morphology constraints are a useful methodological contribution. However, the force of the conclusions is conditional on an untested assumption about the primordial IMF shape and on the limited statistical weight of the high-mass objects that drive the flattening signature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2), Fig. 1 caption] The central inference—that the flattening of the hot population brightward of Hr=5 is caused by pebble accretion—rests on the postulate that the primordial belt IMF had the same exponentially tapered shape as the cold classicals, with only mbrk allowed to vary. The observational support is the similarity of Hr magnitude distributions (Petit et al. 2023), which the paper correctly notes does not imply mass-distribution similarity because the albedos differ (nu=0.15 vs 0.08). Streaming-instability simulations do not guarantee identical alpha and gamma at 20 au and 45 au. If the true primordial high-mass taper differed, the fitted combination C_tau_sigma (Eq. 15) and the threshold m* could be artifacts of the assumed shape that mimic a pebble-accretion signature. Please add a sensitivity analysis that varies gamma (and possibly alpha) or uses an IMF taken directly from streaming-instability simulations, and report how the inferred C_tau_sigma and m* change; this is load-bearing for the dwarf-planet conclusion.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (15) and Fig. 7] The threshold mass m* is not measured independently; it is defined through the fitted combination C_tau_sigma = log10(tau_s sigma^3). Consequently, the statement that 'bodies above ~10^22 g have enjoyed significant growth by pebble accretion' is an output of the model under the assumed IMF, not a prediction of an independently measured physical scale. The paper is reasonably transparent about this degeneracy, but the framing in the abstract and conclusions presents the threshold as a finding. Please state explicitly in Sections 1 and 6 that the mass threshold and the several-tenfold growth factors are derived quantities that depend on both the assumed IMF shape and the simplified growth model, and quantify the sensitivity of m* to the IMF parameter choices once the sensitivity analysis in the previous comment is performed.
  3. [Section 3.1, Fig. 6b and Table 2] The high-mass end of the distribution, where the flattening signature is claimed, is constrained by very few bodies: the paper notes that the bin with zero observed MPC bodies is typically fitted with about two simulated bodies (Poisson likelihood 13.5%) and that the maximum-likelihood differences among models are small (lnP differences of -1.2 to +0.68). This means the data alone cannot distinguish pebble accretion from a scenario in which the primordial IMF had a different high-mass taper; the preference for pebble accretion is largely prior-driven (the IMF shape postulate). I recommend adding a quantitative model comparison that includes a no-pebble-accretion model with free gamma (or a free primordial IMF shape) to demonstrate that the data actually prefer the pebble-accretion interpretation over a purely primordial flattening. Without such a test, the conclusion that pebble accretion reshaped the high-mass end remains plausible but not decisive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) appears to contain a typo: the log-likelihood sums both sums over 'lnPMPC' rather than one sum over OSSOS++ bins and one over MPC bins. Please correct the label of the first sum.
  2. [Section 3.1, Fig. 6a] The text says 'All models overshoot the infliction point'; this should be 'inflection point'.
  3. [Section 5.3, first paragraph] Minor grammar: 'TNOs formation by planetesimal accretion' should be 'TNO formation by planetesimal accretion'.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains a typographical error: 'popluation' should be 'population'.
  5. [Table 3] The entry 'turp-1p-himass' is a typo; it should be 'turb-1p-himass' (or 'lami-1p-himass' if intended). Please check for consistency with the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pebble-accretion inference is a transparent inverse fit, with the tau_s–sigma degeneracy broken by external ALMA ring constraints and the key model equations explicitly stated.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained as an inverse modeling exercise. The central claim that pebble accretion flatten the high-mass end of the hot TNO size distribution is tested by fitting a pebble-accretion growth model to the reconstructed P48 mass distribution. The fitted combination C_tau_sigma (Eq. 15) is explicitly labeled a fit ('we fit C_tau_sigma'), and the paper does not present the resulting threshold mass m* as an independent prediction; it is an interpretation of the fitted model. The degeneracy between tau_s and sigma is broken using external ALMA ring-width constraints (Rosotti 2023; Villenave et al. 2022) and fragmentation-barrier arguments, so the final estimates tau_s ~ 1e-2 and alpha_D ~ 1e-3 are not solely derived from the TNO data. The pebble-accretion rate law (Eq. 10) is adopted from Ormel & Liu (2018), a numerically calibrated result independent of the present TNO data, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The assumption that the primordial belt IMF has the same shape as the cold classical distribution (Eq. 2, Section 2.1) is a stated postulate rather than a hidden input; the paper explicitly notes that magnitude similarity need not imply mass similarity and partially accounts for this by treating mbrk as a free parameter. The low-number insensitivity of the high-mass fit (Section 3.2, Fig. 6b) is an acknowledged limitation that weakens the inference but does not make it circular. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central claim rests on imported assumptions about the initial mass function, the adopted pebble accretion rate law, the completeness of the reconstructed TNO sample, and the implantation fraction. Five parameters (mbrk, mimf, mpeb, tau_s, sigma) are fitted to the observed distribution, with tau_s and sigma only constrained in combination unless external ALMA ring constraints are added. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • mbrk (primordial belt break mass) = ~8.9e20 g in lami-1p; prior range 2e19-2e22 g
    Sets the exponential taper of the assumed initial mass function; fitted to the P48 observed distribution.
  • mimf (initial planetesimal mass in primordial belt) = ~11.6 m_earth in lami-1p
    Initial mass of planetesimals in the primordial belt; fitted to P48 with a prior from Jupiter trojan constraints.
  • mpeb (total accreted pebble mass) = ~5-8 m_earth in 1p models
    Mass of pebbles consumed during the accretion phase; fitted and central to the mass-budget arguments.
  • tau_s (pebble aerodynamic size) = log10 tau_s ~ -1.70 in lami-1p
    Pebble stopping time in dimensionless form; degenerate with sigma through the fitted C_tau_sigma relation.
  • sigma (pebble-planetesimal relative velocity) = log10 sigma ~ -2.78 in lami-1p
    Relative velocity normalized by Keplerian speed; degenerate with tau_s through the fitted C_tau_sigma relation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Primordial belt IMF shape equals the cold classical tapered power law (Equation 2).
    Used as the initial condition before pebble accretion; stated in Section 2.1 and Figure 2.
  • domain assumption Pebble accretion rate follows the Ormel & Liu (2018) 3D expression (Equation 10).
    Adopted from prior literature rather than re-derived in this paper; it is the central rate law.
  • domain assumption The P48 population reconstruction is complete for Hr < 5 in the MPC and Hr <= 8.3 in OSSOS++, with hot classicals making up 50% of P48.
    Defines the likelihood target; described in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Implantation fraction fimpl = 2e-3 converts primordial belt bodies into the present-day P48 population.
    Taken from Neptune migration simulations; used to weight the simulated distribution, Section 2.3 and Figure 3.
  • domain assumption Pebbles are in the 3D accretion regime and can be represented by a single particle size.
    Simplifies the model; the two-size extension is tested but not statistically preferred, Section 2.2 and Section 3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Planetesimals to Dwarf Planets by Pebble Accretion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YB7IW7Z

@misc{pith2026250204016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Planetesimals to Dwarf Planets by Pebble Accretion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YB7IW7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04016}
}
abstract

The size distribution of TNOs in the Kuiper Belt provides crucial insights into the formation and evolution of the outer Solar System. Recent observational surveys, including OSSOS++, have revealed that dynamically cold and hot TNO populations exhibit similar size distributions for dimmer objects ($H_r > 5$), which are consistent with planetesimal formation by streaming instability (SI). However, the hot population contains a significantly larger number of massive bodies, including several dwarf planets. In this study, we investigate the role of pebble accretion in shaping the size distribution of hot TNOs, after their formation in the primordial disk (PB) between 20 and 30 au and before these bodies were dynamically implanted into their current orbits by a migrating Neptune. We find that pebble accretion grows the most massive bodies only, consistent with the flattening of the distribution brightwards of $H_r=5$. All results point to a correlation (degeneracy) between the pebble aerodynamic size and the intensity of the gas motions. Nevertheless, accretion from an inward-drifting stream of pebbles is unlikely, as it puts extreme demands on the mass budget of pebbles. In particular, the masses of the cold classicals are too low to trigger pebble accretion. Accretion in an environment where pebbles are entrained, as believed to be the case in rings seen with ALMA, is preferable. Combining the constraints obtained from this study with ALMA imagery morphology fitting reveals a typical pebble aerodynamic size of $\tau_s \sim 10^{-2}$, a turbulent diffusivity parameter $\alpha_D\sim10^{-3}$, and a total accreted pebble mass of ${\sim}10\,m_\oplus$ in the primordial belt. Those TNOs formed through significant pebble accretion with masses exceeding ${\sim}10^{-4}\,m_\oplus$ are likely to satisfy the International Astronomical Union's ``round shape'' criterion for dwarf planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04016 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Envisioned chronology of the formation of trans-Neptunian ob￾jects. I. Formation. An initial burst of planetesimal formation populates bodies in the primordial belt (PB) at ∼20 au and the cold classicals at ∼40–50 au). It is assumed that the shape of the cold classicals and the primordial belt size distributions are similar, both featuring a tapered exponential at high mass. II. Growth: Pebble accretion, acting pref… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cumulative number distribution (N<m) of bodies in the cold belt and the dynamical hot P48. The cold belt is well described by the analytical fit of Kavelaars et al. (2021) (Equation (2)), whose shape is assumed to be identi￾cal to the distribution of the bodies in the primordial belt. Population P48 is re￾constructed by taking all bodies brighter than Hr = 5 and within 48 au from the MPC database (histograms) while … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Implantation fractions for bodies of the primordial belt into the trojans, hot classicals, and P48. Numbers in bold are used in this work (see text for motivation) and others are given as context. The numbers for the Jupiter trojans follow Nesvorný et al. (2013) and those for the en￾tire dynamically hot TNO population Nesvorný et al. (2016) and Huang (2023). (Petit et al. 2023), while the inner belt, twotinos, pluti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the Safronov and settling growth rates as functions of mass. Here, the rates are expressed in terms of the growth timescale, tgr = m/(dm/dt), which is given in units of t0 (see Equation 5). At low masses, accretion is dominated by gravitational focusing (Safro…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MCMC posterior distribution of the single particle laminar model (lami-1p). The 16%, 50%, and 84% confidence levels are indicated above each histogram. The runs cluster around the line of constant τsσ 3 , which indicates a mass scale above which pebble accretion operat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative distributions (a) and histograms (b) of sample model runs. An implantation factor of fimpl = 2 × 10−3 has been applied, after which the simulated distributions can be compared to the P48 population (black). In (b) the low number of bodies (and large Poisson …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Final vs initial mass for several simulation runs (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Constraints on the particle aerodynamic size (Stokes number τs) and turbulence intensity of the gas, where σ is identified as the root mean square turbulent gas velocity. The constraints follow from simu￾lating the TNO size distribution (run turb-1p, black line), ALMA …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Influence of Dust Composition on Accretion Outbursts

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using 1D simulations with dust evaporation and condensation, the paper shows that dead-zone accretion outbursts vaporize dust out to about 0.5 au and that higher dust sublimation temperatures produce stronger but less...

  2. A Resonant Beginning for the Solar System Terrestrial Planets

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations show an early resonant chain of terrestrial planets, including Theia, can be broken by the giant planet instability and yield a Moon-forming impact, with the present 3.05 Mars-Venus period ratio inherited ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    P., Simon, J

    Abod, C. P., Simon, J. B., Li, R., et al. 2019, , 883, 192

    2019

  4. [4]

    R., Gulbis, A

    Adams, E. R., Gulbis, A. A. S., Elliot, J. L., et al. 2014, , 148, 55

    2014

  5. [5]

    Agnor, C. B. & Hamilton, D. P. 2006, , 441, 192

    2006

  6. [6]

    M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L

    Andrews , S. M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2018, , 869, L41

    2018

  7. [7]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bae , J., Isella , A., Zhu , Z., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 423

    2023

  8. [8]

    T., Gladman, B

    Bannister, M. T., Gladman, B. J., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2018, , 236, 18

    2018

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    R., Lissauer , J

    Barnes , R., Quinn , T. R., Lissauer , J. J., & Richardson , D. C. 2009, Icarus, 203, 626

    2009

  2. [10]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Sako, M., et al. 2022, , 258, 41

    2022

  3. [11]

    Bierson , C. J. & Nimmo , F. 2019, , 326, 10

    2019

  4. [12]

    W., & Dullemond , C

    Birnstiel , T., Ormel , C. W., & Dullemond , C. P. 2011, , 525, A11

    2011

  5. [13]

