What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to validate which solution, A or B, serves as the primary perturber influencing the Kuiper Cliff's structure.

May 16, 2026Open Access

Two-Body Validation of Solution B as the Dominant Kuiper Cliff Perturber: ATMAN v5.0 Paper IV

Key Points

This research aims to validate which solution, A or B, serves as the primary perturber influencing the Kuiper Cliff's structure.
Used two-body validation tests with simulations of Solution A and Solution B.
Conducted comparative analysis against a control-run anomaly.
Adopted depletion proxy as the primary metric for discrimination.
Solution B confirmed as the dominant perturber with a score of 0.586, indicating a 2.3% relative decrease compared to the single-body reference.
The three-body model including Erebo was ruled out as a viable scenario.
The control-run anomaly was resolved using the depletion proxy.

Abstract

(Abstract) We present a two-body validation test for the candidate solutionsidentified in Paper III of this series. Simulations including bothSolution A (2. 5 M⊕, a=100 au) and Solution B (6 M⊕, a=75 au) confirm that Solution B is the dominant perturber responsible forthe Kuiper Cliff morphology, with a two-body combined score of 0. 586 (−2. 3% relative to the single-body reference). The three-bodyscenario (Erebo + Solution A + Solution B) is ruled out. The control-run anomaly (Rₘaxcontrol=0. 6446) is resolved byadopting the depletion proxy as the primary discriminant metric. SHA-256 of simulation output: 027f47017a1f32cacca31ecf8517396bda8eade3dce685d0d510c03554b5bf13. This is Paper IV of the ATMAN v5. 0 series. Author: Ariel Fernando Martini, Buenos Aires, Argentina (2026). Contact: arielₘartini₃@hotmail. com

Read Full Paperexternally

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper