Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Size and Shape of Jupiter Trojan (2207) Antenor from Stellar Occultations

T0 review · 1 major / 6 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 Two 2021 stellar occultations fix Jupiter's Trojan Antenor as an ellipse with a 101.7 km equivalent diameter, while a single-chord event exposes an 11.4 km gap that may signal a contact binary or a huge surface feature.

desk verdict A competent occultation paper that delivers a credible size for Antenor, but the combined-ellipse fit rests on a shaky rotational-phase assumption and there is a sloppy internal inconsistency in the reported oblateness. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19638 v1 pith:MDMVFE36 submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.EP

Feliphe S. Ferreira , Julio I. B. Camargo , Bruno E. Morgado , Viviane Peixoto , Josselin Desmars , Felipe Braga-Ribas , Altair Gomes-Junior , Bruno Sicardy
show 29 more authors
Jose Ortiz R. Vieira-Martins C. Pereira Luana Liberato Marcelo Assafin Yucel Kilic Rodrigo Boufleur Flavia Rommel Gustavo Benedetti-Rossi Martin Banda-Huarca Franck Marchis Paolo Tanga Benoit Blanc Erick Bondoux Alexandra Burnett S. Calavia-Belloc O. Canales-Moreno Norman Carlson Matthieu Conjat Tony George R. Gonçalves R. Iglesias-Marzoa Grego Krannich D. Lafuente-Aznar Paul Maley Jordi Marco C. Schnabel Delwin Shand Kevin Wagner
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords stellaroccultationJupiterTrojans(2207)Antenorasteroidsizeandshapecontactbinarycandidatechordsalbedoephemerisimprovement
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

Using three stellar occultations of the Jupiter Trojan (2207) Antenor observed in 2021, the paper measures the asteroid's apparent size and shape directly from the timing of starlight disappearances and reappearances. The two multi-chord events, on July 10 and August 26, happened at nearly the same rotational phase, so the paper combines their chords into a single elliptical fit: an apparent equatorial radius of $54.30 \pm 0.99$ km, an apparent oblateness of $0.114 \pm 0.051$, and an area-equivalent radius of $50.86 \pm 1.13$ km. The single-chord June 12 event shows a mid-occultation flux increase creating an $11.38 \pm 2.98$ km gap, which the authors interpret as either a very large topographical feature or further evidence that Antenor is a close or contact binary. They also produce astrometric positions with uncertainties near 1 milliarcsecond, an improved ephemeris for future occultation predictions, and geometric albedos near 5 percent that support a dark, primitive classification. If the binary reading is right, Antenor becomes a rare directly probed candidate binary Jupiter Trojan; if the topographic reading is right, the body is substantially more irregular than a simple ellipsoid.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the stellar-occultation chord technique: each positive detection yields immersion and emersion times fitted from light curves with a sharp-edge occultation model that includes Fresnel diffraction, the star's apparent diameter at the asteroid's distance, detector bandwidth, and integration time; those times are projected onto the sky plane along the event's shadow velocity to make chords, whose endpoints are fitted to an ellipse by $\chi^2$ minimization with Monte Carlo uncertainties. The crucial bookkeeping step is the rotational-phase comparison: with a period of $7.964 \pm 0.001$ h, the phase difference between the July and August events is computed as $5.8 \pm 6.5$ degrees, which justifies combining their chords into one ellipse. For the June 12 event, the key tool is an F-test comparing a single-drop model to a double-drop model of the light curve, which favors the double-drop interpretation at 80 percent probability and yields the $11.38 \pm 2.98$ km gap.

What would settle it

A future multi-chord occultation at a different rotational phase would settle it: a contact binary would again show a double-drop light curve when the same body-fixed longitude is observed, while a single large topographic feature would shift position with viewing angle and would not reproduce the same fixed 11 km split.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Antenor's limb in the sky plane, at the epoch of the two 2021 multi-chord occultations, is an ellipse with apparent semi-major axis $a = 54.30 \pm 0.99$ km and semi-minor axis $b = 47.91 \pm 2.15$ km, giving an area-equivalent radius $R_{\mathrm{eq}} = \sqrt{ab} = 50.86 \pm 1.13$ km and an apparent oblateness $\epsilon = 0.114 \pm 0.051$. Because the adopted rotation period of $7.964 \pm 0.001$ h, the orbital motion, and the light-time difference combine to yield a rotational-phase difference of only $5.8 \pm 6.5$ degrees between July 10 and August 26, the paper treats both events as observing essentially the same projected face and fits them jointly. For the June 12 event, a single chord shows an interruption of the occultation: a flux recovery inside the event that splits the chord into two segments separated by $11.38 \pm 2.98$ km, better described by a two-segment occultation model than a single one at 80 percent confidence. The paper concludes this gap is unexplained by a simple ellipsoid and is either a large topographic feature or evidence that Antenor is a close or contact binary, with more data required to decide.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the July and August occultations sampled nearly the same face of Antenor, so their chords can be combined into one ellipse; if the adopted 7.964-hour rotation period is wrong, or Antenor is more irregular than assumed, the combined shape would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the combined ellipse is correct, Antenor's projected equivalent diameter is about 101.7 km, a direct geometric value that can anchor thermal size estimates and albedo calculations for this L5 Trojan.
  • The improved ephemeris, with uncertainties below 15 milliarcseconds (about 46 km at Antenor's distance), shrinks the prediction corridor below the object's own radius, making future multi-chord occultation campaigns feasible with modest telescopes.
  • If the June 12 gap reflects a close or contact binary, the light-curve 'mutual event' deviations reported previously gain a plausible physical origin and Antenor becomes one of the best-studied candidate binary Trojans.
  • If the gap is instead a large topographical feature, Antenor's surface deviates from the fitted ellipsoid by roughly 11 km, a ~20 percent perturbation on a ~51 km radius that any shape or volume model must accommodate.
  • The geometric albedos of about $\rho_g = 0.046$ and $\rho_r = 0.050$ are consistent with a dark, primitive surface, reinforcing the link between this L5 Trojan and the low-albedo taxonomic class typical of the population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Antenor is a contact binary, the ellipse fitted to the July and August chords is a projection of two touching lobes, not a single body, so the fitted oblateness may encode the binary geometry rather than the true figure of one component.
  • The nearly identical rotational phase of the two multi-chord events was fortuitous; scheduling additional occultations at phase angles separated by tens of degrees would let the same chords technique be inverted into a 3D shape and pole orientation, and would directly test whether the June gap is a body-fixed feature.
  • A confirmed close/contact binary would change volume and thus bulk-density estimates for Antenor, since a two-lobe figure has a different volume than the single-ellipsoid assumption, with consequences for internal structure and collisional history.
  • Reducing one Trojan's ephemeris uncertainty by roughly a factor of two through km-level occultation astrometry shows how this technique could be scaled to other L4/L5 Trojans to improve mass and orbit determinations for the whole resonant population.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes three stellar occultations of the Jupiter Trojan (2207) Antenor observed in 2021. From the two multi-chord events on 2021 July 10 and August 26, the authors fit a single apparent ellipse under the assumption that Antenor presented nearly the same rotational phase at both epochs, obtaining an apparent equatorial radius of 54.30 ± 0.99 km, an apparent oblateness of 0.114 ± 0.051, and an area-equivalent radius of 50.86 ± 1.13 km. The single-chord event on 2021 June 12 shows a flux recovery in the middle of the occultation, which the authors interpret as either a large topographic feature or evidence that Antenor is a close/contact binary. The paper also reports astrometric positions with sub-milliarcsecond to few-milliarcsecond uncertainties, an improved NIMA ephemeris, and g- and r-band geometric albedos of about 0.046 and 0.050.

