Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 10 cited by

From a Different Star: 3I/ATLAS in the context of the \={O}tautahi-Oxford interstellar object population model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 3I/ATLAS is an old, water-rich interstellar object with no kinematic link to 1I or 2I.

desk verdict Solid model-based characterization of 3I/ATLAS; the common-origin exclusion is clean, and the age estimate is honestly hedged despite resting on an approximate Gaussian. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05318 v3 pith:W3TFKHT4 submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Matthew J. Hopkins , Rosemary C. Dorsey , John C. Forbes , Michele T. Bannister , Chris J. Lintott , Brayden Leicester This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarobjects3I/ATLASOtautahi-Oxfordmodelage-velocitydispersionrelationGalacticdynamicscometcompositionplanetesimalformation
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

3I/ATLAS, the third object ever detected from outside the Solar System, enters the picture as a fast, in some ways unusual interloper: its incoming speed is at the high end but still within the range the Otautahi–Oxford model predicts for the Galactic population of interstellar objects. The paper argues that 3I's large out-of-plane velocity marks it as coming from an older, more metal-poor, and water-rich parent star. Applying the age–velocity dispersion relation to that one velocity component yields a 68% age interval of 7.6–14 Gyr, making 3I plausibly older than any Solar System object. The same analysis finds no kinematic evidence that 3I shares a star or star cluster with 1I/'Oumuamua or 2I/Borisov. If these inferences hold, 3I offers the first test of the model on a newly discovered object, and its predicted water-rich composition may become observable in the coming months.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Otautahi–Oxford model, which reweights the solar neighbourhood's stellar population as it would be if stars never died (a 'sine morte' population) from Gaia DR3 — by mass and metallicity — to predict the velocity, composition, and age distributions of interstellar objects passing through the Solar System. The age estimate then rests on the two-slope age–velocity dispersion relation of Almeida-Fernandes & Rocha-Pinto (2018), applied to the out-of-plane velocity component W alone to avoid the highly non-Gaussian in-plane velocity structure. The common-origin test uses a tri-variate Gaussian likelihood for a putative stream centred on 1I or 2I, a kernel density estimate of the model's velocity distribution for unrelated ISOs, and a comparison of the observed minimum velocity separation of the three ISOs to the model's triplet distribution.

What would settle it

A measurement of water production in 3I's coma as it passes inside ~3 au would settle the matter: if its outgassing is no higher than typical interstellar comets, the predicted water-rich composition tied to its velocity is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 3I/ATLAS is a statistically unremarkable member of the Galactic interstellar-object population in velocity and radiant, but an atypical one in composition and age. Its high out-of-plane velocity W places it with older, lower-metallicity parent stars, and the model predicts a water mass fraction above the typical ISO. Using a 1D Gaussian age–velocity dispersion relation for W, the paper derives a posterior age with 68% confidence interval 7.6–14 Gyr, with the posterior approaching zero below 1 Gyr. A Bayesian stream-association test gives a probability below 1.4% that 3I is related to 1I or 2I for any assumed stream dispersion, and the minimum three-ISO velocity separation is unremarkable in the model's null distribution. The conclusion is that 3I is old, water-rich, and from a different star.

