Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

The Surfaces of Small to Mid-Size Plutinos: Evidence of an Association Between Inclination and Surface Type

T0 review · 4 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 Plutino surface colors split by orbital inclination at 99.3% significance, with six of seven low-tilt plutinos carrying the FaintIR surface type.

desk verdict A careful, useful confirming study: new grz colors for 43 TNOs and an independent check on the inclination–surface association, but the headline 6/7 rests on a thinly calibrated cross-filter step. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10766 v1 pith:GZDK2DQX submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.EP

Cameron Collyer , Rosemary E. Pike , Ying-Tung Chen , Mike Alexandersen , Mark Comte , Samantha M. Lawler , Bryan J. Holler , J. J. Kavelaars
show 1 more author
Lowell Peltier
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords plutinos3:2meanmotionresonancetrans-NeptunianobjectsFaintIR/BrightIRsurfaceclassesreflectanceinclinationdistributioncoldclassicalsNeptunemigration
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 tries to establish that, among small to mid-size plutinos in Neptune's 3:2 mean motion resonance, surface type is tied to orbital inclination. Combining new $grz$ colors for 14 plutinos with literature samples gives 43 plutinos total; 6 of the 7 plutinos with osculating inclination below $4.5^\circ$ belong to the FaintIR surface class, while higher-inclination plutinos are mostly BrightIR. The two inclination distributions are reported as distinguishable at 99.3% significance by Anderson-Darling and Cramér-Von Mises tests. If true, this is a record of how the primordial planetesimal disk was arranged before Neptune's migration, because FaintIR surfaces dominate the cold classical belt today.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the FaintIR/BrightIR two-surface classification scheme: a model in which TNO surfaces are mixtures of a shared optically neutral component and one of two optically red components, so colors fall into two regions of optical/near-IR color space. The paper re-expresses $grz$ colors as spectral slopes and projects them onto PC1 and PC2, coordinates along and away from the reddening line; in $grz$ a surface is FaintIR when $\mathrm{PC1}>0.55$ and $\mathrm{PC2}<0$. This projection is what lets the authors compare classifications made in $grz$, $grJ$, and H/WTSOSS filter sets, and then test whether the FaintIR and BrightIR plutinos have different inclination distributions.

What would settle it

Measure $grz$ or $grJ$ colors for the seven low-inclination plutinos currently classified only through H/WTSOSS; if more than one of the six FaintIR objects moves to BrightIR, the 6-of-7 pattern and the 99.3% significance disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across three photometric programs (new Magellan $grz$ data, Col-OSSOS $grJ$ colors, and the Hubble H/WTSOSS dataset), the authors classify 43 small to mid-size plutinos into the two-surface model's FaintIR and BrightIR classes. They find that the FaintIR class, which is dominated by cold classicals, is concentrated at low osculating inclination: $6/7$ of plutinos with $i_{\rm osc}<4.5^\circ$ are FaintIR, whereas only about 2:11 to 3:6 of higher-inclination plutinos are FaintIR. The Anderson-Darling and Cramér-Von Mises tests give 99.3% significance that the FaintIR and BrightIR inclination distributions differ, while their eccentricity distributions are indistinguishable. The authors interpret this as evidence that FaintIR and BrightIR planetesimals were radially partitioned before capture into the 3:2 resonance, either because the cold classical disk extended roughly 3 au sunward at that time or because FaintIR planetesimals were scattered inward from the 42.5--48 au region.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that FaintIR/BrightIR labels assigned in the H/WTSOSS filter set (F606W, F814W, F139M) match those in $grz$ and $grJ$, even though the only direct overlap is a single object, 2005 TV189.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-inclination plutinos with FaintIR surfaces are most likely captured from a different parent population than BrightIR plutinos, rather than being one mixed population.
  • The association supports radial partitioning of FaintIR and BrightIR planetesimals in the pre-migration disk, with FaintIR material present closer to the Sun than today's cold classical edge at about 42 au.
  • If the FaintIR plutinos formed near 39 au, the cold classical disk extended roughly 3 au further sunward before Neptune's migration.
  • The alternative that these FaintIR plutinos were scattered inward from 42.5--48 au and captured into the 3:2 resonance remains open and cannot be excluded.
  • Additional low-inclination plutinos discovered by future surveys and classified by surface type should sharpen the FaintIR:BrightIR ratio and test the $4.5^\circ$ divide.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the association holds, the same inclination--surface segregation should be looked for in the 4:3 and 5:4 resonances, which sit even closer to the Sun and would test whether the radial partition extended inward.
  • A clean test of the two formation stories is a simulation of resonance capture: if low-inclination FaintIR plutinos were captured in place near 39 au, their excitation should be mostly eccentricity, as observed; scattering-capture models would predict a different mix.
  • Because five of the six low-inclination FaintIR plutinos come from H/WTSOSS and only one object overlaps directly with $grz$, the headline pattern hinges on cross-filter comparability; re-observing those objects in $grz$ is the decisive check.
  • If the association survives, the color--inclination pattern in centaurs and plutinos together suggests a steady inward leak of cold-classical-like material, not only an ancient capture event.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new grz spectrophotometry for 43 small to mid-size TNOs, 14 of which are plutinos, and combines these with literature plutino samples from Col-OSSOS grJ and the H/WTSOSS F606W/F814W/F139M dataset to reach a total of 43 unique plutinos. Using the Fraser et al. (2023) FaintIR/BrightIR two-surface-class scheme, the authors define a grz classification box (PC1_grz > 0.55, PC2_grz < 0), adopt literature classifications for the other filter systems, and then compare the osculating inclination, eccentricity, and excitation distributions of FaintIR versus BrightIR plutinos. The central claim, stated in Section 5.3, is that the FaintIR and BrightIR i_osc distributions are distinguishable at 99.3% significance, with (6/7) plutinos at i_osc < 4.5 degrees classified as FaintIR. The authors interpret this as evidence for radial partitioning of FaintIR and BrightIR planetesimals in the pre-migration disk, while explicitly leaving open a scattering-capture alternative.

Significance. If the cross-filter classification compatibility holds, this is a valuable and potentially field-relevant result: it connects surface taxonomy to orbital excitation in the 3:2 resonance and provides a concrete observational constraint for models of Neptune's migration and the primordial disk's radial composition structure. The paper's strengths include a detailed photometric reduction with explicit filter transformations calibrated on hundreds of in-frame stars, a transparent two-sided resampling methodology for the AD and CVM tests, and the publication of new grz colors for 43 TNOs. The result is also placed in context with the independent Bernardinelli et al. (2025) finding of inclination segregation of near-IR faint and bright plutinos, which lends credibility to the qualitative direction of the claim. However, the quantitative 99.3% significance rests on a small number of low-inclination H/WTSOSS-based classifications whose compatibility with the grz/grJ FaintIR/BrightIR scheme is explicitly acknowledged in the paper as requiring justification but is not demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2–5.3] The headline 99.3% significance rests on the compatibility of the H/WTSOSS FaintIR/BrightIR classifications with the grz and grJ schemes, and this compatibility is not established. Section 5.2 states that the unique H/WTSOSS filter set 'demands justification' that the classifications are compatible, and the only direct overlap object, 2005 TV189 (i_osc = 34.33 degrees), does not test any of the low-inclination objects that drive the result. Five of the six plutinos with i_osc < 4.5 degrees classified as FaintIR come from H/WTSOSS, so a systematic misclassification of even two or three of these objects would weaken or erase the 6/7 pattern and the associated 99.3% significance. Please provide a robustness analysis that (i) quantifies the H/WTSOSS classification uncertainties, (ii) recomputes the AD and CVM significances after removing or reclassifying the low-i H/WTSOSS objects one at a time or in a leave-one-out manner, and (iii) if possible, validates the F606W/F814W/F139M boundary against the grz/grJ scheme using synthetic spectra or additional overlap objects.
  2. [§5.2, Figure 4(a)] The grz FaintIR box (PC1_grz > 0.55, PC2_grz < 0) is a new classification boundary defined in this paper, and its calibration is not end-to-end. The text notes that the PC2 = -0.13 line does not cleanly isolate the cold classical surface type in grz and that Col-OSSOS FaintIR objects are found on both sides of that line, with an ambiguous region near PC1_grz ~ 0.55–0.6 and S_g->r ~ 15–20. Because this boundary is then applied to classify the grz plutinos, the §5.3 statistical test does not include uncertainty in the boundary itself. Please quantify how the 99.3% significance changes under plausible shifts of the PC1 and PC2 thresholds, and report how many plutinos in the final sample lie near the ambiguous region.
  3. [§5.3, assumptions (a)–(c), §2.1] Assumption (c) states that the observed FaintIR:BrightIR ratio is an accurate representation of the intrinsic plutino ratio, but the combined sample is not a single well-defined survey. The grz plutinos are 14 of 30 target plutinos from CFEPS/LiDO, with six targets unobserved because of galactic-plane crowding, and the H/WTSOSS and Col-OSSOS subsamples have their own selection functions. If the observability or discovery probability correlates with inclination or color, the combined sample could bias the i_osc comparison. Please add an explicit discussion of the selection function of each subsample and a check of whether the result survives when weighting by survey selection or when restricting the analysis to the magnitude-limited CFEPS/LiDO target sample.
  4. [§5.3] The paper reports that 'the AD and CVM tests suggest the FaintIR and BrightIR i_osc distributions are distinguishable at 99.3% significance' without giving the individual AD statistic, CVM T statistic, and their separate p-values. Given the small sample sizes (n = 12 FaintIR versus n = 30 BrightIR) and the fact that the two tests weight tails differently, please provide the individual statistics, the bootstrap null distributions, and the p-value for each test so the reader can see whether 99.3% is the result of one test or both, and whether it is the minimum or a combined significance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that (6/7) of the plutinos with i_osc > 4.5 degrees have FaintIR surfaces, but Section 5.3 and the Discussion state i_osc < 4.5 degrees; the abstract inequality sign should be corrected to match the body of the paper.
  2. [§5.3, Figure 5] The paper notes that 2005 TV189 appears in both the grz and H/WTSOSS datasets, but the text does not explicitly state how the duplicate is handled when computing the combined sample of 43 plutinos and the CDFs in Figure 5; please clarify the unique-object accounting.
  3. [Figure 4(d)] The horizontal-axis labels in Figure 4(d) are difficult to parse, with repeated 'grz', 'grJ', and 'H/WTS' entries; please reformat the panel labels and the legend so that each dynamical class and dataset combination is unambiguous.
  4. [References] The reference 'Marsset et al. 2020, Submitted to Planetary Science Journal' should be updated to the published version with a DOI, if it has appeared by the time of the revised submission.
  5. [Table 2] The column header H_r,sur. uses the word 'surmised', which appears to be a typo for 'survey' or 'surrogate'; please clarify the intended meaning.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the central inclination claim; one secondary grz classification box is self-calibrated to the cold classicals.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, FaintIR/BrightIR Surface Classifications (grz boundary definition and the cold-classical FaintIR ratio reported in the Section 5 bullets)]
    "We classified TNO surfaces as FaintIR if their PC1grz >0.55 and PC2grz <0 (see Figure 1, right). ... This classification scheme in grz outlines in Sg→r & Sr→z the areas occupied by Col-OSSOS FaintIR TNOs and the overwhelming majority of the cold classicals in this sample."

