Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Is the Cometary Nucleus Extraction Technique Reliable?

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Man-To Hui, Jian-Yang Li

Earth and Planetary Astrophysics · Submitted 20 Jul 2018

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Our experiment reveals that, given an optically thin coma, generally, the smaller the signal ratio of nucleus to coma, the less reliable is the cometary nucleus-extraction technique.

how it is stated · asserted 0.99 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1807.07993 (version 1)
Pith IDMS2QATZR, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationJian-Yang Li, Man-To Hui. "Is the Cometary Nucleus Extraction Technique Reliable?." arXiv:1807.07993 (2018). https://pith.science/paper/MS2QATZR
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,598 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.85 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.06 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

It depends. Our experiment reveals that, given an optically thin coma, generally, the smaller the signal ratio of nucleus to coma, the less reliable is the cometary nucleus-extraction technique. We strongly suggest the technique only be applied to cases where the nucleus signal occupies $\gtrsim$10% of the total signal wherein the bias is no more than a few percent. Otherwise there is probably no way to debias results from this technique in reality, since its reliability is highly sensitive to entangling complications, including the coma profile, and the point-spread function (PSF).

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 It depends. interpretation 0.50 0.05 0.08 unclear 0.70
s1 Our experiment reveals that, given an optically thin coma, generally, the smaller the signal ratio of nucleus to coma, the less reliable is the cometary nucleus-extraction technique. result 0.99 0.95 0.55 asserted 0.99
s2 We strongly suggest the technique only be applied to cases where the nucleus signal occupies $\gtrsim$10% of the total signal wherein the bias is no more than a few percent. interpretation 0.39 0.77 0.63 hedged possibility 0.78
s3 Otherwise there is probably no way to debias results from this technique in reality, since its reliability is highly sensitive to entangling complications, including the coma profile, and the point-spread function (PSF). limitation 0.60 0.46 0.23 hedged possibility 0.90

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.63 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.97.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

It depends. Our experiment reveals that, given an optically thin coma, generally, the smaller the signal ratio of nucleus to coma, the less reliable is the cometary nucleus-extraction technique. We strongly suggest the technique only be applied to cases where the nucleus signal occupies $\gtrsim$10% of the total signal wherein the bias is no more than a few percent. Otherwise there is probably no way to debias results from this technique in reality, since its reliability is highly sensitive to entangling complications, including the coma profile, and the point-spread function (PSF).

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.