pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09834 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

Observational and Dynamical Constraints on an Unseen Outer Perturber in the GJ 436 Hot Neptune System

Haedam Im , Tiger Lu , Malena Rice , Quang H. Tran , Gongjie Li , Smadar Naoz
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords GJ 436 bhot Neptunepolar orbitKozai mechanismexoplanet dynamicsradial velocityastrometrysubstellar companion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dynamical modeling favors a sub-Jovian perturber beyond 6.8 AU in the GJ 436 system.

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

The study uses twenty years of radial velocity observations and Hipparcos-Gaia astrometric accelerations to set upper limits on the mass and distance of any unseen outer companion to the GJ 436 star. These limits are then fed into three-body secular simulations that model how an outer body could have driven the inner hot Neptune onto its current eccentric and polar orbit through gravitational interactions. The simulations identify sub-Jovian mass companions on orbits starting from about 6.8 AU as the configurations most consistent with both the data and the planet's observed state. This work provides a way to test whether distant companions can account for the unusual orbits seen in some hot Neptunes.

Core claim

Archival radial velocity and astrometric data constrain potential companions to a_c less than 5.4 AU for masses above 0.05 Jupiter masses and to a_c less than 64 AU for masses above 24 Jupiter masses at 2 sigma. Three-body hierarchical secular simulations within these bounds show that sub-Jovian mass objects with a_c greater than or equal to 6.8 AU can reproduce the present-day polar and eccentric orbit of GJ 436 b, pointing to a substellar perturber as the likely explanation.

What carries the argument

Hierarchical secular simulations of the von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai mechanism, where a distant outer companion induces oscillations in the inner planet's eccentricity and inclination.

Load-bearing premise

That the von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai mechanism from a distant companion is the primary cause of GJ 436 b's polar eccentric orbit and that the simulations include all important dynamical effects without needing tides, relativity, or extra planets.