    The grz FaintIR boundary is defined by eye to enclose the Col-OSSOS FaintIR objects and most cold classicals, so the later statement that cold classicals in the grz sample are predominantly FaintIR (ratio ∈[16:5, 19:2]) is true by construction rather than an independent measurement. This is a genuine but secondary self-definitional step: the grz plutinos used for the headline 99.3% iosc test were not used to set the box, and the inclination comparison does not take the cold-classical ratio as input, so the central claim is not forced by this choice.

full rationale

The headline result (Sec. 5.3) is not circular: FaintIR/BrightIR labels are assigned from photometric slopes (grz, grJ, H/WTSOSS) before and independently of any iosc comparison, with the grz FaintIR box fixed by PC1/PC2 cuts and Col-OSSOS anchors; no inclination information enters the classification. The one secondary circularity is that the grz FaintIR box is drawn to enclose the cold classicals, making the cold-classical FaintIR ratio a training-set statement; that statement is not the paper's central evidence. The Section 5.2 caveat that H/WTSOSS compatibility 'demands justification' is a validity limitation, not circularity: a systematic cross-filter offset would weaken the 6/7 pattern rather than follow from the definitions. Citations to Fraser et al. (2023) and Pike et al. (2023) are prior published model/data, and the inclination segregation is independently supported by Bernardinelli et al. (2025), so no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. Overall, the derivation does not reduce to its inputs; score 2 reflects only the minor self-calibrated grz boundary.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central statistical result has no fitted parameters of its own, but it inherits hand-set classification boundaries (the grz FaintIR box and the 4.5 degree cutoff) and several domain assumptions about the surface model, cross-filter compatibility, and sample representativeness. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • grz FaintIR classification thresholds (PC1_grz > 0.55, PC2_grz < 0) = PC1_grz > 0.55; PC2_grz < 0
    Chosen in this work to enclose the Col-OSSOS FaintIR objects and the bulk of cold classicals. It is not fitted to plutino inclinations, but it is a hand-set boundary that determines every surface class in the grz sample.
  • Low-inclination cutoff (i_osc < 4.5 degrees) = 4.5 degrees
    Used for the headline 6-of-7 statistic. It is motivated by the ifree < 4 to 6 degree boundary for cold classicals, but the exact value is not pre-registered and no sensitivity test is shown.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The two-surface (FaintIR/BrightIR) compositional model of Fraser et al. (2023) is a valid description of small TNO surface colors in grz, grJ, and H/WTSOSS.
    Invoked in Section 5.2 to convert grz photometry and literature colors into surface classes. If the model is wrong or incomplete, the classification and the resulting inclination comparison lose meaning.
  • domain assumption H/WTSOSS F606W/F814W/F139M colors are comparable to grz and grJ FaintIR/BrightIR classes through the reddening-line projection.
    Section 5.2 notes this 'demands justification' and uses a rough filter-axis argument. The conclusion depends on 15 H/WTSOSS plutinos, including 5 of the 6 low-inclination FaintIR objects.
  • domain assumption The combined sample of 43 plutinos is an unbiased random sample of the intrinsic FaintIR/BrightIR inclination distributions.
    The paper states these assumptions explicitly in Section 5.3. In practice, 14 of 30 target plutinos were observed based on visibility and scheduling, and no survey bias correction is applied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Surfaces of Small to Mid-Size Plutinos: Evidence of an Association Between Inclination and Surface Type." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZDK2DQX

@misc{pith2026250710766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Surfaces of Small to Mid-Size Plutinos: Evidence of an Association Between Inclination and Surface Type},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZDK2DQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10766}
}
read the original abstract