    Brown, M. E. 2008, The largest Kuiper belt objects , ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, & A. Morbidelli, The Solar System Beyond Neptune (Tucson: University of Arizona Press)

    2008

  6. [14]

    & Jacobson , R

    Brozovi \'c , M. & Jacobson , R. A. 2024, , 167, 256

    2024

  7. [15]

    H., Lyra , W., Carrera , D., et al

    Ca \ n as , M. H., Lyra , W., Carrera , D., et al. 2024, , 5, 55

    2024

  8. [16]

    Canup, R. M. 2005, Science, 307, 546

    2005

  9. [17]

    2019, , 158, 214

    Chen, Y.-T., Gladman, B., Volk, K., et al. 2019, , 158, 214

    2019

  10. [18]

    Collaboration, V. C. R. O. L. S. S. S., Jones, R. L., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2021, Bulletin of the AAS, 53

    2021

  11. [19]

    N., Hogan , R

    Cuzzi , J. N., Hogan , R. C., Paque , J. M., & Dobrovolskis , A. R. 2001, , 546, 496

    2001

  12. [20]

    R., Morbidelli , A., Raymond , S

    de Sousa , R. R., Morbidelli , A., Raymond , S. N., et al. 2020, , 339, 113605

    2020

  13. [21]

    d., et al

    Doressoundiram, A., Peixinho, N., Bergh, C. d., et al. 2002, , 124, 2279

    2002

  14. [22]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Dr a zkowska , J., Bitsch , B., Lambrechts , M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 717

    2023

  15. [23]

    1995, Icarus, 114, 237

    Dubrulle , B., Morfill , G., & Sterzik , M. 1995, Icarus, 114, 237

    1995

  16. [24]

    2021, , 2, 10

    Fern \'a ndez-Valenzuela, E., Pinilla-Alonso, N., Stansberry, J., et al. 2021, , 2, 10

    2021

  17. [25]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  18. [26]

    2022, 54, 414.01

    Fraser, W., Lawler, S., Ashton, E., et al. 2022, 54, 414.01

    2022

  19. [27]

    C., Brown, M

    Fraser, W. C., Brown, M. E., Morbidelli, A., Parker, A., & Batygin, K. 2014, , 782, 100

    2014

  20. [28]

    G., & Vanlaerhoven, C

    Gladman, B., Marsden, B. G., & Vanlaerhoven, C. 2008, The Solar System Beyond Neptune, Vol. 43, Nomenclature in the Outer Solar System , ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, & A. Morbidelli (Tucson: University of Arizona Press)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Gomes, R. S. 2003, , 161, 404

    2003

  22. [30]

    2012, , 220, 74

    Grundy, W., Benecchi, S., Rabinowitz, D., et al. 2012, , 220, 74

    2012

  23. [31]

    M., Noll , K

    Grundy , W. M., Noll , K. S., Roe , H. G., et al. 2019, , 334, 62

    2019

  24. [32]

    W., & Dullemond , C

    G \"u ttler , C., Blum , J., Zsom , A., Ormel , C. W., & Dullemond , C. P. 2010, , 513, A56

    2010

  25. [33]

    2023, Dynamics of transneptunian objects under the influence of a rogue planet , PhD Thesis (Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia)

    Huang, Y. 2023, Dynamics of transneptunian objects under the influence of a rogue planet , PhD Thesis (Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia)

    2023

  26. [34]

    2022, , 259, 54

    Huang, Y., Gladman, B., & Volk, K. 2022, , 259, 54

    2022

  27. [35]

    2008, , 686, 1292

    Ida , S., Guillot , T., & Morbidelli , A. 2008, , 686, 1292

    2008

  28. [36]

    & Makino , J

    Ida , S. & Makino , J. 1993, Icarus, 106, 210

    1993

  29. [37]

    1998, The theory of probability (Oxford University Press)

    Jeffreys, H. 1998, The theory of probability (Oxford University Press)

    1998

  30. [38]

    M., & Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C

    Jiang , H., Mac \' as , E., Guerra-Alvarado , O. M., & Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C. 2024, , 682, A32

    2024

  31. [39]

    2006, , 185, 508

    Jones, R., Gladman, B., Petit, J.-M., et al. 2006, , 185, 508

    2006

  32. [40]