What would settle it

A direct detection of a companion more massive than 24 Jupiter masses inside 64 AU, or a failure to reproduce the observed orbit parameters in simulations using the favored mass and separation ranges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09834 by Gongjie Li, Haedam Im, Malena Rice, Quang H. Tran, Smadar Naoz, Tiger Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: RV measurements and our best-fitting model of the GJ 436 system. Panel (a) shows the RV data with the best-fit model over the 19-year baseline. Panel (b) displays the RV residuals. Panel (c) presents the phased data and model based on the best-fit orbital parameters. Each instrument is plotted with a different color, and the Keplerian model is shown in black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Joint posterior constraints in mc–ac space. The dark and light regions indicate the 1σ and 2σ confidence intervals for RV constraints (green), astrometric constraints (blue), and our final combined fit (red). The hashed region is observationally forbidden by our work. The parameter space above the black dashed lines is observationally forbidden by A25, see §5 for further discussion about this. For a more d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Analytic constraints in mc–ac space for three initial semi-major axes ab = 0.3, 1, 5 AU. Light gray shading with no overlaid, colored hatch pattern indicates the observationally (2σ) and dynamically forbidden region. The solid black line delineates the observationally forbidden region. Each color corresponds to a different outer companion eccentricity ec = 0.1 (dark purple), ec = 0.5 (violet), ec = 0.7 (pi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example dynamical history of GJ 436 b via ZLK migration with an outer companion of mass mc = 0.24 MJup on an orbit with ac = 28 AU, ec = 0.62, and Imut,i = 85◦ . GJ 436 b was initialized with ab,i = 1 AU. The panels show the evolution of 1 − e (top left), mutual inclination I (bottom left), semi-major axis a and periapse distance a(1 − e) (top right), and spin-orbit angle ΨAb (bottom right). The present-da… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ZLK simulation results in ac−mc (left) and mc−ec space (right). Each point represents one companion configuration tested across 18 different initial conditions. Blue points indicate companion configurations where ZLK migration is too slow (tHN > 10 Gyr) for all 18 initial conditions. Gray points show mixed failure conditions where ZLK migration either is too slow (tHN > 10 Gyr), is too fast (tHN < 1 Gyr), … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number of plausible simulations versus initial mutual inclination Imut,i for three initial semi-major axes ab,i = 0.3 AU (red), 1 AU (orange), 5 AU (blue). None of the simulations initialized with Imut,i = 45◦ and very few initial￾ized with ab,i = 0.3 AU plausibly reproduce the present-day orbit. 50 100 150 ΨAb ( ◦) 0 10 20 Count Observed ΨAb (3σ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of spin-orbit angles ΨAb for simula￾tions that plausibly reproduce the present-day orbit (1 Gyr < tHN < 10 Gyr) among the 18,000 simulations. The green shaded region indicates the 3σ confidence interval for the observed spin-orbit angle ΨAb = 103.2 +12.6 −11.5 ◦ (Bourrier et al. 2022). companion configurations initialized with ab,i = 0.3 AU plausibly reproduce the present-day orbit of GJ 436 b… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of final semi-major axes ab,final for plausible simulations initialized with Imut,i = 80◦ and ab,i = 1 AU across four planetary radius factors: 1Rp (black), 1.3Rp (red), 1.5 Rp (orange), and 2Rp (blue). The dashed vertical line marks the present-day observed semi-major axis of GJ 436 b (0.0291 AU). The median ab,final across our plausible simulations ranges from 0.016 to 0.022 AU depending on … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hot Neptunes in the sub-Jovian desert offer unique insights into planetary system evolution, retaining signatures of dynamical processes that shaped their present-day architectures. Many of these planets exhibit polar orbits, yet the mechanisms responsible for these misalignments between the stellar spin axis and planet orbit normal remain under debate. GJ 436 b stands among the very few hot Neptunes with both a polar and an eccentric orbit, thereby preserving dynamical signatures that may have otherwise been erased by tidal circularization. We investigate the unusual orbital architecture of GJ 436, exploring von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai migration induced by a distant companion as a mechanism to explain the present-day orbit of GJ 436 b. Using $\sim$20 years of archival radial velocity measurements and astrometric data from the Hipparcos-Gaia Catalog of Accelerations, we constrain a potential companion to $a_{c}<5.4$ AU for $m_{c}>0.05$ $M_{Jup}$ and $a_{c}<64$ AU for $m_{c}>24$ $M_{Jup}$ in the GJ 436 system at the $2\sigma$ confidence level, providing the most stringent constraints to date. We further perform three-body hierarchical secular simulations to determine which companion configurations could reproduce GJ 436 b's present-day orbit within the observationally constrained parameter space. Our dynamical modeling favors sub-Jovian masses on orbits with $a_\mathrm{c} \gtrsim 6.8$ AU, suggesting a substellar perturber. These observational and dynamical constraints can guide future companion searches and illuminate formation mechanisms for hot Neptune desert planets on polar orbits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives 2σ observational constraints on an unseen outer companion to GJ 436 from ~20 years of archival radial velocities combined with Hipparcos-Gaia Catalog of Accelerations astrometry, yielding a_c < 5.4 AU for m_c > 0.05 M_Jup and a_c < 64 AU for m_c > 24 M_Jup. It then performs three-body hierarchical secular simulations to test which companion configurations within this space can reproduce the present-day eccentric (e=0.16) and polar (i~80°) orbit of the hot Neptune GJ 436 b via the von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai mechanism, concluding that sub-Jovian masses on orbits with a_c ≳ 6.8 AU are favored.

Significance. If the dynamical results hold after inclusion of additional physics, the work provides a concrete link between the unusual architecture of GJ 436 b and a possible substellar perturber, tightening limits on companions in the sub-Jovian desert and offering guidance for future direct imaging or RV searches. The use of combined archival datasets for stringent observational bounds and the explicit mapping of simulation outcomes onto the observed orbit are positive features that could be strengthened by addressing the completeness of the secular model.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (dynamical modeling): The three-body hierarchical secular integrations omit general-relativistic apsidal precession and equilibrium tidal damping. For a planet at a_b ≈ 0.03 AU these terms produce precession rates of several degrees per year and eccentricity damping on Myr timescales at high e; their absence can artificially permit Kozai cycles that would otherwise be quenched, directly affecting the claimed lower bound a_c ≳ 6.8 AU and the preference for sub-Jovian masses.
  2. [§3] §3 (observational constraints): The 2σ limits on companion mass and semi-major axis are presented without explicit description of the covariance matrix treatment between RV and HGCA data, the precise data-reduction steps for the archival velocities, or any convergence diagnostics for the orbit fits. These details are required to evaluate whether the allowed region (a_c < 5.4 AU for m_c > 0.05 M_Jup) is robust before it is used to filter the simulation grid.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the companion semi-major axis alternates between a_c and a_c in the text and figures; consistent use of a single symbol would improve readability.
  2. The abstract states that the simulations 'reproduce GJ 436 b's present-day orbit'; the manuscript should clarify whether this is a forward integration from initial conditions or a posterior check against the observed elements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in turn below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (dynamical modeling): The three-body hierarchical secular integrations omit general-relativistic apsidal precession and equilibrium tidal damping. For a planet at a_b ≈ 0.03 AU these terms produce precession rates of several degrees per year and eccentricity damping on Myr timescales at high e; their absence can artificially permit Kozai cycles that would otherwise be quenched, directly affecting the claimed lower bound a_c ≳ 6.8 AU and the preference for sub-Jovian masses.

    Authors: We agree that general-relativistic apsidal precession and equilibrium tidal damping are important effects omitted from the secular integrations. These processes can quench Kozai cycles for the close-in planet and may influence the derived lower bound on a_c as well as the preference for sub-Jovian masses. In the revised manuscript we will incorporate both terms into the three-body hierarchical secular model, re-run the simulation grid over the observationally allowed parameter space, and update the dynamical constraints and conclusions accordingly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (observational constraints): The 2σ limits on companion mass and semi-major axis are presented without explicit description of the covariance matrix treatment between RV and HGCA data, the precise data-reduction steps for the archival velocities, or any convergence diagnostics for the orbit fits. These details are required to evaluate whether the allowed region (a_c < 5.4 AU for m_c > 0.05 M_Jup) is robust before it is used to filter the simulation grid.

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting the missing methodological details in the observational analysis. In the revised manuscript we will add an expanded subsection in §3 that explicitly describes the covariance matrix treatment between the radial-velocity and Hipparcos-Gaia astrometric data, the precise reduction steps applied to the archival velocities, and the convergence diagnostics employed for the orbit fits. These additions will allow readers to assess the robustness of the reported 2σ limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational limits independent; simulations explore rather than tautologically reproduce inputs

full rationale

Observational upper limits on companion mass and separation are obtained directly from archival RV time series and Hipparcos-Gaia astrometric accelerations; these are external data products. The three-body secular integrations are forward explorations that test which (a_c, m_c) pairs can evolve the inner planet to the observed e ≈ 0.16 and i ≈ 80° under the vZLK mechanism. No parameter is fitted to the target orbit, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem that forces the favored region, and no ansatz or renaming reduces the reported preference to an input by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard exoplanet-dynamics assumptions and the validity of the secular approximation; no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract summary, but the simulation outcomes depend on the choice of initial conditions and the neglect of additional effects.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai mechanism is the primary driver of the observed polar eccentric orbit
    Invoked to motivate the simulations and interpret the favored configurations.
  • domain assumption Hierarchical secular three-body integrations accurately reproduce the long-term evolution
    Used to map allowed companion parameters to the observed orbit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5635 in / 1530 out tokens · 69169 ms · 2026-05-10T16:18:04.713112+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 130 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    H., Marcussen, M

    Albrecht, S. H., Marcussen, M. L., Winn, J. N., Dawson, R. I., & Knudstrup, E. 2021, ApJL, 916, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03 2021

  2. [2]

    1973, Astrophysics and Space Science, 23, 459

    Alexander, M. 1973, Astrophysics and Space Science, 23, 459

    1973

  3. [3]

    2008, A&A, 487, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810007

    Alonso, R., Barbieri, M., Rabus, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 487, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810007

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810007 2008

  4. [4]

    M., Brandt, T

    An, Q., Lu, T., Brandt, G. M., Brandt, T. D., & Li, G. 2025, AJ, 169, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad90b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad90b4 2025

  5. [5]

    R., Storch, N

    Anderson, K. R., Storch, N. I., & Lai, D. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2906

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2906 2016

  6. [6]

    J., Lopez, T

    Armstrong, D. J., Lopez, T. A., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2020, Nature, 583, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2421-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2421-7 2020

  7. [7]

    2025, A&A, 702, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555239

    Attia, M., Bourrier, V., Bolmont, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555239

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555239 2025

  8. [8]

    2021, A&A, 647, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039452

    Attia, M., Bourrier, V., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039452

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039452 2021

  9. [9]

    E., Tubbs, R

    Baldwin, J. E., Tubbs, R. N., Cox, G. C., et al. 2001, A&A, 368, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010118

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010118 2001

  10. [10]

    2010, PASP, 122, 1341, doi: 10.1086/657159 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D

    Ballard, S., Charbonneau, D., Deming, D., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 1341, doi: 10.1086/657159 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Balmer, W. O., Pueyo, L., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade30f

    work page doi:10.1086/657159 2010

  11. [11]

    2009, ApJ, 699, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/23 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D

    Batygin, K., Laughlin, G., Meschiari, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/23 Beaug´ e, C., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/23 2009

  12. [12]

    2012, A&A, 545, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219183

    Forveille, T. 2012, A&A, 545, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219183

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219183 2012

  13. [13]

    Bodenheimer, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Mardling, R. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 466, doi: 10.1086/318667

    work page doi:10.1086/318667 2001

  14. [14]