Load-bearing premise

The age claim rests on the assumption that the out-of-plane velocities of interstellar objects follow a single bell-curve whose widening with age is exactly the two-slope age-velocity dispersion relation from stellar kinematics, even though the authors note the actual spread is not perfectly Gaussian.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 3I's age posterior implies it is older than 1I, 2I, and all known Solar System objects, at least at the 68% confidence level.
  • The predicted high water mass fraction should become observable in 3I's coma once it crosses the water-ice sublimation distance near ~3 au.
  • The model's agreement with 3I supports using it to predict the properties and discovery statistics of the 5–50 ISOs expected from LSST.
  • Back-tracing ISOs to parent stars requires extremely young ages; the wide age posteriors show that earlier parent-star identifications for 1I and 2I relied on biased point estimates.
  • The discovery of a ~10 km ISO suggests the galactic ISO size-frequency distribution may be shallower than the steep slope inferred from 1I and 2I alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the velocity–age link holds, the LSST sample of 5–50 ISOs could be sorted by age from velocities alone, turning each object into a dynamical tracer of the Galactic disk's history.
  • 3I's unusually southern radiant could be a selection fluke, or it could hint at a yet-unmodelled stream of high-inclination ISOs; a targeted search for more objects with large W would distinguish these.
  • The same Bayesian association test applied to future ISO pairs could either confirm the model's prediction that common-origin pairs are rare, or, if a clear pair appears, calibrate the prior used here.
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. This paper applies the authors' Ōtautahi–Oxford (O–O) interstellar object population model to 3I/ATLAS, using its externally measured hyperbolic orbit to derive Galactic velocity components (U,V,W)=(-51.0,-19.2,18.5) km/s. It reports that 3I's asymptotic speed and radiant are consistent with the model's predicted distributions, that its large out-of-plane velocity places it among older, lower-metallicity, more water-rich parent stars, and that a one-dimensional Gaussian age-velocity dispersion relation yields a 68% posterior age interval of 7.6–14 Gyr. A Bayesian common-origin test and a minimum-velocity-separation triplet test find no evidence that 3I is associated with 1I/'Oumuamua or 2I/Borisov. The paper also uses the discovery of a relatively large ISO to argue that the interstellar object size-frequency distribution may be shallower than earlier two-object estimates suggested.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is the first application of the O–O model to a newly discovered interstellar object and gives a testable prediction (enhanced water sublimation within ~3 au) plus a clean kinematic test of common origins. The manuscript is transparent about its main caveats, especially around the SFD estimate, and the common-origin analysis is clearly specified. The principal weakness is that the headline 'over 7.6 Gyr' age is obtained from an external Gaussian AVR assumption that is not validated against the O–O model's own synthetic W(age) distribution; the paper's Section 3 even cautions that velocity-based age estimates have large uncertainty. With a robustness test of the age posterior, the paper would be a solid and timely contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4; Fig. 3] The abstract's 'over 7.6 Gyr' lower bound is computed in Section 4 under the assumption that the out-of-plane velocity W follows a one-dimensional Gaussian centred on W_LSR with dispersion set by the Almeida-Fernandes & Rocha-Pinto (2018) age-velocity dispersion relation. The text itself states that W is 'not perfectly Gaussian', and Section 3 (Fig. 2, lower panel) argues that the O–O model predicts a wide, non-skewed age spread at 3I's velocity. This is a tension: the headline age is not derived from the O–O model but from an external Gaussian approximation that the model's own Figure 2 suggests may be inaccurate. Please quantify the non-Gaussianity of the O–O model's W distribution as a function of age, compare its implied sigma_W(age) with the adopted two-slope AVR, and recompute the 68% interval using the model's empirical W(age) distribution. The 7.6 Gyr bound is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, so this robustness test is necessary.
  2. [Section 4, age prior] The posterior in Fig. 3 is obtained under a uniform age prior over 0.01–14 Gyr, but this prior is not justified from the O–O model; the model's own predicted age distribution at 3I's velocity (Fig. 2, lower panel) is wide and not strongly skewed. Because the reported 68% interval is a posterior statement, the lower bound depends on the prior as well as the likelihood. Please report the posterior under the O–O model's predicted age distribution evaluated at 3I's velocity, and show the sensitivity of the 7.6 Gyr bound to at least one alternative prior (e.g., a mildly increasing or decreasing prior over 0.01–14 Gyr).
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (1) and Fig. 4] The conclusion that 3I is very unlikely to share an origin with 1I or 2I is stated in the abstract without qualification, but the posterior in Eq. (1) uses a KDE of the O–O model as the 'unrelated' density and the triplet test uses the same model as its null. The conclusion is therefore conditional on the O–O model's velocity distribution being correct in the region of 3I. I do not regard this as circular in a damaging sense, but the paper should either state the conditionality in the abstract/conclusion or add a robustness check in which the unrelated density is replaced by a broad Gaussian fitted to the same model (or the KDE bandwidth is varied) to show that the conclusion is not driven by the model's fine structure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The authors refer to '68% confidence intervals' for posterior distributions; these are Bayesian credible intervals, and the terminology should be adjusted.
  2. [Section 4] The adopted sigma_W(age) relation is only cited to Almeida-Fernandes & Rocha-Pinto (2018), Table 3 and Eq. 8; for reproducibility, please reproduce the relation or provide a supplementary table.
  3. [Section 5, Fig. 4] The observed minimum velocity separation line in the bottom panel is not labelled in the caption; please add the value or a caption sentence explaining the orange line.
  4. [Section 6] The two-point SFD slope estimate should be described as illustrative rather than a fit, since the two number-density points come from different surveys with different selection functions; the text already notes some of these caveats.
  5. [Section 4] Please check the typesetting of the scattering timescale: '10 7 Gyr' presumably means 10^7 Gyr, and the missing superscript should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: 3I's velocity is an external input, the age uses an independent literature AVR, and the model predictions are not fitted to 3I.

