pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11982 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Relativistic Effects on Circumbinary Orbit Stability

Gonzalo C. de El\'ia, Macarena Zanardi, Rebecca G. Martin

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords circumbinary orbitsgeneral relativityorbital stabilityapsidal precessiontest particlesbinary systemsinclinationsupermassive black holes
0
0 comments X

The pith

General relativity drives instability for circumbinary particles out to eight times the binary separation.

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

The paper establishes that general relativity plays a primary role in the dynamics of low-eccentricity misaligned test particles orbiting binary systems by causing apsidal precession of the binary orbit. This precession leads to particle instability depending on the binary's mass fraction, eccentricity, and the particle's initial inclination. Simulations and approximations show instability regions extending up to a semimajor axis of about eight times the binary's semimajor axis. Three distinct instability regions are identified in the phase space of initial semimajor axis and inclination. These results matter for understanding circumbinary orbits and disks across scales, particularly for supermassive black hole binaries.

Core claim

With n-body simulations and analytic approximations the dynamics and stability of low eccentricity misaligned test particles around binary systems with varying mass fraction and eccentricity are studied. General relativity plays a primary role in determining the motion of an outer particle since it drives apsidal precession of the binary orbit. The effects of GR can drive particle instability close to the binary orbit, up to a semimajor axis of about 8 ab. In particular, three different regions of instability that are driven by GR are identified and analysed in the phase plane of the initial semimajor axis and the initial inclination of the particle.

What carries the argument

GR-driven apsidal precession of the binary orbit, which interacts with the outer particle's orbital motion to produce instability

If this is right

  • Instability can occur up to a semimajor axis of about 8 ab depending on binary parameters and particle inclination.
  • Three distinct regions of instability appear in the phase plane of initial semimajor axis and initial inclination.
  • The results apply to circumbinary orbits and disks on all scales, especially around supermassive black hole binaries where GR effects are strong.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The inner boundary of stable circumbinary material may lie farther out in strongly relativistic binaries than Newtonian models predict.
  • These GR-driven zones could shape the inner edges of circumbinary disks and affect the survival of any embedded planets or gas.
  • Similar precession-driven instabilities may appear in other hierarchical systems once relativistic corrections are included.

Load-bearing premise

The outer bodies are treated as massless test particles whose back-reaction on the binary is negligible, and that GR apsidal precession dominates over other effects such as tides or higher-order post-Newtonian terms for the chosen binary parameters.

What would settle it

Running the same n-body simulations of binary systems and test particles but turning off the GR precession term and checking whether the three identified instability regions in the semimajor-axis and inclination plane disappear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11982 by Gonzalo C. de El\'ia, Macarena Zanardi, Rebecca G. Martin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Survival maps in the plane (aini, i e ini) considering GR effects. From left to right, the columns are associated with eb = 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8. From top to bottom, the rows correspond to fb = 0.006, 0.052, and 0.24. In each panel, the solid gray curves define the extreme inclinations of the nodal libration region from a secular theory up to the quadrupole level. The dashed gray curves within the nodal libra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: As in Fig.1, except that GR effects are not included. Note that in this case, the solid gray lines that define the extreme inclinations of the nodal libration region lead to constant values in each panel since they only depend on eb. nation between these two curves undergoes nodal libra￾tion, otherwise, it undergoes nodal circulation. The test particle can experience two different regimes of motion within … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Strongly unstable RI, RII, and RIII regions driven by GR in our default scenario. The yellow and white areas represent the stable and unstable regions, respectively. The references associated with the solid and dashed gray curves are given in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dynamical analysis of a test particle belonging to the RI region with (top panels) and without (bottom panels) GR effects for our default scenario. Left panels: The pink point represents the initial values of a and i e of the particle. The stable and unstable regions are illustrated in yellow and white, respectively. The solid and dashed gray curves in the top panel and the solid gray lines in the bottom p… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dynamical analysis of a test particle belonging to the RII region with an initial retrograde i e with (top panels) and without (bottom panels) GR effects for our default scenario. Left panels: As in the left panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative number of particles removed normalized to the initial number of particles as a function of time for each of our scenarios of study, which are defined by fb and eb. In each panel, the red and blue curves ilustrate the results of our numerical experiments with and without GR, respectively. = 90◦ . Indeed, these particles initially undergo nodal circulations, while ω oscillates and e increases, whi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Survival maps for our default scenario (fb = 0.052 and eb = 0.5) in the plane (aini, i e ini) with GR, assuming eini of 0.1 (left panel), 0.4 (middle panel), and 0.7 (right panel). The solid gray curves delimit the nodal libration region. The color code represents the number of surviving particles after 1 Myr, while the white areas are regions where no particles survive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Survival map for our default scenario (fb = 0.052 and eb = 0.5) in the plane (aini, iini) with GR, assuming an initial value of (Ω − ωb) = 0◦ . The color code illustrates the number of surviving particles after 1 Myr. The white areas are regions where no particles survive. We find that GR promotes strong instabilities around a SMBH binary system, which become evident up to semimajor axes comparable to ali… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

