Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 74 references

Assessing Planetary Stability and Long-Term Habitability in Nearby Stellar Binaries: 70 Oph, 36 Oph, $\gamma$ Leo

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulations show 36 Oph and 70 Oph can host permanently habitable planets, while gamma Leo cannot.

desk verdict Useful target-list study with standard methods, but the 'permanently habitable' language outruns the 1 Myr integrations and the 36 Oph conclusion rests on an unpublished high-e orbit. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13243 v1 pith:WMIJLHMM submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.EP

Alyssa R. Jankowski , Juliette Becker , Catherine A. Clark , Eric E. Mamajek , Jessie L. Christiansen , Yiting Li , Eduardo Bendek , Daniella Gagliuffi
show 3 more authors
Mark R. Giovinazzi Simone Lilavois Ryan Purviance
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords binarystarshabitablezoneexoplanetdynamicsN-bodysimulationspermanentlyKozai-Lidovcyclesnearbystellarmultiplestargetselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether three bright, nearby binary systems could host planets that stay habitable over long timescales. Using 1-million-year N-body simulations with test planets spread across each star's habitable zone, it finds that 36 Oph and 70 Oph can keep most such planets both dynamically stable and within liquid-water flux bounds, with low ejection rates even in the least favorable cases. The same simulations find that the high-eccentricity red-giant binary gamma Leo ejects every test planet in its habitable zone, so that system is unlikely to host any habitable world. If the conclusions hold, 36 Oph and 70 Oph become priority targets for the next generation of habitable-planet searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a suite of N-body integrations in which massless test particles are inserted into each star's habitable zone, computed from the single-star flux limits of 1.7 and 0.3 times Earth's insolation, and followed for 1 Myr with a high-accuracy integrator. The mechanism that decides the outcome is secular gravitational forcing by the binary companion: it drives oscillations in each planet's eccentricity, and when those oscillations push the instantaneous flux outside the habitable boundaries the planet is classified as uninhabitable, while collisions or unbound orbits are classified as dynamically unstable. The paper uses the Kozai-Lidov timescale, evaluated from the binary and planet orbital periods, to confirm that the 1 Myr integration covers many eccentricity cycles for the 45-degree misaligned cases.

What would settle it

Measure the 36 Oph binary orbit with the next Gaia data release; if its eccentricity turns out to be about 0.34 rather than 0.90, rerun the paper's 1 Myr test-particle simulations. If habitable-zone planets then become frequently ejected or uninhabitable, the promising-target conclusion for 36 Oph collapses, while if they remain stable the claim is robust to the orbit ambiguity. Separately, a confirmed long-lived planet inside gamma Leo's habitable zone would directly contradict the paper's exclusion of that system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the K-dwarf binaries 36 Oph and 70 Oph can support permanently habitable planets around both components, whereas the red-giant binary gamma Leo cannot. In the two favorable systems, planets placed in the habitable zone on orbits coplanar with the binary become uninhabitable only 1.5%-1.8% of the time, while planets started 45 degrees off the binary plane undergo larger eccentricity oscillations and become uninhabitable 4.8%-5.4% of the time; ejection rates remain low. For gamma Leo, the binary's eccentricity of 0.90 makes the stellar orbits cross the habitable zones, and every simulated test planet is ejected, eliminating the habitable zone around both stars under the adopted orbital solution. The paper therefore recommends 36 Oph and 70 Oph as targets for the Habitable Worlds Observatory and SHERA, and argues that the unconfirmed roughly 1340-day planet candidate around gamma Leo A is likely not a real planet.

