Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

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

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

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

Pith's one-line read 3I/ATLAS appears to be an ancient interstellar object, likely 3 to 11 billion years old

desk verdict First age posterior for 3I/ATLAS is a useful provisional result, the size argument is solid, but the Section 5 formation-rate inference is circular and should be fixed or dropped. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08111 v2 pith:3PIKXJPD submitted 2025-07-10 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Aster G. Taylor , Darryl Z. Seligman This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarobjects3I/ATLASkinematicageage-velocitydispersionmetallicityplanetformationGalactichistoryOumuamua
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

The paper argues that 3I/ATLAS, the third interstellar object discovered, is very old: its median kinematic age is 6.9 billion years with a 68% range of about 3 to 11 billion years. This age comes from applying stellar age–velocity dispersion relations to the object's measured Galactic velocity of 58 km/s relative to the Sun. If correct, 3I/ATLAS carries material from a planetary system that formed early in Galactic history, and the paper further estimates a 12% chance it originated around a star with metallicity [Fe/H] <= -0.4. The authors also use the three known interstellar objects to estimate the interstellar object formation rate over Galactic history, finding that a flat production rate is inconsistent with the data unless a uniform destruction rate of about 0.123 per billion years is invoked. A sympathetic reader would care because this object would be a direct sample of planetesimal formation in the early, low-metallicity Galaxy, independent of exoplanet surveys.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the stellar age–velocity dispersion relation: the assumption that a star's (and hence an interstellar object's) velocity dispersion grows with age as $\sigma_i(\tau) \propto \tau^{\alpha_i}$. The paper adopts the calibrated relations $\sigma_1(\tau) = 22.0\,(\tau/\mathrm{Gyr})^{0.33}$ km/s, $\sigma_2(\tau) = 11.9\,(\tau/\mathrm{Gyr})^{0.42}$ km/s, and $\sigma_3(\tau) = 9.1\,(\tau/\mathrm{Gyr})^{0.48}$ km/s, along with the vertex angle and solar-motion corrections of Eqs. (4)–(6). Combined with a flat prior on stellar ages and a Gaussian likelihood for each velocity component, this produces the age posterior $p(\tau|v_1,v_2,v_3) \propto p(\tau)\prod_i p(v_i|\tau)$. The same posterior is then transformed through an age–metallicity relation with $\pm 0.3$ dex scatter to derive the parent-star metallicity distribution. A secondary mechanism is the number-density argument: combining the detection rate $\Gamma = 0.1\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ with the survey volume gives $n \simeq 10^{-4}\,\mathrm{au}^{-3}$, which forces a nuclear radius of $\sim 2.3$ km to keep the implied per-star mass at about $100\,M_\oplus$.

What would settle it

Find an interstellar object with a measured velocity of about 58 km/s whose provenance is independently established as young — for example, a member of a nearby young moving group with an age under 1 Gyr, or an object dynamically linked to a known young stellar stream — and show that its velocity dispersion is compatible with that young population. Alternatively, a direct simulation of planetesimal ejection from a young disk that produces a substantial population at 58 km/s would falsify the claim that such a high velocity requires an old age.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 3I/ATLAS is the oldest known interstellar object, with a posterior age distribution peaking around 6.9 Gyr and a 68% credible interval of roughly 3–11 Gyr. The argument assumes that interstellar objects share the velocity distribution of their parent stars of the same age, so a high excess velocity implies a high age. Applying the F/G dwarf age–velocity relations calibrated in the paper (Eqs. 7a–7c) to the measured Galactic velocity components (U, V, W) = (-51.14, -19.33, 18.86) km/s, the authors compute Bayes-theorem posteriors for all three interstellar objects. They also convert the age posterior into a parent-star metallicity distribution, yielding a median [Fe/H] = -0.18 (+0.23/-0.21) for 3I/ATLAS and a 12% probability of [Fe/H] <= -0.4. Additionally, the paper argues that the apparent 10 km nuclear radius implied by an asteroidal albedo is untenable because it would require about $10^{-2}$ solar masses of interstellar objects per star; instead, a radius near 2.3 km is consistent with a mass budget of about 100 Earth masses per star, meaning the coma contributes roughly 94% of the measured brightness. The paper concludes that interstellar object formation is efficient at low metallicities and early in Galactic history.