full rationale

The paper applies the authors' Otautahi–Oxford model to a newly discovered object rather than deriving the object's properties from the model's own outputs. 3I's (U,V,W) comes from an independent orbit fit (Section 2). The claimed age of over 7.6 Gyr is obtained in Section 4 from the out-of-plane velocity W using the Almeida-Fernandes & Rocha-Pinto (2018) age–velocity dispersion relation with a uniform age prior; this is an external literature relation, not a parameter fitted to 3I, and the authors explicitly note the resulting wide uncertainty. The water-rich and low-metallicity predictions in Section 3 are conditional distributions drawn from the O–O model, which uses Gaia DR3 stellar data and a protoplanetary disk chemistry model; none of these inputs include 3I's velocity or brightness, so the comparison is an out-of-sample test rather than a circular reduction. The common-origin analysis in Section 5 uses a Bayesian likelihood centered on 1I/2I and a KDE from the O–O model; the prior from Forbes et al. (2024) is a self-citation but is not fitted to 3I, and the prior-free triplet-separation test independently places the observed separation in the central part of the model distribution. The Gaussian-W assumption in Section 4 is a modeling risk (the distribution is admitted to be not perfectly Gaussian) but is an openly stated external assumption, not an equivalence between input and prediction. No step in the derivation chain reduces a claimed prediction to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the four assumptions of the O-O model (Section 2), the Gaussian-W AVR model and uniform age prior used for the age estimate (Section 4), and the Gaussian stream likelihood and chosen prior for the association test (Section 5). No new physical entities are introduced. The model's absolute normalization and the 5 km/s velocity window are free choices that shape the conditional distributions.

free parameters (4)
  • ISO production efficiency normalization = not stated (inherited from Hopkins et al. 2025)
    Assumption (i) is a proportionality between ISO release and stellar mass and metallicity, but the absolute constant is not given in this Letter; it must be normalized somewhere in the parent model to produce absolute ISO densities.
  • Velocity matching window = 5 km/s
    Section 2: conditional property distributions for an ISO are drawn only from stars with velocities within 5 km/s of the ISO's velocity. The width affects the predicted metallicity, water fraction, and age distributions.
  • Common-origin prior P(r|sigma_s) = 0.01
    Section 5: adopted as close to the highest related-ISO probability among Forbes et al. (2024) models. The posterior odds for association scale with this prior.
  • Age prior = uniform over 0.01-14 Gyr
    Section 4: a uniform age prior is assumed to convert the W likelihood into an age posterior; the resulting 68% interval of 7.6-14 Gyr depends on this choice.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The number of ISOs released by a star is proportional to its mass and metallicity.
    Section 2, assumption (i). This is the core reweighting rule that turns the stellar population into an ISO population.
  • domain assumption Scattering of ISOs happens efficiently early in a system's life, at speeds below about 10 km/s, and from beyond the water ice line.
    Section 2, assumption (ii). Sets the velocities and compositions of released planetesimals.
  • domain assumption ISOs are long-lived and outlast their parent stars.
    Section 2, assumption (iii). Justifies using the sine-morte stellar population as the source reservoir.
  • domain assumption The current solar-neighbourhood sine-morte stellar population, reweighted, is a valid proxy for the ISOs currently passing through the Solar System.
    Section 2, assumption (iv). This is the bridge from stellar data to ISO predictions and is explicitly stated.
  • domain assumption The out-of-plane velocity W of ISOs follows a 1D Gaussian centred on W_LSR, with dispersion growing with age according to the two-slope AVR of Almeida-Fernandes and Rocha-Pinto (2018).
    Section 4. The authors note the W distribution is not perfectly Gaussian, but adopt this model to convert W into an age posterior.
  • domain assumption The velocity likelihood for a common-origin stream is a trivariate Gaussian centred on the other ISO's velocity with isotropic covariance sigma_s-squared times the identity.
    Section 5. A simplifying choice for the Bayesian association test; the authors note it avoids integrating over stream centres.
  • ad hoc to paper A uniform age prior over 0.01 to 14 Gyr is appropriate when converting the W likelihood into an age posterior.
    Section 4. The posterior intervals depend on this prior choice.
  • standard math Silverman's rule gives a suitable bandwidth for the kernel density estimate of the unrelated-ISO velocity density.
    Section 5. A standard statistical convention used to evaluate p(v3I | unrelated).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From a Different Star: 3I/ATLAS in the context of the \={O}tautahi-Oxford interstellar object population model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3TFKHT4