Being one of the most populated mean motion resonances (MMR) with Neptune and lying close to the inner boundary of the present day cold classical disk, observations of the orbital and surface class distributions of the plutinos in the 3:2 MMR provide constraints on Neptune's migration and insight into the compositional structure of the pre-migration planetesimal disk. Here, we present observations of the surface reflectance of 43 small to mid-size (H_V >~ 5) transneptunian objects (TNOs) through the grz wavelength range, 14 of which are plutinos. We classify the surfaces of these TNOs using the two-surface class model (FaintIR and BrightIR surface classes) proposed by Fraser and collaborators, where the FaintIR surface class is dominated by cold classicals. Incorporating similar observations of plutinos from the literature for a total sample size of 43 plutinos, we find that the osculating inclination distributions (i_osc) of the FaintIR and BrightIR plutinos are statistically distinguishable at 99.3% significance, where (6/7) of the plutinos with i_osc > 4.5{\deg} have FaintIR surfaces. This is most easily explained if the FaintIR and BrightIR planetesimals were radially partitioned in the primordial planetesimal disk before being captured into the 3:2 resonance. While this could be evidence that the primordial cold classical disk with FaintIR surfaces was broader in the past by ~3 au in the sunward direction, we cannot rule out the alternative explanation that these FaintIR plutinos were scattered from the ~42.5-48 au region from the Sun and captured into the 3:2 resonance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Alexandersen, M., Gladman, B., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 111, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/111

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/111 2016

  3. [3]

    D., Chen, Y.-T., et al

    Alexandersen, M., Benecchi, S. D., Chen, Y.-T., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2fe4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2fe4 2019

  4. [4]

    2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Alexandersen, M., Lawler, S., Chen, Y.-T., et al. 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 241, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 104.21

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    2021, AJ, 162, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf6ca

    Ali-Dib, M., Marsset, M., Wong, W.-C., & Dbouk, R. 2021, AJ, 162, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf6ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf6ca 2021

  6. [6]

    Anderson, T. W. 1962, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 1148–1159, doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177704477

    arXiv 1962

  7. [7]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda1e

    Ashton, E., Chang, C.-K., Chen, Y.-T., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda1e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda1e 2023

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2026

    Balaji, S., Zaveri, N., Hayashi, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2026

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2026 2023

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Dovgopol, A. N. 2015, Icarus, 250, 482, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.12.004

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Noll, K

    Benecchi, S. D., Noll, K. S., Grundy, W. M., et al. 2009, Icarus, 200, 292, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.025

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    D., & Sheppard, S

    Benecchi, S. D., & Sheppard, S. S. 2013, AJ, 145, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/5/124

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Abbott, T. M. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01551, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01551

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    M., Holler, B

    Bernstein, G. M., Holler, B. J., Navarro-Escamilla, R., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 115, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acdd5f

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Charlot, X., et al

    Boulade, O., Vigroux, L. G., Charlot, X., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3355, Optical Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. S. D’Odorico, 614–625, doi: 10.1117/12.316786

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Burgasser, A

    Brown, M. E., Burgasser, A. J., & Fraser, W. C. 2011, ApJL, 738, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L26

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Schwamb, M

    Buchanan, L. E., Schwamb, M. E., Fraser, W. C., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 9, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac42c9

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    C., & et al

    Chambers, K. C., & et al. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The Pan-STARRS release 1 (PS1) Survey - DR1 (Chambers+, 2016), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/349. Originally published in: 2016arXiv161205560C; 2016arXiv161205240M; 2016arXiv161205245W; 2016arXiv161205244M; 2016arXi...

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2010, AJ, 139, 1628, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1628

    Doi, M., Tanaka, M., Fukugita, M., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1628, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1628

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    2011, PASP, 123, 288, doi: 10.1086/658908

    Dressler, A., Bigelow, B., Hare, T., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 288, doi: 10.1086/658908

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Levison, H

    Duncan, M. J., Levison, H. F., & Budd, S. M. 1995, AJ, 110, 3073, doi: 10.1086/117748

    1995 doi

  13. [21]

    Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. 1993, An introduction to the bootstrap (Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    1993

  14. [22]

    E., et al

    Fraser, W., Alexandersen, M., Schwamb, M. E., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 158, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/158

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    C., & Brown, M

    Fraser, W. C., & Brown, M. E. 2012, ApJ, 749, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/33

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Pike, R

    Fraser, W. C., Pike, R. E., Marsset, M., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 80, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acc844

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    E., et al

    Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748, doi: 10.1086/117915

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    A., de Sanctis, M

    Fulchignoni, M., Belskaya, I., Barucci, M. A., de Sanctis, M. C., & Doressoundiram, A. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, A. Morbidelli, & R. Dotson, 181–192

    2008

  19. [27]

    G., & Vanlaerhoven, C

    Gladman, B., Marsden, B. G., & Vanlaerhoven, C. 2008, Nomenclature in the Outer Solar System (The University of Arizona Press), 43–57

    2008

  20. [28]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010005

    Gladman, B., & Volk, K. 2021, ARA&A, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010005

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Gomes, R. S. 2000, AJ, 120, 2695, doi: 10.1086/316816 —. 2003, Icarus, 161, 404, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(02)00056-8

    2000 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Boehnhardt, H., & Protopapa, S

    Hainaut, O. R., Boehnhardt, H., & Protopapa, S. 2012, A&A, 546, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219566

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    R., & Delsanti, A

    Hainaut, O. R., & Delsanti, A. C. 2002, A&A, 389, 641, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020431

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.09045

    Huang, Y., Gladman, B., & Volk, K. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.09045. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.09045

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., & Sheppard, S

    Kaib, N. A., & Sheppard, S. S. 2016, AJ, 152, 133, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/133

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    2014, ApJL, 793, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L2

    Lacerda, P., Fornasier, S., Lellouch, E., et al. 2014, ApJL, 793, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L2

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Morbidelli, A., Van Laerhoven, C., Gomes, R., & Tsiganis, K

    Levison, H. F., Morbidelli, A., Van Laerhoven, C., Gomes, R., & Tsiganis, K. 2008, Icarus, 196, 258, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.11.035

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    1996, AJ, 112, 2310, doi: 10.1086/118184

    Luu, J., & Jewitt, D. 1996, AJ, 112, 2310, doi: 10.1086/118184

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    S., & Mukai, T

    Lykawka, P. S., & Mukai, T. 2005, Earth Moon and Planets, 97, 107, doi: 10.1007/s11038-005-9056-4 —. 2007, Icarus, 192, 238, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.06.007

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    1995, AJ, 110, 420, doi: 10.1086/117532 —

    Malhotra, R. 1995, AJ, 110, 420, doi: 10.1086/117532 —. 2019, Geoscience Letters, 6, 12, doi: 10.1186/s40562-019-0142-2 22Collyer et al

    1995 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Pike, R

    Marsset, M., Fraser, W. C., Pike, R. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf72e

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Bannister, M

    Marsset, M., Fraser, W. C., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2020, Submitted to Planetary Science Journal

    2020

  33. [41]

    C., Schwamb, M

    Marsset, M., Fraser, W. C., Schwamb, M. E., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 160, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace7d0

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    1997, Icarus, 127, 1, doi: 10.1006/icar.1997.5681

    Morbidelli, A. 1997, Icarus, 127, 1, doi: 10.1006/icar.1997.5681

    1997

  35. [43]

    F., & Gomes, R

    Morbidelli, A., Levison, H. F., & Gomes, R. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, A. Morbidelli, & R. Dotson, 275–292, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0703558

    2008 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    1995, Icarus, 118, 322, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1194

    Morbidelli, A., Thomas, F., & Moons, M. 1995, Icarus, 118, 322, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1194

    1995

  37. [45]

    J., & Adams, F

    Napier, K. J., & Adams, F. C. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 46, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac5b6c Nesvorný, D. 2015a, AJ, 150, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/68 —. 2015b, AJ, 150, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/73 —. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 137, doi: 1...