    M., Bannister, M

    Kavelaars, J., Lawler, S. M., Bannister, M. T., & Shankman, C. 2020, The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, Vol. astro-ph.EP, Perspectives on the distribution of orbits of distant Trans-Neptunian objects (Elsevier)

    2020

  33. [41]

    J., Petit , J.-M., Gladman , B., et al

    Kavelaars , J. J., Petit , J.-M., Gladman , B., et al. 2021, , 920, L28

    2021

  34. [42]

    Kenyon , S. J. & Bromley , B. C. 2004, , 128, 1916

    2004

  35. [43]

    Kenyon , S. J. & Bromley , B. C. 2012, , 143, 63

    2012

  36. [44]

    & Ida , S

    Kokubo , E. & Ida , S. 1996, Icarus, 123, 180

    1996

  37. [45]

    & Ida , S

    Kokubo , E. & Ida , S. 1998, Icarus, 131, 171

    1998

  38. [46]

    & Jewitt , D

    Lacerda , P. & Jewitt , D. C. 2007, , 133, 1393

    2007

  39. [47]

    & Johansen , A

    Lambrechts , M. & Johansen , A. 2012, , 544, A32

    2012

  40. [48]

    A., et al

    Lambrechts , M., Morbidelli , A., Jacobson , S. A., et al. 2019, , 627, A83

    2019

  41. [49]

    F., Morbidelli, A., VanLaerhoven, C., Gomes, R., & Tsiganis, K

    Levison, H. F., Morbidelli, A., VanLaerhoven, C., Gomes, R., & Tsiganis, K. 2008, , 196, 258

    2008

  42. [50]

    W., Lee , E

    Lin , J. W., Lee , E. J., & Chiang , E. 2018, , 480, 4338

    2018

  43. [51]

    & Ji , J

    Liu , B. & Ji , J. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 164

    2020

  44. [52]

    & Ormel , C

    Liu , B. & Ormel , C. W. 2018, , 615, A138

    2018

  45. [53]

    H., & Yang , C.-C

    Lyra , W., Johansen , A., Ca \ n as , M. H., & Yang , C.-C. 2023, , 946, 60

    2023

  46. [54]

    N., & Johansen , A

    Lyra , W., Youdin , A. N., & Johansen , A. 2021, , 356, 113831

    2021

  47. [55]

    1993, , 365, 819

    Malhotra, R. 1993, , 365, 819

    1993

  48. [56]

    B., Richardson , D

    McKinnon , W. B., Richardson , D. C., Marohnic , J. C., et al. 2020, Science, 367, aay6620

    2020

  49. [57]

    F., Tsiganis, K., & Gomes, R

    Morbidelli, A., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., & Gomes, R. 2005, , 435, 462

    2005

  50. [58]

    E., Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al

    Morgado , B. E., Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al. 2023, , 614, 239

    2023

  51. [59]

    2017, , 281, 459

    Morishima , R. 2017, , 281, 459

    2017

  52. [60]

    J., & Samuel , H

    Morishima , R., Golabek , G. J., & Samuel , H. 2013, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 366, 6

    2013

  53. [61]

    2020, The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, 153

    M \" u ller, T., Lellouch, E., & Fornasier, S. 2020, The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, 153

    2020

  54. [62]

    J., Lin, H

    Napier, K. J., Lin, H. W., Gerdes, D. W., et al. 2024, , 5, 50

    2024

  55. [63]

    2015, , 150, 73

    Nesvorn \'y , D. 2015, , 150, 73

    2015

  56. [64]

    N., Simon , J

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Li , R., Youdin , A. N., Simon , J. B., & Grundy , W. M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 808

    2019

  57. [65]

    F., & Levison , H

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Bottke , W. F., & Levison , H. F. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 878

    2018

  58. [66]

    2013, , 768, 45

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., & Morbidelli, A. 2013, , 768, 45

    2013

  59. [67]

    2016, , 827, L35

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., & Roig, F. 2016, , 827, L35

    2016

  60. [68]

    N., & Richardson , D

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Youdin , A. N., & Richardson , D. C. 2010, , 140, 785

    2010

  61. [69]

    S., Grundy, W

    Noll, K. S., Grundy, W. M., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Thirouin, A. 2020, Trans-Neptunian binaries (2018) , ed. D. Prialnik, M. A. Barucci, & L. A. Young, The Trans-Neptunian Solar System (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishing)