@misc{pith2026250705318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From a Different Star: 3I/ATLAS in the context of the \=Otautahi-Oxford interstellar object population model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3TFKHT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05318}
}
read the original abstract

The discovery of the third interstellar object (ISO), 3I/ATLAS (`3I'), provides a rare chance to directly observe a small body from another Solar System. Studying its chemistry and dynamics will add to our understanding of how the processes of planetesimal formation and evolution happen across the Milky Way's disk, and how such objects respond to the Milky Way's potential. In this Letter, we present a first assessment of 3I in the context of the \={O}tautahi-Oxford model, which uses data from Gaia in conjunction with models of protoplanetary disk chemistry and Galactic dynamics to predict the properties of the ISO population. The model shows that both the velocity and radiant of 3I are within the expected range. Its velocity predicts an age of over 7.6 Gyr and a high water mass fraction, which may become observable shortly. We also conclude that it is very unlikely that 3I shares an origin with either of the previous two interstellar object detections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Otautahi–Oxford model’s predicted asymptotic speed, radiant, and Galactic velocity distribution for ¯ q < 5 au ISOs, overplotted with the three known ISOs. U points towards the Galactic centre, V points around the Galactic disk in the direction of the Sun’s orbit, and W points perpendicular to the Galactic plane. The blue and orange lines on the radiant plot mark the Galactic and ecliptic planes respectively, an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of the predicted parent-star metallicity, water mass fraction and age distributions for the Otautahi– ¯ Oxford model q < 5 au ISOs (grey histograms), overplotted with line histograms of the predicted posterior distributions for ISOs with similar velocity to 1I, 2I and 3I. ing group membership: stars with velocities within the moving groups have generally higher metallicities than stars with velocities outside.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Age posterior distribution for 3I, based on its out￾of-plane velocity W, with shaded 68% confidence intervals. Vertical line marks biased point estimates, which generally underestimate the age, especially in the case of 1I (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The improbability of an association between 3I and a previous ISO. The top panel shows the Bayesian pos￾terior probability that 3I is related to 1I (purple line) or 2I (light green line), conditioned on a known velocity disper￾sion, σs, of the ISO stream centred on 1I …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Age posterior distribution for 1I and 2I, based on their out-of-plane velocity W, with shaded 68% confidence intervals. Vertical line marks biased point estimates, which generally underestimate the age, especially in the case of 1I. A. AGE POSTERIORS FOR 1I AND 2I [PI…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. JWST detection of a carbon dioxide dominated gas coma surrounding interstellar object 3I/ATLAS

    astro-ph.EP 2025-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The interstellar object 3I/ATLAS has a CO2/H2O coma ratio of 7.6, about 18 times higher than the trend for Solar System comets at similar heliocentric distances.

  2. Extreme Negative Polarisation of New Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS

    astro-ph.EP 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First polarimetric observations of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS show an unprecedentedly deep and narrow negative polarization branch, with a minimum near -2.7% at about 7 degrees and inversion at 17 degrees.

  3. Discovery and Preliminary Characterization of a Third Interstellar Object: 3I/ATLAS

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    3I/ATLAS is a confirmed third interstellar object, a weakly active red comet entering the inner solar system at roughly 58 km/s.

  4. Very Large Telescope observations of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS III: High-resolution monitoring of CN and forbidden oxygen emission across the perihelion passage with ESPRESSO

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

    3I/ATLAS becomes progressively water-dominated near perihelion, with CN production falling as r_h^-4.62 on the inbound leg and a green-to-red oxygen ratio comparable to 2I/Borisov.