Load-bearing premise

The results for 36 Oph and 70 Oph rest on the adopted binary orbital solutions being accurate, and the 36 Oph solution in particular is a new, not-yet-published orbit with an eccentricity of about 0.90 that differs sharply from an alternative published value of about 0.34.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 36 Oph and 70 Oph should be added to the shortlist of nearby systems for HWO and SHERA follow-up, with the inner parts of their habitable zones identified as the most survivable.
  • A planet discovered in the 70 Oph habitable zone by astrometry would most plausibly be near-coplanar with the binary, so measuring its orbit would constrain its inclination and hence its mass.
  • Gamma Leo can be deprioritized for habitable-planet searches, and the roughly 1340-day radial-velocity signal around gamma Leo A is more likely stellar activity than a planet.
  • The same simulation recipe can be applied to other nearby binaries to screen targets before committing expensive observing time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not explore, but a lower true eccentricity for 36 Oph, as in the alternative published solution, would likely make its habitable zone even more stable because the binary's perturbing effect scales with eccentricity; the paper's conclusion would then survive a downward revision, though the quantitative uninhabitable percentages would change.
  • The paper's habitability criterion is conservative in one direction and optimistic in another: a planet that briefly leaves the flux limits might retain liquid water through climate inertia or oceans, while the test-particle treatment ignores planet-planet interactions and unseen companions that could destabilize real systems.
  • The same selection method could be extended to estimate how long a planet must remain in the habitable zone to be considered promising, using the simulation output to compute residence-time distributions rather than a binary habitable or uninhabitable flag.
  • If future astrometry finds a habitable-zone planet in gamma Leo, the adopted orbit would need revision; the paper's exclusion claim is tied to the current 0.90-eccentricity solution.
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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents N-body simulations of massless test particles placed in the habitable zones (HZs) of the three nearby stellar binaries 36 Oph, 70 Oph, and gamma Leo. Using the REBOUND IAS15 integrator, the authors inject 100 particles per star, linearly spaced in semi-major axis across the HZ, at mutual inclinations of 0 degrees (coplanar) and 45 degrees relative to the binary plane, and integrate for 1 Myr. Binary orbital parameters are drawn from adopted solutions: Giovinazzi et al. (2026, in prep) for 36 Oph, Li et al. (2026) for 70 Oph, and Romanenko & Kiselev (2014) for gamma Leo. Particles are classified as dynamically unstable, uninhabitable (instantaneous flux outside the HZ at any time), or habitable (always within the HZ). The authors find that 36 Oph and 70 Oph can support habitable planets in their HZs, with coplanar orbits more favorable than 45-degree-inclined orbits, while gamma Leo's HZs are dynamically unstable, with all injected particles ejected. They recommend 36 Oph and 70 Oph as targets for the Habitable Worlds Observatory and SHERA, and argue that gamma Leo is unlikely to host habitable planets. The paper also addresses the stability of the known planet gamma Leo Ab and the unconfirmed ~1340-day candidate around gamma Leo A.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a practical framework for prioritizing nearby binaries for future habitable-planet searches, and it identifies two concrete systems (36 Oph and 70 Oph) with apparently stable HZs. The simulation setup is conventional and the paper's logic is largely transparent: it uses publicly available integration software (REBOUND/IAS15), a standard flux-based HZ definition, and a consistency check against the Holman & Wiegert (1999) criterion for 70 Oph. The paper does not fit any free parameters; its outcomes are genuine predictions from literature-based inputs, which is a strength. However, the central 'permanently habitable' claim is stronger than the 1-Myr integrations can support, particularly for 36 Oph, and the 36 Oph result depends on an unpublished orbital solution whose eccentricity is dramatically different from a published alternative. These issues are fixable with additional robustness tests and more qualified language, but they presently overstate the certainty of the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2, §4.1.1] The 1 Myr integration time does not support the 'permanently habitable' language in the abstract and in §4.1.1 ('would continue to be habitable to the present day'). The PHZ is explicitly defined in §3.2 as survival for the simulation duration, not for the stellar lifetime. For 36 Oph, the binary period is ~500 yr (Table 1), so the runs include only ~2000 periastron passages, and no analytic stability criterion is applied because the Holman & Wiegert (1999) formula used for 70 Oph (§3.2.2, Eq. 4) is restricted to e<0.8. High-e binaries can exhibit slow secular chaos on timescales beyond the 1 Myr window; the authors should either run longer integrations (e.g., 10-100 Myr), apply a high-e stability boundary, or explicitly qualify the conclusions as 'stable over 1 Myr' rather than 'permanently habitable.'
  2. [§2.2, §4.1.1, Appendix A.1] The 36 Oph result rests on the orbit of Giovinazzi et al. (2026, in prep), which is not publicly available, and its eccentricity e=0.90 differs dramatically from the published Izmailov & Khovritchev (2025) solution (e=0.34) discussed in Appendix A.1. Section 4.1.1 asserts that future observations will 'refine, rather than lead to a dramatically different posterior,' but this is an unsupported assertion, not a robustness test. The authors should run the 36 Oph suite with the alternative published orbit (or with a sample that includes its range), or explicitly state that the adopted high-e solution is the conservative choice because lower eccentricity should broaden the stable region, and base the robustness claim on that directional argument.
  3. [§3.1.1, §3.1.2, Tables 1-2] The binary orbital initial conditions for 36 Oph and 70 Oph are not fully specified: Tables 1 and 2 list P, a, and e, but omit the inclination i, argument of periastron ω, and longitude of ascending node Ω. Since the test-particle inclinations are defined relative to the binary plane (§3.1), and since the geometry of close encounters in the 45-degree runs can depend on ω at octupole order (important for e=0.9), the simulations cannot be reproduced from the information given. The full adopted orbital elements (or explicit fixed values) should be reported for both systems.
  4. [§3.1.1-§3.1.3] The binary orbital parameters are sampled from independent normal distributions (§3.1.1-§3.1.3), ignoring covariances between a and e. For astrometric orbits these parameters are strongly anti-correlated through the periastron distance q=a(1-e); independent sampling can generate unphysical orbital pairs and overstate the spread in q, which directly controls the perturbation strength. The authors already sample posteriors for the orbit plots (Figures 2, 4, 6); they should use the joint posterior draws, or at least demonstrate that the results are insensitive to the ignored correlations.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§3.1.3 and §3.2.3] The paper states in §3.1.3 that the ~1340-day candidate is neglected, but §3.2.3 reports a suite that includes it; please clarify which statement applies to the primary analysis and describe the candidate's initial conditions in the secondary suite.
  2. [Abstract and §3.2] The abstract's statistic 'become uninhabitable ... only 1.5% - 1.8% of the time' is ambiguous; the text in §3.2.1 reports a rate of planets becoming uninhabitable, so the abstract should say 'of the planets' or define the temporal-average interpretation explicitly.
  3. [Figure 5 caption and §4.1.3] The caption's phrase 'apparent overlap ... largely a consequence of visualization' is contradicted by §4.1.3, which states that the binary orbits 'physically intersect with the habitable zone'; the caption should be corrected for gamma Leo.
  4. [§2.1 and §3.2] The statement that the secondary star's insolation is negligible for binaries 'separated by several hundred AU' does not literally apply to 70 Oph (a=23 AU); the justification should be quantified for each system (flux ratio at the HZ) rather than citing the several-hundred-AU distance criterion.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from a data availability statement and a repository containing the simulation scripts and the adopted posterior samples, particularly for the two in-preparation orbital solutions.
  6. [Table 3] Table 3 lists the mass of gamma Leo Ab as sourced to Takeda (2023), while Section 2.4 states that mass estimates are adopted from Han et al. (2010); please reconcile the source attribution.
  7. [§3.1] For reproducibility, please state the IAS15 accuracy parameter (e.g., epsilon) and the output cadence used for the flux classification.
  8. [§3.2.2] There is a typographical double period after '0.300-0.308 AU for 70 Oph B'; please fix the punctuation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the simulation outcomes are genuine predictions from independently adopted orbital and stellar inputs, not reductions of the conclusions to the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The habitable-zone radii are computed from standard insolation limits (Bolmont et al. 2016) using literature stellar luminosities; the binary orbits are adopted from observational fits (Giovinazzi et al. 2026 and Li et al. 2026); the habitability classifications are produced by IAS15 N-body integrations of massless test particles. No parameter is fitted to the simulation outcomes, so the reported uninhabitability rates (1.5%--1.8% coplanar, 4.8%--5.4% misaligned) are genuine outputs rather than encoded inputs. The co-authored orbit solutions are self-citations, but they are independent astrometric and radial-velocity fits whose assumptions do not include the stability results, so they do not make the argument circular. The definition of the permanently habitable zone as survival for the 1 Myr simulation duration means the paper's stronger 'permanently habitable to the present day' wording is an extrapolation, but that is a timescale or evidence-strength concern, not a circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters. It relies on standard habitability definitions and the accuracy of previously derived orbital elements. The main dependencies are the adopted orbital solutions and the assumption that binary companion insolation is negligible.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Secondary star insolation is negligible for binary separations of several hundred AU.
    Used in Section 2.1 to treat the habitable zone as single-star; supported by citation to Kaltenegger & Haghighipour (2013).
  • domain assumption The adopted orbital solutions (36 Oph from Giovinazzi et al. 2026, 70 Oph from Li et al. 2026, gamma Leo from Romanenko & Kiselev 2014) are accurate.
    All simulations draw stellar orbital parameters from these posteriors; incorrect orbits could change stability outcomes.
  • domain assumption Test particles are massless and non-interacting.
    Standard approach for assessing dynamical stability; neglects planet-planet perturbations.
  • domain assumption The conservation of the flux limits 1.7 F_earth and 0.3 F_earth defines the habitable zone.
    Standard optimistic HZ limits adopted from Bolmont et al. (2016); not fitted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing Planetary Stability and Long-Term Habitability in Nearby Stellar Binaries: 70 Oph, 36 Oph, $\gamma$ Leo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMIJLHMM

@misc{pith2026260813243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing Planetary Stability and Long-Term Habitability in Nearby Stellar Binaries: 70 Oph, 36 Oph, $\gamma$ Leo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMIJLHMM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13243}
}
abstract

Binary stars are common and have the potential to host habitable planets, which may reside in more complex habitable zones as compared to planets orbiting single stars. In this work, we use numerical simulations to assess the possibility that bright, nearby stellar multiples 36 Oph, 70 Oph, and $\gamma$ Leo could host habitable planets. We find that for the 36 Oph A/B system and for the 70 Oph A/B system, the stars can support planets residing in permanently habitable zones with low ejection rates and moderate eccentricity oscillations. The habitable zones around the red giants in the $\gamma$ Leo system exhibit severe dynamical instability due to the high binary eccentricity, eliminating the habitable zones around both stars. In these two systems, we find that planets in the habitable zone with orbits coplanar to that of the binary become uninhabitable due to interactions with the binary only 1.5% - 1.8% of the time, while planets with orbits 45 degrees misaligned to the plane of the binary experience larger oscillations in orbital eccentricity and as a result become uninhabitable 4.8% - 5.4% of the time. Our results identify 36 Oph and 70 Oph as promising targets for future missions such as the Habitable Worlds Observatory and SHERA, while suggesting that the stars in $\gamma$ Leo are unlikely to host any habitable planets. Our methods can be applied more generally to other binary stellar systems to refine target lists for upcoming habitable planet searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A visual representation of the orbit posteriors for 36 Oph. We fix 36 Oph A at the origin, and include inset plots, which show magnified regions of the individual stellar systems and their habitable zones (shaded blue for 36 Oph A and green for 36 Oph B). Note that the orbital posteriors shown are symmetric, and that it would be equally valid to fix 36 Oph B at the origin. In either case, the stellar orbit does not … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms showing the orbit posteriors for 36 Oph from Giovinazzi et al. (2026, in prep). 2.3. 70 Ophiuchi 70 Ophiuchi (hereafter referred to as 70 Oph)3 is a binary composed of two K dwarfs: 70 Oph A/B (e.g., 3 70 Oph is also commonly identified in the double star literature as STF 2272AB, ADS 11046AB, WDS J18055+0230AB, and HIP 88601. 70 Oph A is HD 165341A and 70 Oph B is HD 165341B. Eggenberger et al. 2008). Th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A visual representation of the orbit posteriors for 70 Oph. We fix 70 Oph A at the origin, and include inset plots, which show magnified regions of the individual stellar systems and their habitable zones (shaded blue for 70 Oph A and green for 70 Oph B). As for 36 Oph, the apparent overlap with the habitable zone of 70 Oph B is purely a consequence of the visualization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms showing the orbit posteriors for 70 Oph. A visual representation of 100 random draws from the range of posteriors for the orbit of the 70 Oph sys￾tem derived in Li et al. (2026) is displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A plot showing a representative sample of orbit posteriors for the γ Leo system. We show γ Leo A fixed at the origin, with the habitable zone of γ Leo A shaded blue and the habitable zone of γ Leo B shaded green. An inset of the γ Leo A system shows the close orbit of …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms showing the orbit posteriors for the γ Leo System. habitable zones (defined by Equation 1) of the host stars. One hundred test planets were injected in the habitable zone of each star, linearly spaced in semi-major axis ap with the first planet injected at t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plots showing the ejection, uninhabitability, and habitability for the 70 Oph system per our simulations. In each panel, the top subpanel shows survival and habitability for 70 Oph A, while the bottom subpanel shows it for 70 Oph B. are more common if the planets have …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., & Laughlin, G