    Nature553(7689), 477–480 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24677 arXiv:1712.06638 [astro-ph.EP]

    Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., Beust, H., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 477, doi: 10.1038/nature24677

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24677 2018

  15. [15]

    2021, A&A, 654, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141527

    Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., Cretignier, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141527

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141527 2021

  16. [16]

    R., Allart, R., et al

    Bourrier, V., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Allart, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142559

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142559 2022

  17. [17]

    1999, A&A, 349, 619

    Bouvier, J., Chelli, A., Allain, S., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 619

    1999

  18. [18]

    P., Blunt, S

    Bowler, B. P., Blunt, S. C., & Nielsen, E. L. 2020, AJ, 159, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11 2020

  19. [19]

    M., Michalik, D., Brandt, T

    Brandt, G. M., Michalik, D., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2021a, AJ, 162, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac12d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac12d0

  20. [20]

    Brandt, T. D. 2018, ApJS, 239, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 —. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 2018

  21. [21]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y., et al. 2021b, AJ, 162, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac042e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac042e

  22. [22]

    P., Vogt, S

    Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 580, doi: 10.1086/425173

    work page doi:10.1086/425173 2004

  23. [23]

    , keywords =

    Butler, R. P., Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 505, doi: 10.1086/504701

    work page doi:10.1086/504701 2006

  24. [24]

    A., Gu` ardia, J., L´ opez del Fresno, M., et al

    Caballero, J. A., Gu` ardia, J., L´ opez del Fresno, M., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9910, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, ed. A. B. Peck, R. L. Seaman, & C. R. Benn, 99100E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233574

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2233574 2016

  25. [25]

    N., & Davies, M

    Carrera, D., Raymond, S. N., & Davies, M. B. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 629, L7

    2019

  26. [26]

    E., Wetherill, G

    Chambers, J. E., Wetherill, G. W., & Boss, A. P. 1996, Icarus, 119, 261, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0019

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0019 1996

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Chatterjee, S., Ford, E. B., Matsumura, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 580, doi: 10.1086/590227

    work page doi:10.1086/590227 2008

  28. [28]

    Cresswell, P., Dirksen, G., Kley, W., & Nelson, R. P. 2007, A&A, 473, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077666

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077666 2007

  29. [29]

    P., Marcy, G

    Cumming, A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 531, doi: 10.1086/588487

    work page doi:10.1086/588487 2008

  30. [30]

    Dai, F., & Winn, J. N. 2017, AJ, 153, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa65d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa65d1 2017

  31. [31]

    Origins of Hot Jupiters

    Dawson, R. I., & Johnson, J. A. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853 2018

  32. [32]

    Farr, W. M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2830

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2830 2019

  33. [33]

    2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    Dong, J., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, AJ, 166, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace105

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace105 2023

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Dong, S., Katz, B., & Socrates, A. 2014, ApJL, 781, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L5

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/l5 2014

  35. [35]

    C., & Chiang, E

    Duffell, P. C., & Chiang, E. 2015, ApJ, 812, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/94

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/94 2015

  36. [36]

    P., Kiseleva, L

    Eggleton, P. P., Kiseleva, L. G., & Hut, P. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 499, 853

    1998

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Eggleton, P. P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton, L. 2001, ApJ, 562, 1012, doi: 10.1086/323843

    work page doi:10.1086/323843 2001

  38. [38]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1298 16

    Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1298 16

    2007

  39. [39]

    P., Xuan, J

    Finnerty, L., Fitzgerald, M. P., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.17777. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17777

    work page arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    The Journal of Open Source Software , keywords =

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Farr, W., Sinha, M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, doi: 10.21105/joss.01864

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01864 2019

  41. [41]

    , keywords =

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 2018

  42. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2b

    Vanderburg, A. 2024, ApJ, 972, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2b 2024

  43. [43]

    O., et al

    Gillon, M., Pont, F., Demory, B. O., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077799

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077799 2007

  44. [44]

    2021, ApJL, 908, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57

    Ginski, C., Facchini, S., Huang, J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57 2021

  45. [45]

    1993, , 106, 247, 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    Gladman, B. 1993, Icarus, 106, 247, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1169 1993

  46. [46]

    1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0 1966

  47. [47]

    M., Meunier, N., et al

    Grandjean, A., Lagrange, A. M., Meunier, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141235 Guzm´ an-Mesa, A., Kitzmann, D., Mordasini, C., & Heng, K. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1066

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141235 2023

  48. [48]

    2026a, ApJ, 997, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb75 —

    Hallatt, T., & Millholland, S. 2026a, ApJ, 997, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb75 —. 2026b, ApJ, 997, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae129d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfb75