Load-bearing premise

The whole age estimate rests on assuming that interstellar objects moving near the Sun have the same velocity distribution as local stars of the same age, and that the F/G-dwarf age–velocity relations can be extrapolated to 3–11 Gyr for populations that may include the thick disk or halo.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 3I/ATLAS provides a direct sample of planetesimal material from a system that likely formed within the first few billion years of the Galaxy, supplementing the younger systems probed by current exoplanet surveys.
  • The inferred low parent metallicity supports the idea that planetesimal formation operates efficiently at [Fe/H] below solar, in line with the existence of planets around low-metallicity stars such as the [Fe/H] = -0.68 system.
  • If the age estimate is correct, 3I/ATLAS may have originated in the Galactic thick disk or halo, offering a probe of star and planet formation in those populations.
  • The three-object age prior implies that a flat interstellar object production rate over cosmic time is rejected unless interstellar objects are destroyed at a rate of roughly 0.123 per Gyr, which the authors note has no known physical mechanism.
  • The framework provides a template for turning future detections from upcoming wide-field surveys into refined estimates of the interstellar object formation history and the per-star production rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to compare the age distribution of interstellar objects found by future surveys against the star formation history of the Milky Way; if 3I/ATLAS is typical, the ratio of interstellar objects to stars should rise at high lookback times, which would imply planetesimal formation was relatively more efficient in the early Galaxy.
  • The assumption that interstellar objects inherit the parent star's velocity and then evolve identically under the Galactic potential may be violated by ejection kicks and by gravitational scattering, so a direct dynamical simulation of ejected planetesimals compared with the inferred ages would calibrate the systematic uncertainty in this kinematic-age method.
  • If 3I/ATLAS's comet-like activity indeed dominates its brightness, then the true nuclear size may be near 2 km, and future infrared or occultation observations could measure the nucleus directly, providing an independent check on the mass-budget argument and on the efficiency of low-metallicity planetesimal formation.
  • The 12% probability of a very metal-poor parent ([Fe/H] <= -0.4) could be sharpened by measuring isotopic or refractory-element ratios in the coma, since the ejecta of a low-metallicity star would carry distinctive abundances.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. 3I/ATLAS is the third interstellar object, with excess velocity v∞ = 58 km/s. The paper applies F/G-dwarf age–velocity dispersion relations to its Galactic velocity components to derive a posterior age distribution, finding a median of 6.9 Gyr and a 68% interval of roughly 3–11 Gyr, and it converts this into a parent stellar metallicity distribution (12% probability of [Fe/H] ≤ −0.4). It also argues from a detection-rate/number-density argument that the nucleus must be about 2 km rather than ~10 km, with most of the observed flux from coma, a prediction later bracketed by HST upper limits. Finally, it averages the three age posteriors into an empirical age prior and fits constant production/destruction models, claiming that a flat interstellar-object production rate is inconsistent with zero destruction and requires either a destruction rate Γ = 0.123 Gyr−1 or an increasing production rate.