    Adams, F. C., & Laughlin, G. 2006, ApJ, 649, 992, doi: 10.1086/506142

    doi:10.1086/506142 2006

  2. [2]

    L., Jensen, E

    Akeson, R. L., Jensen, E. L. N., Carpenter, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6a 13

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6a 2019

  3. [3]

    Antognini, J. M. O. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1552

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1552 2015

  4. [4]

    Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Coronagraph Instrument Overview and Status

    Bailey, V. P., Bendek, E., Monacelli, B., et al. 2023, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Coronagraph Instrument Overview and Status. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08672

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    H., & Fletcher, J

    Batten, A. H., & Fletcher, J. M. 1991, PASP, 103, 546, doi: 10.1086/132851

    work page doi:10.1086/132851 1991

  6. [6]

    H., Fletcher, J

    Batten, A. H., Fletcher, J. M., & Campbell, B. 1984, PASP, 96, 903, doi: 10.1086/131453

    work page doi:10.1086/131453 1984

  7. [7]

    2011, A&A, 533, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117193 Bazs´ o,´A., Pilat-Lohinger, E., Eggl, S., et al

    Batygin, K., Morbidelli, A., & Tsiganis, K. 2011, A&A, 533, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117193 Bazs´ o,´A., Pilat-Lohinger, E., Eggl, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1555, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3095

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117193 2011

  8. [8]

    2025, ApJL, 989, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf53f

    Beichman, C., Sanghi, A., Mawet, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf53f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf53f 2025

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    2016, A&A, 591, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628073

    Bolmont, E., Libert, A.-S., Leconte, J., & Selsis, F. 2016, A&A, 591, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628073

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    S., von Braun, K., van Belle, G., et al

    Boyajian, T. S., von Braun, K., van Belle, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/112

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    L., McElroy, D

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 186, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ade3c2

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Mamajek, E

    Christiansen, J. L., Mamajek, E. E., Vasisht, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2608.04250. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04250

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    R., Beichman, C

    Ciardi, D. R., Beichman, C. A., Horch, E. P., & Howell, S. B. 2015, ApJ, 805, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/16

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    V., Fatuzzo, M., & Adams, F

    David, E.-M., Quintana, E. V., Fatuzzo, M., & Adams, F. C. 2003, PASP, 115, 825, doi: 10.1086/376395

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Santos, N. C. 2008, A&A, 482, 631, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078624

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/130

    Eggl, S., Haghighipour, N., & Pilat-Lohinger, E. 2013, ApJ, 764, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/130

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/74 ESA, ed

    Gyergyovits, M., & Funk, B. 2012, ApJ, 752, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/74 ESA, ed. 1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Feinberg, L., Ziemer, J., Ansdell, M., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1309...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 16, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.625250

    Fontanive, C., & Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 16, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.625250

    2021

  13. [21]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 1241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20698.x

    Forgan, D. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20698.x

    2012

  14. [22]

    H., Mead, A., Cockell, C

    Forgan, D. H., Mead, A., Cockell, C. S., & Raven, J. A. 2015, International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 465, doi: 10.1017/S147355041400041X

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Furlan, E., & Howell, S. B. 2020, ApJ, 898, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c9c

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3ae3

    Gallo, E., Caldiroli, A., Spinelli, R., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3ae3

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

    Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.06683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.06683

    2020 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf72

    Georgakarakos, N., Eggl, S., & Dobbs-Dixon, I. 2018, ApJ, 856, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf72

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2026, in prep, AAS

    Giovinazzi, M., Gagliuffi, D., Lilavois, S., & Purviance, R. 2026, in prep, AAS

    2026

  20. [28]

    2006, ApJ, 644, 543, doi: 10.1086/503351

    Haghighipour, N. 2006, ApJ, 644, 543, doi: 10.1086/503351

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    Haghighipour, N., & Raymond, S. N. 2007, ApJ, 666, 436, doi: 10.1086/520501