  5. University of Hawaii 88-inch Telescope Observations of the Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS: Spectrophotometric Blue-Sensitive Spectral Time Series Spanning Two Months from Discovery

    astro-ph.EP 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-month SNIFS spectral time series shows 3I/ATLAS had stable red colors while CN, Ni, and possible Fe emission developed during its pre-perihelion approach.

  6. Assessing interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS with the 10.4 m Gran Telescopio Canarias and the Two-meter Twin Telescope

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    3I/ATLAS, the third interstellar object, has a red TNO-like spectrum, an active dust coma, a rotation period of 16.79 hours, and a kinematic trace toward the Galactic thin disk.

  7. Near-Discovery Observations of Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS with the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    New observations of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS produce the first near-infrared spectrum, showing a red slope that turns neutral at longer wavelengths, no water ice absorption, and a model-dependent upper limit of <7%...

  8. Dynamical Constraints on a Population of Massive Interstellar Objects

    astro-ph.EP 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A size-dependent low-angular-momentum anisotropy, fitted to the observed detection rates, can reproduce the encounter rate of large interstellar objects such as 3I/ATLAS.

  9. Quantitative Mapping of the Loeb Scale

    astro-ph.EP 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A quantitative framework converts interstellar object anomalies into a 0-10 Loeb Scale score, with worked examples for 1I/'Oumuamua, 2I/Borisov, and 3I/ATLAS.

  10. The Kinematic Age of 3I/ATLAS and its Implications for Early Planet Formation

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    3I/ATLAS is likely an old, active comet about 2 km across, and its high speed implies it formed roughly 3 to 11 billion years ago around a low-metallicity star.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R., Serra-Ricart, M., Licandro, J., et al

    Alarcon, M. R., Serra-Ricart, M., Licandro, J., et al. 2025, ”Deep g’-band Imaging of Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS from the Two-meter Twin Telescope (TTT)”, The Astronomer’s Telegram. https://astronomerstelegram.org/?read=17264

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Almeida-Fernandes, F., & Rocha-Pinto, H. J. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2202

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2202 2018

  3. [3]

    2008, A&A, 490, 135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809519

    Antoja, T., Figueras, F., Fern´ andez, D., & Torra, J. 2008, A&A, 490, 135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809519

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809519 2008

  4. [4]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 2954, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2220

    Baba, J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2954, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2220

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2220 2015

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Farnocchia, D., Meech, K. J., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae3eb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae3eb 2018

  6. [6]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Farnocchia, D., Ye, Q., Meech, K. J., & Micheli, M. 2020, A&A, 634, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937231

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937231 2020

  7. [7]

    B., & Seligman, D

    Bergner, J. B., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, Nature, 615, 610, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05687-w

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05687-w 2023

  8. [8]

    W., Feldman, P

    Bodewits, D., Noonan, J. W., Feldman, P. D., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 867, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1095-2

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1095-2 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Marschall, R., et al

    Bottke, W. F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Marschall, R., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 168, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace7cd

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D. W. 2012, ApJ, 751, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/131

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    O., Bernardinelli, P

    Chandler, C. O., Bernardinelli, P. H., Juri´ c, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.13409

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., & Wyse, R

    Daniel, K. J., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2683

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Bannister, M

    Deam, S. E., Bannister, M. T., Opitom, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05051, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05051

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    A., & Tonry, J

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

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Hopkins, M

    Dorsey, R. C., Hopkins, M. J., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.16741, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.16741 3I/ATLAS in the ¯O–O model9

    2025 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    C., Asplund, M., et al

    Duong, L., Freeman, K. C., Asplund, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty525 Dybczy´ nski, P. A., & Kr´ olikowska, M. 2018, A&A, 610, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732309 Dybczy´ nski, P. A., Kr´ olikowska, M., & Wysocza´ nska, R. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arX...

    2018 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Feng, F., & Jones, H. R. A. 2018, ApJL, 852, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa404

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, Interstellar Objects and Exocomets (University of Arizona Press), 731–766

    Fitzsimmons, A., Meech, K., Matr` a, L., & Pfalzner, S. 2024, Interstellar Objects and Exocomets (University of Arizona Press), 731–766. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.17980

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C., Bannister, M

    Forbes, J. C., Bannister, M. T., Lintott, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14577, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14577

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    C., & Loeb, A

    Forbes, J. C., & Loeb, A. 2019, ApJL, 875, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab158f

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Francis, P. J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1348, doi: 10.1086/497684

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Pravec, P., Fitzsimmons, A., et al

    Fraser, W. C., Pravec, P., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 383, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0398-z Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025

    Gilmore, G., & Reid, N. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025

    1983 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Davies, M

    Gustafsson, B., Church, R. P., Davies, M. B., & Rickman, H. 2016, A&A, 593, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423916

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, AJ, 159, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7336

    Hallatt, T., & Wiegert, P. 2020, AJ, 159, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7336

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Bannister, M

    Hopkins, M. J., Bannister, M. T., & Lintott, C. 2025, AJ, 169, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9eb3

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Hsieh, C.-H., Laughlin, G., & Arce, H. G. 2021, ApJ, 917, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0729

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Bub, M. W., Bovy, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2667

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Hong, J., Bovy, J., Kawata, D., & Grand, R. J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2532

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    P., & Desch, S

    Jackson, A. P., & Desch, S. J. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06706, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006706

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, ApJL, 888, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab621b

    Jewitt, D., Hui, M.-T., Kim, Y., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab621b

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, ”Interstellar Interloper C/2025 N1 is Active”, The Astronomer’s Telegram

    Jewitt, D., & Luu, J. 2025, ”Interstellar Interloper C/2025 N1 is Active”, The Astronomer’s Telegram. https://astronomerstelegram.org/?read=17263

    2025

  25. [33]

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

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2011, AJ, 141, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/155

    Jura, M. 2011, AJ, 141, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/155

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Taylor, A

    Levine, W. G., Taylor, A. G., Seligman, D. Z., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 124, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acdf58

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    T., & Mackereth, J

    Lintott, C., Bannister, M. T., & Mackereth, J. T. 2022, ApJL, 924, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac41d5

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Lucchini, S., Pellett, E., D’Onghia, E., & Aguerri, J. A. L. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3519 Marˇ ceta, D., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, PSJ, 4, 230, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad08c1

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 3003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2380

    Mashchenko, S. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2380

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    A., & Chapman, R

    McGlynn, T. A., & Chapman, R. D. 1989, ApJL, 346, L105, doi: 10.1086/185590

    1989 doi

  32. [40]

    J., et al

    Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., Meech, K. J., et al. 2018, Nature, 559, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0254-4

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Vieira, R. S. S., & Barros, D. A. 2018, ApJL, 863, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad804 Nordstr¨ om, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al. 2004, A&A, 418, 989, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035959 ‘Oumuamua ISSI Team, Bannister, M. T., Bhandare, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 59...

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Pfalzner, S., & Bannister, M. T. 2019, ApJL, 874, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0fa0 Portegies Zwart, S. 2021, A&A, 647, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038888

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Dougherty, J., Bagley, M

    Quillen, A. C., Dougherty, J., Bagley, M. B., Minchev, I., & Comparetta, J. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 762, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19349.x

    2011

  36. [44]

    2018, A&A, 619, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833494 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W

    Ramos, P., Antoja, T., & Figueras, F. 2018, A&A, 619, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833494 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    2018

  37. [45]

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

    Seligman, D., & Laughlin, G. 2018, AJ, 155, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabd37 —. 2020, ApJL, 896, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab963f

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

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

    Seligman, D. Z., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2025, Discovery and Preliminary Characterization of a Third Interstellar Object: 3I/ATLAS. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02757

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Silverman, B. W. 1986, Density estimation for statistics and data analysis (Chapman & Hall, London)

    1986

  40. [48]

    G., & Seligman, D

    Taylor, A. G., & Seligman, D. Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08111, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08111

    2025 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Whipple, F. L. 1975, AJ, 80, 525, doi: 10.1086/111775 10Hopkins et al

    1975 doi

  43. [51]

    2018, ApJL, 852, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f7

    Zhang, Q. 2018, ApJL, 852, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f7

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    I., S´ anchez-Hern´ andez, O., Sucerquia, M., & Ferr ´ ın, I

    Zuluaga, J. I., S´ anchez-Hern´ andez, O., Sucerquia, M., & Ferr ´ ın, I. 2018, AJ, 155, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabd7c

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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