Significance. The kinematic-age result, if robust, is significant: 3I/ATLAS would be the first interstellar object with a likely age of several Gyr, carrying material from a low-metallicity, early-Galaxy planetary system and directly probing planetesimal formation at [Fe/H] ≲ −0.2. Strengths include the explicit statement of the central assumption, the falsifiable size prediction that was confirmed by later HST observations, and a generalizable framework for future larger samples. The formation-rate inference in Section 5, however, is not statistically sound, so the paper's quantitative claims about the ISO production history are not yet supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Eq. (10)] Eq. (10) defines p-hat(τ) as the weighted sum of the individual age posteriors p_i(τ|{v}), and the text calls it 'an unbiased estimator for p(τ)'. This is incorrect. Each p_i is computed with a flat age prior (Eq. 3), so p_i(τ|v) is proportional to the likelihood p(v|τ) normalized by the evidence; averaging such posteriors over the observed sample estimates the expected flat-prior posterior under the observing process, not the true age distribution of the ISO population. The K-S test against a constant production rate with Γ=0 and the fit Γ=0.123 Gyr−1 therefore do not test the hypotheses stated in Section 5. The conclusion that the ISO production rate is inconsistent with a flat history, or that a destruction rate of 0.123 Gyr−1 is needed, is not supported by Eq. (10). A proper hierarchical model with prior p(τ) ∝ S(τ) exp(−∫Γ dt) should be used, or the formation-rate claims should be removed.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (2) and (7a)–(7c)] The 3–11 Gyr age interval for 3I/ATLAS rests on Eq. (2), which treats the observed velocity components as draws from the same zero-mean Gaussian age–velocity relation as local F/G dwarfs. For 3I/ATLAS, U = −51.14 km/s and W = 18.86 km/s are 2.3σ and 2.9σ from the τ = 1 Gyr relations, so the posterior is governed by the Gaussian tails of the AVR. An ejection kick of order 10–20 km/s, which is not included in Eq. (2), or a thick-disk/halo origin (entertained in Section 6) would each break the equivalence between ISO and parent-star velocities and allow a much younger object. I recommend adding a sensitivity analysis that adds a plausible ejection-kick dispersion in quadrature and/or uses thick-disk velocity dispersions; without it, the claim that 3I/ATLAS is old is not yet robust.
  3. [§5, Eq. (11) and K-S tests] The statistical comparison in Section 5 is also not valid as implemented. Eq. (11) gives a pointwise standard error of the mean of the three posteriors, but the text then 'generates 10^4 realizations of the p-hat distribution from its calculated uncertainty distribution' and applies two-sample K-S tests against smooth model curves. This does not correspond to a well-defined hypothesis test for the model parameters; the reported p-values (p ∼ 10−16 and mean p = 0.06) are therefore not meaningful. A likelihood-based comparison of S(t) and Γ(t) models is needed, or the quantitative p-values should be removed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains typographical spacing errors: '3I/A TLAS' should be '3I/ATLAS' and 'F ormation' should be 'Formation'.
  2. [§2] The text 'the stars in the Galaxy have a number density of n ∼ 0.1 pc3' should read 'n ∼ 0.1 pc−3'; the units are missing.
  3. [§3] The flat age prior is justified by 'the star formation history of the Milky Way is approximately constant,' but the relevant population is interstellar objects rather than stars, and the same prior is later used in Eq. (10). A brief sensitivity test with a non-flat prior would help the reader judge how much of the age posterior is prior-driven.
  4. [§3, results paragraph] The median age reported for 2I/Borisov, τ2 = 4.8+4.7−2.8 Gyr, is substantially older than the ∼1 Gyr estimates cited in the Introduction; the discrepancy is not discussed.
  5. [§5] The detection bias against young, slow interstellar objects is acknowledged at the end of Section 5 but is not incorporated into the estimator p-hat(τ); this should be clarified as a limitation of the formation-rate inference.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

3I/ATLAS's kinematic age posterior is not circular, but the Sec. 5 interstellar-object formation-rate inference is built from the same flat-prior posteriors it claims to test.

  1. self definitional [Section 5, Eq. (10) and following text, with footnote 3]
    "The age distribution of interstellar objects near the Sun will be equivalent to the prior distribution of measured ages. Given N observations, each of which has a PDF p_i(τ |{v}), we marginalize over these PDFs to find the estimated prior PDF p̂(τ) = Σ_i w_i p_i(τ |{v}) ... Eq. (10) is an unbiased estimator for p(τ), marginalized over the velocities. [Footnote:] Note that for this calculation to converge to the actual prior as N → ∞, we must use flat, uninformative priors to calculate the age distributions."

    In Sec. 3, each p_i(τ |{v}) is computed via Eq. (3) after the paper states 'we can safely assume a flat prior in age.' Section 5 then defines the 'estimated prior PDF' p̂(τ) as a weighted sum of those same flat-prior posteriors and asserts it is an unbiased estimator of the true prior. A weighted average of flat-prior posteriors is not an unbiased estimate of the age prior; it is a posterior-weighted quantity that already contains the assumed flat prior convolved with the likelihoods of the observed velocities. The subsequent K-S test comparing p̂(τ) with the Γ=0 curve p(τ) ∝ constant therefore does not independently test whether the production rate is flat: the flat prior was inserted into every p_i, so the reported rejection of a flat production rate is forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's headline age for 3I/ATLAS (median 6.9 Gyr, 68% range ~3–11 Gyr) is not circular: it is obtained by applying external age–velocity dispersion calibrations (Eqs. 7a–7c from Almeida-Fernandes & Rocha-Pinto 2018b) to the measured Galactic velocity, with the ISO/star equivalence explicitly stated as an assumption rather than smuggled in as a conclusion. The self-citation to Seligman & Laughlin (2018) supporting that equivalence is not itself circular because the assumption is announced and its failure modes are acknowledged. The one clear circular reduction is in Sec. 5: the 'estimated prior' p̂(τ) is defined as the weighted sum of the very flat-prior posteriors computed in Sec. 3, then used to claim that the ISO production rate is inconsistent with a flat prior and to fit a destruction rate. This makes the formation-rate/prior inference an artifact of its own input construction. The age of 3I/ATLAS itself does not depend on this step, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The age inference rests entirely on the equivalence between interstellar object and stellar kinematics, combined with the Gaussian and flat-prior assumptions and the AVR calibration; none of these are tested against external data. The size argument adds an assumed survey detection rate and an assumed 100 Earth mass per star budget. Section 5 introduces a fitted destruction rate. The paper introduces no new physical entities, so the invented_entities ledger is empty.

free parameters (3)
  • Survey detection rate = 0.1 /yr (assumed)
    Used to derive the number density n = Gamma / (sigma * v_infinity) in Section 2. The value is chosen by hand to reflect the time ATLAS and related surveys have been online.
  • Reference interstellar object mass per star = 100 Earth masses per star (assumed)
    Anchors the inferred radius of 3I/ATLAS in Eq. 1: r_N = 2.3 km if M_ISO = 100 M_earth. If the true mass budget is different, the inferred size changes.
  • Interstellar object destruction rate = 0.123 /Gyr (fitted)
    Fitted in Section 5 to minimize integrated square error against the p-hat(tau) curve, then declared consistent with a uniform destruction model using K-S tests. This is a parameter fit to the same curve it is used to explain.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Interstellar objects have a velocity distribution close to that of their parent star, so stellar age-velocity dispersion relations apply to them.
    Stated at the start of Section 3 and in the abstract. The entire age posterior rests on this equivalence, and ejection velocities are ignored.
  • domain assumption The empirical age-velocity dispersion relations for solar-neighborhood F/G dwarfs (Eqs. 7a-7c) are valid for interstellar objects and over 0-14 Gyr.
    The relations come from Almeida-Fernandes and Rocha-Pinto 2018b; extrapolating to old ages and to the thick disk or halo is unverified.
  • ad hoc to paper A flat prior in age is appropriate for the age posteriors.
    Chosen because the Milky Way star formation history is approximately constant, but it conflicts with the paper's later claim that interstellar object production was not constant. The prior choice directly shapes the posteriors used in Section 5.
  • domain assumption Each velocity component around the LSR is Gaussian with zero mean and dispersion sigma_i(tau) as in Eq. 2.
    Standard approximation from Almeida-Fernandes and Rocha-Pinto 2018a; it is known to ignore moving groups in the local velocity distribution.
  • domain assumption The age-metallicity relation with uniform +/-0.3 dex scatter (Eq. 8) maps age to parent star metallicity.
    Taken from Marsakov et al. 2011; the relation has large scatter and the uniform distribution is a simplification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Kinematic Age of 3I/ATLAS and its Implications for Early Planet Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PIKXJPD

@misc{pith2026250708111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Kinematic Age of 3I/ATLAS and its Implications for Early Planet Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PIKXJPD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08111}
}
abstract

The recent discovery of the third interstellar object (3I/ATLAS) expands the known census from two to three and significantly improves statistical inferences regarding the underlying galactic population. In this paper, we argue that cometary activity likely significantly contributes to 3I/ATLAS's brightness, since the nuclear size inferred when assuming an asteroidal reflectance implies an untenable interstellar object mass per star. 3I/ATLAS exhibits a high excess velocity of $v_\infty=58$ km/s relative to the Sun, which implies that 3I/ATLAS is relatively old in comparison to previous interstellar objects. Here, we calculate the posterior distribution of ages implied by the kinematics of the interstellar objects and find that 3I/ATLAS is likely $\sim3-11$ Gyr old, assuming that the interstellar object and stellar age-velocity dispersion relations are equivalent. We also calculate the distribution of host star metallicities and find that 3I/ATLAS has a 12% chance of originating from a star with $\text{[Fe/H]}\leq-0.4$. These results show that interstellar object formation is likely efficient at low metallicities and early in the history of the Galaxy. Finally, we estimate the interstellar object formation rate throughout Galactic history implied by these three objects. As future interstellar objects are discovered, the framework presented here can be applied to further refine this calculation. Comparison between the interstellar object and stellar formation histories will provide unique insights into the history of stellar system formation in the Galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08111 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interstellar Object Age. The posterior prob￾ability distribution function p(τ |{v}i) for the three known interstellar objects, where {v} represents the set of measured interstellar object velocities. We show the age distribution as well as the median (dashed line) and the 68 % confidence region (shaded). Jones 2018; C.-H. Hsieh et al. 2021). This age is broadly consistent with a previous kinematical age estimate of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inferred Interstellar Object Prior. An ap￾proximate interstellar object local age distribution, assuming that the weight for each interstellar object is equal. The 1σ uncertainty is shown as a shadowed region. We also show the expected local age distributions assuming that ISOs are not destroyed (Γ = 0) and are uniformly destroyed at a rate Γ = 0.123 Gyr−1 . function of stellar type and metallicity as a prior, while… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. 3I/ATLAS: In Search of the Witnesses to Its Voyage

    astro-ph.EP 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    No stellar flybys within the past 10 Myr and 500 pc in Gaia DR3 explain the present trajectory of 3I/ATLAS, which matches thin-disk kinematics despite its high peculiar velocity.

  6. NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory Observations of Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS (C/2025 N1)

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    Rubin Observatory delivers the earliest large-telescope astrometry and grizy photometry of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS, including colors and a dust-to-nucleus cross-section ratio lower limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    F., Feaga, L

    A’Hearn, M. F., Feaga, L. M., Keller, H. U., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/29

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/29 2012

  2. [2]

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

    Alarcon, M. R., Serra-Ricart, M., Licandro, J., et al. 2025, {The Astronomer’s Telegram} No. 17263

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Almeida-Fernandes, F., & Rocha-Pinto, H. J. 2018a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty119

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty119

  4. [4]

    Almeida-Fernandes, F., & Rocha-Pinto, H. J. 2018b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2202

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2202

  5. [5]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348899

    Andama, G., Mah, J., & Bitsch, B. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348899

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348899 2024

  6. [6]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  7. [7]

    T., Opitom, C., Fitzsimmons, A., et al

    Bannister, M. T., Opitom, C., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.11605