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Nesvorný, D., & Thirouin, A

    Noll, K., Grundy, W. M., Nesvorný, D., & Thirouin, A. 2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, ed. D. Prialnik, M. A. Barucci, & L. Young, 201–224, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816490-7.00009-6

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Grundy, W

    Noll, K. S., Grundy, W. M., Stephens, D. C., Levison, H. F., & Kern, S. D. 2008, Icarus, 194, 758, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.10.022

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    2015, A&A, 577, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425436

    Peixinho, N., Delsanti, A., & Doressoundiram, A. 2015, A&A, 577, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425436

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Gladman, B

    Petit, J.-M., Kavelaars, J. J., Gladman, B. J., et al. 2011, Astronomical Journal, 142, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/131

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    Pettitt, A. N. 1976, Biometrika, 63, 161, doi: 10.2307/2335097

    1976 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Lawler, S., Brasser, R., et al

    Pike, R. E., Lawler, S., Brasser, R., et al. 2017a, AJ, 153, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be9

    doi

  44. [52]

    E., Fraser, W

    Pike, R. E., Fraser, W. C., Schwamb, M. E., et al. 2017b, AJ, 154, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa83b1

    doi

  45. [53]

    E., Proudfoot, B

    Pike, R. E., Proudfoot, B. C. N., Ragozzine, D., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 89, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0867-z

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    E., Fraser, W

    Pike, R. E., Fraser, W. C., Volk, K., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 200, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace2c2

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    N., et al

    Pinilla-Alonso, N., Brunetto, R., De Prá, M. N., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 230, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02433-2

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Barkume, K., Brown, M

    Rabinowitz, D. L., Barkume, K., Brown, M. E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1238, doi: 10.1086/499575

    2006 doi

  49. [57]

    L., & Brown, M

    Schaller, E. L., & Brown, M. E. 2008, ApJL, 684, L107, doi: 10.1086/592232

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    W., & Stephens, M

    Scholz, F. W., & Stephens, M. A. 1987, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 918, doi: 10.2307/2288805

    1987 doi

  51. [59]

    E., Fraser, W

    Schwamb, M. E., Fraser, W. C., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2194

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    E., Jones, R

    Schwamb, M. E., Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc173

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    C., & Puzia, T

    Seccull, T., Fraser, W. C., & Puzia, T. H. 2021, PSJ, 2, 57, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abe4d9

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Sheppard, S. S. 2012, AJ, 144, 169, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/6/169

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Ragozzine, D., & Trujillo, C

    Sheppard, S. S., Ragozzine, D., & Trujillo, C. 2012, AJ, 143, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/58

    2012 doi

  56. [64]

    S., & Trujillo, C

    Sheppard, S. S., & Trujillo, C. A. 2010, Science, 329, 1304, doi: 10.1126/science.1189666

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    2010, A&A, 511, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913031

    Snodgrass, C., Carry, B., Dumas, C., & Hainaut, O. 2010, A&A, 511, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913031

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    C., Holler, B

    Souza-Feliciano, A. C., Holler, B. J., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348222

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    C., & Romanishin, W

    Tegler, S. C., & Romanishin, W. 1998, Nature, 392, 49, doi: 10.1038/32108 —. 2000, Nature, 407, 979, doi: 10.1038/35039572

    1998 doi

  60. [68]

    C., Romanishin, W., Consolmagno, G

    Tegler, S. C., Romanishin, W., Consolmagno, G. J., & J., S. 2016, AJ, 152, 210, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/210

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    Thirouin, A., & Sheppard, S. S. 2018, AJ, 155, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac0ff

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/99

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    A., & Brown, M

    Trujillo, C. A., & Brown, M. E. 2002, ApJL, 566, L125, doi: 10.1086/339437 Van Laerhoven, C., Gladman, B., Volk, K., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab24e1

    2002 doi

  64. [72]

    2019, AJ, 158, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2639

    Volk, K., & Malhotra, R. 2019, AJ, 158, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2639

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 36, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad22d4

    Volk, K., & Van Laerhoven, C. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 36, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad22d4

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2016, AJ, 152, 23, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/23

    Volk, K., Murray-Clay, R., Gladman, B., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 23, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/23

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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