With n-body simulations and analytic approximations we study the dynamics and stability of low eccentricity misaligned test particles around binary systems with varying mass fraction and eccentricity. General relativity (GR) plays a primary role in determining the motion of an outer particle since it drives apsidal precession of the binary orbit. The effects of GR can drive particle instability close to the binary orbit, depending upon the binary parameters and the initial inclination of the particle. For the binary parameters we consider, we find instability up to a semimajor axis of about 8 ab, where ab is the binary semimajor axis. In particular, we identify and analyse three different regions of instability that are driven by GR in the phase plane of the initial semimajor axis and the initial inclination of the particle. The results have implications for circumbinary orbits and circumbinary disks on all scales, but are particularly important around supermassive black hole binaries where the effects of GR can be strong.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses n-body simulations and analytic approximations to examine the stability of low-eccentricity, misaligned test particles orbiting binary systems with varying mass ratios and eccentricities. It argues that general relativistic apsidal precession of the inner binary is the primary driver of particle motion, producing three distinct instability regions in the (semimajor axis, inclination) phase plane and extending instability out to approximately 8 binary semimajor axes for the chosen parameters, with implications for circumbinary orbits and disks around supermassive black hole binaries.

Significance. If the GR-driven mechanism is robustly isolated, the work would provide a concrete link between post-Newtonian precession and circumbinary test-particle instability, offering testable predictions for relativistic regimes that Newtonian treatments miss. The dual use of simulations and analytic approximations is a methodological strength that could allow falsifiable comparisons with observations of circumbinary disks or exoplanets.

major comments (3)
  1. The central claim that the three identified instability regions are 'driven by GR' (abstract and results) requires explicit Newtonian control runs with identical initial conditions, binary parameters, and integration settings to demonstrate that the regions vanish when the GR term is omitted. No such differential comparison is described or shown, leaving the causal attribution unverified.
  2. Simulation setup details (integration method, timestep criterion, number of particles or realizations, convergence tests, and error bars on the instability boundaries) are not provided, preventing assessment of whether the reported instability up to ~8 ab is numerically robust or an artifact of the chosen parameters.
  3. The test-particle assumption and the specific binary mass fractions/eccentricities used to reach the 8 ab limit are load-bearing for the quantitative extent of the instability regions; without tabulated values or a sensitivity study, it is unclear how general the three-region structure is.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for binary semimajor axis (ab) and particle semimajor axis should be defined consistently in the text and figures to avoid ambiguity.
  2. The abstract states 'we identify and analyse three different regions' but does not preview the analytic approximations used to interpret them; a brief statement of the approximation method would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to provide the requested controls, details, and analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the three identified instability regions are 'driven by GR' (abstract and results) requires explicit Newtonian control runs with identical initial conditions, binary parameters, and integration settings to demonstrate that the regions vanish when the GR term is omitted. No such differential comparison is described or shown, leaving the causal attribution unverified.

    Authors: We agree that explicit Newtonian control runs are required to rigorously isolate the role of GR. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection presenting Newtonian simulations performed with identical initial conditions, binary parameters, and integration settings but with the GR term omitted. These runs will show that the three instability regions are absent or substantially suppressed, thereby confirming the causal attribution to GR apsidal precession. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Simulation setup details (integration method, timestep criterion, number of particles or realizations, convergence tests, and error bars on the instability boundaries) are not provided, preventing assessment of whether the reported instability up to ~8 ab is numerically robust or an artifact of the chosen parameters.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission of these essential numerical details. The revised manuscript will include a dedicated methods subsection that specifies the N-body integrator, the adaptive timestep criterion, the number of particles and independent realizations, the results of convergence tests with respect to timestep and particle number, and quantitative uncertainty estimates on the locations of the instability boundaries. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The test-particle assumption and the specific binary mass fractions/eccentricities used to reach the 8 ab limit are load-bearing for the quantitative extent of the instability regions; without tabulated values or a sensitivity study, it is unclear how general the three-region structure is.

    Authors: The test-particle limit is appropriate for the low-mass outer bodies under consideration, but we agree that the dependence on binary parameters must be made explicit. The revised manuscript will contain a table listing the exact mass fractions and eccentricities employed, together with a new sensitivity study that varies these parameters and demonstrates how the three-region structure and the outer extent of instability respond. This will clarify the generality of the reported features. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; claims rest on independent n-body simulations and analytic approximations.

full rationale

The paper derives its results on GR-driven instability regions through direct n-body simulations incorporating GR apsidal precession and separate analytic approximations. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The abstract explicitly separates the GR term as an input to the dynamics, with instability regions identified via simulation outputs rather than by renaming or reparameterizing the inputs themselves. This is the standard non-circular case for numerical astrophysics papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; full parameter and assumption details unavailable. The central claim rests on standard GR precession and the test-particle limit.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption General relativity produces apsidal precession of the binary orbit that dominates the dynamics of nearby test particles
    Invoked as the primary driver of instability without derivation in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5469 in / 1337 out tokens · 45748 ms · 2026-05-10T15:19:30.474824+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

63 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Chen, C., Smallwood, J., et al

    Abod, C. P., Chen, C., Smallwood, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2601

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2601 2022

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a 2023

  3. [3]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 65, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv128

    Aly, H., Dehnen, W., Nixon, C., & King, A. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 65, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv128

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv128 2015

  4. [4]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651, doi: 10.1086/173679

    work page doi:10.1086/173679 1994

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307, doi: 10.1038/287307a0

    work page doi:10.1038/287307a0 1980

  6. [6]

    K., Hogerheijde, M

    Brinch, C., Jørgensen, J. K., Hogerheijde, M. R., Nelson, R. P., & Gressel, O. 2016, ApJL, 830, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L16

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/l16 2016

  7. [7]

    L., Herbst, W., Leggett, S

    Capelo, H. L., Herbst, W., Leggett, S. K., Hamilton, C. M., & Johnson, J. A. 2012, ApJL, 757, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L18

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/l18 2012

  8. [8]

    2024, A&A, 682, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348375

    Ceppi, S., Cuello, N., Lodato, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348375

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348375 2024

  9. [9]

    H., & Martin, R

    Chen, C., Franchini, A., Lubow, S. H., & Martin, R. G. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2948

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2948 2019

  10. [10]

    P., Miley, J

    Chen, C., Iglesias, D. P., Miley, J. M., & Nixon, C. J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.19983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.19983

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.19983 2026

  11. [11]

    H., & Martin, R

    Chen, C., Lubow, S. H., & Martin, R. G. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1037

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1037 2020

  12. [12]

    I., & Murray-Clay, R

    Chiang, E. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2004, ApJ, 607, 913, doi: 10.1086/383522

    work page doi:10.1086/383522 2004

  13. [13]

    C., & Martin, R

    Childs, A. C., & Martin, R. G. 2021, ApJL, 920, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2957

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2957 2021

  14. [14]

    Geller, A. M. 2023, ApJL, 945, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbcc9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbcc9 2023

  15. [15]

    C., Martin, R

    Childs, A. C., Martin, R. G., Nixon, C. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1a11 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi´ c, T., et al. 2019, NewAR, 86, 101525, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101525

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1a11 2024

  16. [16]

    M., Payne, M., & Holman, M

    Deck, K. M., Payne, M., & Holman, M. J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/129

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/129 2013

  17. [17]

    Doolin, S., & Blundell, K. M. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2656, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19657.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19657.x 2011

  18. [18]

    R., Carter, J

    Doyle, L. R., Carter, J. A., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1602, doi: 10.1126/science.1210923

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1210923 2011

  19. [19]

    1915, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 831

    Einstein, A. 1915, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 831

    1915

  20. [20]

    1918, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 154

    Einstein, A. 1918, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 154

    1918

  21. [21]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Farago, F., & Laskar, J. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1189, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15711.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15711.x 2010

  22. [22]

    H., & Martin, R

    Franchini, A., Lubow, S. H., & Martin, R. G. 2019, ApJL, 880, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2fd8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2fd8 2019

  23. [23]

    2024, AJ, 168, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7a78

    Georgakarakos, N., Eggl, S., Ali-Dib, M., & Dobbs-Dixon, I. 2024, AJ, 168, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7a78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7a78 2024

  24. [24]

    M., Bortolas, E., et al

    Gualandris, A., Khan, F. M., Bortolas, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac241

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac241 2022

  25. [25]

    2018, AJ, 156, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad32c

    Hadden, S., & Lithwick, Y. 2018, AJ, 156, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad32c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad32c 2018

  26. [26]

    M., & Nixon, C

    Heath, R. M., & Nixon, C. J. 2020, A&A, 641, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038548

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038548 2020

  27. [27]

    J., & Wiegert, P

    Holman, M. J., & Wiegert, P. A. 1999, AJ, 117, 621, doi: 10.1086/300695

    work page doi:10.1086/300695 1999

  28. [28]

    Hong, Z., Quarles, B., Li, G., & Orosz, J. A. 2019, AJ, 158, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2127

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2127 2019

  29. [29]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.11633, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.11633

    Jiang, N., Yang, H., Wang, T., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.11633, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.11633

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.11633 2022

  30. [30]