  49. [49]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  50. [50]

    W., Johnson, J

    Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1467, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1467

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1467 2010

  51. [51]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  52. [52]

    1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126

    Hut, P. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126

    1981

  53. [53]

    S., D´ ıaz, M

    Jenkins, J. S., D´ ıaz, M. R., Kurtovic, N. T., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1148, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1142-z Juri´ c, M., & Tremaine, S. 2008, ApJ, 686, 603, doi: 10.1086/590047

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1142-z 2020

  54. [54]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt075 2013

  55. [55]

    P., A’Hearn, M., Besse, S., et al

    Klaasen, K. P., A’Hearn, M., Besse, S., et al. 2013, Icarus, 225, 643, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.03.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.03.024 2013

  56. [56]

    1964, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 2, 625, doi: 10.1029/RG002i004p00625

    Knopoff, L. 1964, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 2, 625, doi: 10.1029/RG002i004p00625

    work page doi:10.1029/rg002i004p00625 1964

  57. [57]

    A., Fulton, B

    Knutson, H. A., Fulton, B. J., Montet, B. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/126 2014

  58. [58]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4 2023

  59. [59]

    P., Reissl, S., & Goicovic, F

    Kuffmeier, M., Dullemond, C. P., Reissl, S., & Goicovic, F. G. 2021, A&A, 656, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039614

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039614 2021

  60. [60]

    Lai, D., Foucart, F., & Lin, D. N. C. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2790, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18127.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18127.x 2011

  61. [61]

    2008, ApJ, 683, 949, doi: 10.1086/589822

    Lai, D., & Zhang, H. 2008, ApJ, 683, 949, doi: 10.1086/589822

    work page doi:10.1086/589822 2008

  62. [62]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5be6

    Lammers, C., Hadden, S., & Murray, N. 2024, ApJ, 972, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5be6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5be6 2024

  63. [63]

    Lammers, C., & Winn, J. N. 2026, AJ, 171, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae21de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae21de 2026

  64. [64]

    A., Gillon, M., Demory, B

    Lanotte, A. A., Gillon, M., Demory, B. O., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424373

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424373 2014

  65. [65]

    A&A605, 7 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731340 arXiv:1709.04686 [astro-ph.EP]

    Lavie, B., Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731340

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731340 2017

  66. [66]

    2014a, ApJ, 791, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/86

    Li, G., Naoz, S., Holman, M., & Loeb, A. 2014a, ApJ, 791, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/86

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/86

  67. [67]

    2014b, ApJ, 785, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/116

    Li, G., Naoz, S., Kocsis, B., & Loeb, A. 2014b, ApJ, 785, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/116

  68. [68]

    E., Schutte, M., Hebb, L., et al

    Libby-Roberts, J. E., Schutte, M., Hebb, L., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accc2f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accc2f 2023

  69. [69]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planetary and Space Science, 9, 719

    1962

  70. [70]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 2018

  71. [71]

    , keywords =

    Lithwick, Y., & Naoz, S. 2011, ApJ, 742, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/94

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/2/94 2011

  72. [72]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add405 —

    Liu, Y., Lu, T., & Rice, M. 2025, ApJ, 986, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add405 —. 2026, ApJL, 997, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2fd8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add405 2025

  73. [73]

    AJ155(2), 66 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aaa008 arXiv:1801.00412 [astro-ph.EP]

    Lothringer, J. D., Benneke, B., Crossfield, I. J. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa008

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaa008 2018

  74. [74]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79

    Lu, T., An, Q., Li, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b79 2025

  75. [75]

    S., Kjeldsen, H., Albrecht, S., et al

    Lundkvist, M. S., Kjeldsen, H., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 11201, doi: 10.1038/ncomms11201

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms11201 2016

  76. [76]

    2014, AcA, 64, 323, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1501.02711

    Maciejewski, G., Niedzielski, A., Nowak, G., et al. 2014, AcA, 64, 323, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1501.02711

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1501.02711 2014

  77. [77]

    The Merger Rates and Mass Assembly Histories of Dark Matter Haloes in the Two

    Malmberg, D., Davies, M. B., & Heggie, D. C. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 859, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17730.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17730.x 2011

  78. [78]

    L., Marcy, G

    Maness, H. L., Marcy, G. W., Ford, E. B., et al. 2007, PASP, 119, 90, doi: 10.1086/510689

    work page doi:10.1086/510689 2007

  79. [79]

    Mardling, R. A. 2008, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0805.1928, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0805.1928

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.0805.1928 2008

  80. [80]

    A., & Lin, D

    Mardling, R. A., & Lin, D. N. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 829 17

    2002

Showing first 80 references.