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Kim, K

    Han, I., Lee, B. C., Kim, K. M., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912536

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, AJ, 165, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd1ec

    Pascucci, I., & L´ opez-Morales, M. 2023, AJ, 165, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd1ec

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Andrews, S

    Harris, R. J., Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2012, ApJ, 751, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/115

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    Heintz, W. D. 1988, JRASC, 82, 140

    1988

  26. [34]

    J., & Wiegert, P

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

    1999 doi

  27. [35]

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

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Yang, S

    Irwin, A. W., Yang, S. L. S., & Walker, G. A. H. 1996, PASP, 108, 580, doi: 10.1086/133768

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 015016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad9da3

    Izmailov, I., & Khovritchev, M. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 015016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad9da3

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 165, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/165

    Kaltenegger, L., & Haghighipour, N. 2013, ApJ, 777, 165, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/165

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y. 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    1962 doi

  32. [40]

    Dupuy, T. J. 2016, AJ, 152, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/8

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    R., D’Angiolillo, S., et al

    Li, Y., Meyer, M. R., D’Angiolillo, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.20044, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.20044

    2026 doi

  34. [42]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 14

    1962 doi

  35. [43]

    Luck, R. E. 2017, AJ, 153, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/21

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414

    Mamajek, E., & Stapelfeldt, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2016, A&A, 594, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628342

    Marzari, F., & Gallina, G. 2016, A&A, 594, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628342

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Moe, M., & Kratter, K. M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2328

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge University Press)

    1999

  41. [49]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Burt, J. A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.21768, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.21768 pandas development team, T. 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v2.2.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13819579

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    ´A., Carini, R., et al

    Piccotti, L., Docobo, J. ´A., Carini, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3616

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    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

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Quarles, B., Li, G., & Lissauer, J. J. 2019, ApJ, 886, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b5 —. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3179

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Quarles, B., & Lissauer, J. J. 2018, AJ, 155, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa966

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    M., & Kaltenegger, L

    Ramirez, R. M., & Kaltenegger, L. 2016, ApJ, 823, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/6

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    2011, A&A, 527, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015861

    Reffert, S., & Quirrenbach, A. 2011, A&A, 527, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015861

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

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

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    G., & Kiselev, A

    Romanenko, L. G., & Kiselev, A. A. 2014, Astronomy Reports, 58, 30, doi: 10.1134/S1063772914010053

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    Rucinski, S. M. 2002, AJ, 124, 1746, doi: 10.1086/342342

    2002 doi

  55. [63]

    2025, ApJL, 989, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf53e

    Sanghi, A., Beichman, C., Mawet, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf53e

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    Silsbee, K., & Rafikov, R. R. 2021, A&A, 652, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141139

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    2022, A&A, 663, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142409

    Soubiran, C., Brouillet, N., & Casamiquela, L. 2022, A&A, 663, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142409

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    2026, A&A, 711, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558341

    Stegmann, J., Grishin, E., Johnston, C., et al. 2026, A&A, 711, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558341

    2026 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, Ap&SS, 368, 56, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04214-1

    Takeda, Y. 2023, Ap&SS, 368, 56, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04214-1

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2025, A&A, 700, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555457

    Thebault, P., & Bonanni, D. 2025, A&A, 700, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555457

    2025 doi

  61. [69]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7746

    Tokovinin, A. 2017, ApJ, 844, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7746

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    W., Harada, C

    Tuchow, N. W., Harada, C. K., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 104402, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0a81

    2025 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology, 39, e2023PA004826, doi: 10.1029/2023PA004826

    Vervoort, P., Kirtland Turner, S., Rochholz, F., & Ridgwell, A. 2024, Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology, 39, e2023PA004826, doi: 10.1029/2023PA004826

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D

    Wang, J., Fischer, D. A., Xie, J.-W., & Ciardi, D. R. 2014a, ApJ, 791, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/111 —. 2015, ApJ, 813, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/130

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    Wang, J., Xie, J.-W., Barclay, T., & Fischer, D. A. 2014b, ApJ, 783, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/4 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Endl, M., Cochran, W

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 177, doi: 10.1086/504942

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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