    M., Martin, R

    Johnson, T. M., Martin, R. G., Lepp, S., & Lubow, S. H. 2025, AJ, 170, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adde5d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adde5d 2025

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 373, L90, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00249.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00249.x 2006

  32. [32]

    1996, MNRAS, 282, 597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.2.597

    Terquem, C. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.2.597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/282.2.597 1996

  33. [33]

    G., & Childs, A

    Lepp, S., Martin, R. G., & Childs, A. C. 2022, ApJL, 929, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac61e1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac61e1 2022

  34. [34]

    G., & Zhang, B

    Lepp, S., Martin, R. G., & Zhang, B. 2023, ApJL, 958, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0bd8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0bd8 2023

  35. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2577

    Li, R., & Lai, D. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2577

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2577 2022

  36. [36]

    V., & Fitzmaurice, E

    Martin, D. V., & Fitzmaurice, E. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac090

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac090 2022

  37. [37]

    G., & Lubow, S

    Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2017, ApJL, 835, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/835/2/L28

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/835/2/l28 2017

  38. [38]

    G., & Lubow, S

    Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1648 2018

  39. [39]

    G., Nixon, C., Xie, F.-G., & King, A

    Martin, R. G., Nixon, C., Xie, F.-G., & King, A. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2178

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2178 2018

  40. [40]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 2396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1450

    Miranda, R., & Lai, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1450

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1450 2015

  41. [41]

    R., & Wu, Y

    Mudryk, L. R., & Wu, Y. 2006, ApJ, 639, 423, doi: 10.1086/499347

    work page doi:10.1086/499347 2006

  42. [42]

    C., & Sisto, R

    Naoz, S., Li, G., Zanardi, M., de El´ ıa, G. C., & Di Sisto, R. P. 2017, AJ, 154, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6fb0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6fb0 2017

  43. [43]

    2012, ApJL, 757, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L24

    Nixon, C., King, A., Price, D., & Frank, J. 2012, ApJL, 757, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L24

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/l24 2012

  44. [44]

    , keywords =

    Nixon, C. J., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, L66, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01121.x 16

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01121.x 2011

  45. [45]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, B1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  46. [46]

    C., & Mathews, J

    Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. 1963, Physical Review, 131, 435, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.131.435 1963

  47. [47]

    2020, AJ, 159, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab64fa

    Quarles, B., Li, G., Kostov, V., & Haghighipour, N. 2020, AJ, 159, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab64fa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab64fa 2020

  48. [48]

    Quarles, B., & Lissauer, J. J. 2016, AJ, 151, 111, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/111

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/111 2016

  49. [49]

    S., Correa-Otto, J

    Ramos, X. S., Correa-Otto, J. A., & Beaug´ e, C. 2015, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 123, 453, doi: 10.1007/s10569-015-9646-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-015-9646-z 2015

  50. [50]

    Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2164

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2164 2015

  51. [51]

    1988,A&A, 202,

    Rein, H., & Tamayo, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1257 2015

  52. [52]

    P., & Fabrycky, D

    Sutherland, A. P., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2016, ApJ, 818, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/6

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/6 2016

  53. [53]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2870 2020

  54. [54]

    2006, The Three-Body Problem

    Valtonen, M., & Karttunen, H. 2006, The Three-Body Problem

    2006

  55. [55]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Verrier, P. E., & Evans, N. W. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1721, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14446.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14446.x 2009

  56. [56]

    F., Orosz, J

    Welsh, W. F., Orosz, J. A., Carter, J. A., et al. 2012, Nature, 481, 475, doi: 10.1038/nature10768

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10768 2012

  57. [57]

    1980, AJ, 85, 1122, doi: 10.1086/112778

    Wisdom, J. 1980, AJ, 85, 1122, doi: 10.1086/112778

    work page doi:10.1086/112778 1980

  58. [58]

    N., Kratter, K

    Youdin, A. N., Kratter, K. M., & Kenyon, S. J. 2012, ApJ, 755, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/17

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/17 2012

  59. [59]

    C., Di Sisto, R

    Zanardi, M., de El´ ıa, G. C., Di Sisto, R. P., & Naoz, S. 2018, A&A, 615, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732127

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732127 2018

  60. [60]

    C., Di Sisto, R

    Zanardi, M., de El´ ıa, G. C., Di Sisto, R. P., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730411

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730411 2017

  61. [61]

    C., Dugaro, A., & Coronel, C

    Zanardi, M., de El´ ıa, G. C., Dugaro, A., & Coronel, C. F. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2125, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2345 2023

  62. [62]

    R., Shen, Y., et al

    Zheng, Z.-Y., Butler, N. R., Shen, Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/56

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/1/56 2016

  63. [63]

    Ziglin, S. L. 1975, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 1, 194

    1975