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Belton, M. J. S., Hainaut, O. R., Meech, K. J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 856, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab370

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab370 2018

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    B., & Seligman, D

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

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 868, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda8

    Bialy, S., & Loeb, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 868, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda8

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Feldman, P

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

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Sato, H., et al

    Borisov, G., Durig, D. T., Sato, H., et al. 2019, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 4666, 1

    2019

  5. [13]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1277

    Bovy, J. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1277

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    O., Bernardinelli, P

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    L., Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Cordiner, M., et al

    Cochran, A. L., Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Cordiner, M., et al. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 197, 9, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0183-6

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Endl, M., Wittenmyer, R

    Cochran, W. D., Endl, M., Wittenmyer, R. A., & Bean, J. L. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 665, 1407, doi: 10.1086/519555

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Milam, S

    Cordiner, M. A., Milam, S. N., Biver, N., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 861, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1087-2 de la Fuente Marcos, R., Alarcon, M. R., Licandro, J., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.12922

    2020 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 2384, doi: 10.1086/300364

    Dehnen, W. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 2384, doi: 10.1086/300364

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Binzel, R

    DeMeo, F. E., Binzel, R. P., Slivan, S. M., & Bus, S. J. 2009, Icarus, 202, 160, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.005

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, MPEC

    Denneau, L., Siverd, R., Tonry, J., et al. 2025, MPEC

    2025

  14. [22]

    J., & Jackson, A

    Desch, S. J., & Jackson, A. P. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06807, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006807

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    J., & Jackson, A

    Desch, S. J., & Jackson, A. P. 2022, Astrobiology, 22, 1400, doi: 10.1089/ast.2021.0199 de Le´ on, J., Licandro, J., de la Fuente Marcos, C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 2053, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1190

    2022

  16. [24]

    A., & Tonry, J

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

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Hopkins, M

    Dorsey, R. C., Hopkins, M. J., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.16741 9

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    C., & Jewitt, D

    Drahus, M., Yang, B., Lis, D. C., & Jewitt, D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 2897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2227

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Noonan, J

    Feinstein, A. D., Noonan, J. W., & Seligman, D. Z. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21967

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

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

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.17980, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.17980 Flekkøy, E

    Fitzsimmons, A., Meech, K., Matr` a, L., & Pfalzner, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.17980, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.17980 Flekkøy, E. G., Luu, J., & Toussaint, R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 885, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4f78

    2023 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    C., Bannister, M

    Forbes, J. C., Bannister, M. T., Lintott, C., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 988, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc9ac

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    C., & Loeb, A

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

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

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

    Fraser, W. C., Pravec, P., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 383, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0398-z

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, RNAAS, 1, 13, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aa9851

    Gaidos, E., Williams, J., & Kraus, A. 2017, RNAAS, 1, 13, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aa9851

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7336

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

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 501, 941, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811191

    Holmberg, J., Nordstr¨ om, B., & Andersen, J. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 501, 941, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811191

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Seligman, D

    Hoover, D. J., Seligman, D. Z., & Payne, M. J. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 71, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac58fe

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Bannister, M

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

    doi

  30. [38]

    J., Dorsey, R

    Hopkins, M. J., Dorsey, R. C., Forbes, J. C., et al. 2025b, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05318

    doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    J., Lintott, C., Bannister, M

    Hopkins, M. J., Lintott, C., Bannister, M. T., Mackereth, J. T., & Forbes, J. C. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad03e6

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

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

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    P., & Desch, S

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

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, arXiv

    Jewitt, D., Hui, M.-T., Mutchler, M., Kim, Y., & Agarwal, J. 2025, arXiv. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250802934J

    2025

  35. [43]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab99cb

    Jewitt, D., Kim, Y., Mutchler, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab99cb

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2019a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 886, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab530b

    Jewitt, D., & Luu, J. 2019a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 886, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab530b

    doi

  37. [45]

    2019b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 883, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4135

    Jewitt, D., & Luu, J. 2019b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 883, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4135

    doi

  38. [46]

    2025, {The Astronomer’s Telegram} No

    Jewitt, D., & Luu, J. 2025, {The Astronomer’s Telegram} No. 17263

    2025

  39. [47]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2f

    Jewitt, D., Luu, J., Rajagopal, J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2f

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Jewitt, D., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 197, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054221

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    W., et al

    Kareta, T., Andrews, J., Noonan, J. W., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 889, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6a08

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    G., & Laughlin, G

    Levine, W. G., & Laughlin, G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec85

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    G., Taylor, A

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

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    W., Lee, C.-H., Gerdes, D

    Lin, H. W., Lee, C.-H., Gerdes, D. W., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 889, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6bd9

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    T., & Mackereth, J

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

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05881

    Loeb, A. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05881

    2025 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    2017, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 1, 21, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aa9bdc

    Mamajek, E. 2017, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 1, 21, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aa9bdc

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Shapovalov, M. V. 2011, Astronomy Reports, 55, 667, doi: 10.1134/S1063772911080063 Marˇ ceta, D., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 230, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad08c1

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 3003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2380

    Mashchenko, S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 3003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2380

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Massey, F. J. 1951, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46, 68, doi: 10.2307/2280095

    1951 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Weryk, R., Micheli, M., et al

    Meech, K. J., Weryk, R., Micheli, M., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 378, doi: 10.1038/nature25020

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    J., et al

    Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., Meech, K. J., et al. 2018, Nature, 559, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0254-4 Moro-Mart ´ ın, A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.04277, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.04277 Moro-Mart ´ ın, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-82...

    2018 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05226

    Opitom, C., Snodgrass, C., Jehin, E., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05226

    2025 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    S., Pisano, D

    Park, R. S., Pisano, D. J., Lazio, T. J. W., Chodas, P. W., & Naidu, S. P. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab78d Portegies Zwart, S. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038888 Portegies Zwart, S., Torres, S., P...

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    Cai, M. X. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 479, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly088

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    H., Rahatgaonkar, R., Carvajal, J

    Puzia, T. H., Rahatgaonkar, R., Carvajal, J. P., Nayak, P. K., & Luco, B. 2025, arXiv. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250802777P

    2025

  57. [65]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 619, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833494

    Ramos, P., Antoja, T., & Figueras, F. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 619, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833494

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.00808

    Santana-Ros, T., Ivanova, O., Mykhailova, S., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.00808

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.08704, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1901.08704

    Sekanina, Z. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.08704, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1901.08704

    2019 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabd37

    Seligman, D., & Laughlin, G. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabd37

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab963f

    Seligman, D., & Laughlin, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab963f

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    Z., & Moro-Mart ´ ın, A

    Seligman, D. Z., & Moro-Mart ´ ın, A. 2023, Contemporary Physics, 63, 200, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2023.2203976

    2023

  63. [71]

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

    Seligman, D. Z., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.02757

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 578, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424281

    Snaith, O., Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 578, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424281

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    G., Seligman, D

    Taylor, A. G., Seligman, D. Z., Hainaut, O. R., & Meech, K. J. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 186, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acf617

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    E., Mommert, M., Hora, J

    Trilling, D. E., Mommert, M., Hora, J. L., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae88f

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    V., Sato, H., Sarneczky, K., et al

    Williams, G. V., Sato, H., Sarneczky, K., et al. 2017, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 4450, 1

    2017

  69. [77]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    Xing, Z., Bodewits, D., Noonan, J., & Bannister, M. T. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 893, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab86be

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    Z., et al

    Yaginuma, A., Frincke, T., Seligman, D. Z., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.15755

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Connelley, M., & Keane, J

    Yang, B., Meech, K. J., Connelley, M., & Keane, J. V. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14916

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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