    2018

  62. [70]

    L., Gancarz , A

    Norris , T. L., Gancarz , A. J., Rokop , D. J., & Thomas , K. W. 1983, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, 88, B331

    1983

  63. [71]

    Ormel , C. W. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 445, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. M. Pessah & O. Gressel , 197

    2017

  64. [72]

    Ormel , C. W. & Cuzzi , J. N. 2007, , 466, 413

    2007

  65. [73]

    W., Dullemond , C

    Ormel , C. W., Dullemond , C. P., & Spaans , M. 2010 a , , 714, L103

    2010

  66. [74]

    W., Dullemond , C

    Ormel , C. W., Dullemond , C. P., & Spaans , M. 2010 b , , 210, 507

    2010

  67. [75]

    Ormel , C. W. & Klahr , H. H. 2010, , 520, A43

    2010

  68. [76]

    Ormel , C. W. & Liu , B. 2018, , 615, A178

    2018

  69. [77]

    W., Grundy , W., et al

    Parker , A., Buie , M. W., Grundy , W., et al. 2018, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 50, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#50, 509.02

    2018

  70. [78]

    J., et al

    Petit , J.-M., Gladman , B., Kavelaars , J. J., et al. 2023, , 947, L4

    2023

  71. [79]

    M., Kavelaars, J

    Petit, J. M., Kavelaars, J. J., Gladman, B. J., et al. 2011, , 142, 131

    2011

  72. [80]

    Petit , J.-M., Morbidelli , A., & Valsecchi , G. B. 1999, , 141, 367

    1999

  73. [81]

    Pike, R. E. & Lawler, S. M. 2017, , 154, 171

    2017

  74. [82]

    E., Proudfoot, B

    Pike, R. E., Proudfoot, B. C. N., Ragozzine, D., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 89

    2020

  75. [83]

    Proudfoot, B. C. N. & Ragozzine, D. 2019, , 157, 230

    2019

  76. [84]

    & Brown , M

    Ragozzine , D. & Brown , M. E. 2009, , 137, 4766

    2009

  77. [85]

    Rosotti , G. P. 2023, , 96, 101674

    2023

  78. [86]

    E., Fraser, W

    Schwamb, M. E., Fraser, W. C., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2019, , 243, 12

    2019

  79. [87]

    2017, , 597, A69

    Schäfer, U., Yang, C.-C., & Johansen, A. 2017, , 597, A69

    2017

  80. [88]

    2020, , 643, A125

    Souami , D., Braga-Ribas , F., Sicardy , B., et al. 2020, , 643, A125

    2020

  81. [89]

    E., Gerdes, D

    Trilling, D. E., Gerdes, D. W., Juri \'c , M., et al. 2024, , 167, 132

    2024

  82. [90]

    Trujillo, C. A. & Brown, M. E. 2002, , 566, L125

    2002

  83. [91]

    2018, , 618, A136

    Vilenius, E., Stansberry, J., M \" u ller, T., et al. 2018, , 618, A136

    2018

  84. [92]

    R., Duch \^e ne , G., et al

    Villenave , M., Stapelfeldt , K. R., Duch \^e ne , G., et al. 2022, , 930, 11

    2022

  85. [93]

    Visser , R. G. & Ormel , C. W. 2016, , 586, A66

    2016

  86. [94]

    2016, , 152, 23

    Volk, K., Murray-Clay, R., Gladman, B., et al. 2016, , 152, 23

    2016

  87. [95]

    Weidenschilling , S. J. 1977, , 180, 57

    1977

  88. [96]

    P., Bai , X.-N., & Fu , R

    Weiss , B. P., Bai , X.-N., & Fu , R. R. 2021, Science Advances, 7, eaba5967

    2021

  89. [97]

    J., Lilly, E., Chastel, S., et al

    Weryk, R. J., Lilly, E., Chastel, S., et al. 2016, arXiv [ 1607.04895 ]

    2016 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Wetherill , G. W. & Stewart , G. R. 1989, Icarus, 77, 330

    1989

  91. [99]

    W., G \"u ttler , C., Blum , J., & Dullemond , C

    Zsom , A., Ormel , C. W., G \"u ttler , C., Blum , J., & Dullemond , C. P. 2010, , 513, A57

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.