Significance. If the central result holds, this is one of the few multi-chord occultation size and shape measurements for a large Jupiter Trojan, providing an independent check on thermal estimates from NEOWISE and on the combined light-curve and occultation analysis of Hanuš et al. (2023). The reduction pipeline is standard (PRAIA and SORA), the Monte Carlo parameter uncertainties are appropriate, and the agreement with independent size estimates is a clear strength. The high-precision astrometry and improved ephemeris are also useful products. The main caveat is that the combined ellipse is conditional on a same-rotational-phase assumption whose uncertainty is not propagated into the reported shape parameters.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.1] The combined July/August ellipse fit rests on the statement that the two events observed approximately the same projected face of Antenor, based on a computed rotational-phase difference of 5.8 ± 6.5 degrees. This residual is not small compared with its uncertainty, yet the paper does not propagate the phase uncertainty into the fitted parameters (a', ε, Req, or the center offsets), nor does it report the separate July-only and August-only ellipse fits. The text even notes that the interpretation is conditional on Antenor not being highly irregular, while the June 12 event in §4.2 is argued to be consistent with large topographic structure or a contact binary. If the two events actually viewed perceptibly different limbs, the common ellipse fit could absorb that difference into biased center offsets, position angle, and oblateness. I ask the authors to quantify the sensitivity of the fitted parameters to a reasonable rotational-phase excursion (one to two sigma of the adopted period solution), either by fitting the two epochs separately or by adding a systematic error term derived from the phase uncertainty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / §4.1 / Table 4 / Conclusions] The abstract quotes an apparent oblateness of 0.144 ± 0.051, while §4.1, Table 4, and the Conclusions consistently give 0.114 ± 0.051, which is also the value implied by the quoted semi-major and semi-minor axes (54.30 km and 47.91 km). Please correct this inconsistency and verify which number was intended.
  2. [§4.1 vs Conclusions] The NEOWISE radius comparison is given as 48.8 ± 0.2 km in §4.1 and as 48.2 ± 0.2 km in the Conclusions; these should be checked against Grav et al. (2012) and made consistent.
  3. [Table 3] The 2021 August 26 Kelsey station is labeled 'Kelsey, USA' in Table 3 but is listed as being in Manitoba, Canada in Table 2; the label should be corrected for consistency.
  4. [§4.1] The sentence 'an angle of 3.86 (rotational phase of 0.01) degrees is found' is difficult to parse; please clarify whether this angle comes from the orbital motion changing the viewing geometry, and how it combines with the rotational-phase difference and the light-time correction.
  5. [§4.3] The text refers to 'Antenor's radius of 50.83 km', but Table 4 gives an area-equivalent radius of 50.86 ± 1.13 km; use a consistent rounded value.
  6. [§4.2] The term 'double-chord' in §4.2 and the Figure 5 caption could be confusing, since the June 12 observation is a single positive station whose light curve exhibits two separated segments; consider using 'two-segment chord' or a similar expression.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the main size/shape derivation; one minor, acknowledged use of the derived radius to locate the single June chord.

  1. other [Section 4.2, paragraph beginning 'Without further information on the object's shape...']
    "However, as a first-order estimation, we considered a circular solution of radius 50.86± 1.13 km as the value obtained in section 4.1, which resulted in two possible solutions as illustrated in figure 5."

    The distance of the single June chord from Antenor's center is not independently measured; it is obtained by assuming a circular limb whose radius is exactly the area-equivalent radius derived from the July/August ellipse fit (Section 4.1). Thus the inferred center distance and the preference between the two center solutions are conditioned on the paper's own headline size result rather than providing independent support for it. The authors explicitly acknowledge the degeneracy and state that without more information the center cannot be pinpointed, and the 11.38 km gap itself is measured directly from the light curve, so this step does not feed back into the July/August ellipse parameters. It is therefore a minor, transparent circularity rather than a load-bearing one.

full rationale

The main size and shape result is a direct geometric fit to occultation chords: immersion/emersion times are converted to sky-plane chords and a seven-parameter ellipse (shape plus per-event centers) is fitted by chi-square minimization. This is not tuned to a target result, and the paper cross-checks the resulting 50.86 km area-equivalent radius against independent thermal (Grav et al. 2012) and prior occultation (Hanuš et al. 2023) values. The use of the literature 7.964 h rotation period to justify combining the July and August events is an external assumption and a possible systematic risk (the 5.8±6.5° phase residual is not propagated into the shape uncertainties), but it is not a circular step. The June gap of 11.38±2.98 km is measured directly from the light curve. The one mildly circular element is that the paper uses its own Section 4.1 radius to place the degenerate June chord relative to the center; this is explicitly labeled a first-order estimation and is not used to derive the radius. The abstract/body oblateness discrepancy (0.144 vs 0.114) is a reporting inconsistency, not circularity. Overall, the derivation is essentially self-contained, with one minor acknowledged circular use.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central size result rests on treating Antenor's limb as an ellipse and on combining two occultations 47 days apart as if they observed the same rotational face. The albedo result rests on photometric phase-curve fits and an adopted light-curve amplitude. No new physical entities are introduced; the topographical-feature and contact-binary hypotheses are interpretations of the data.

free parameters (7)
  • Apparent semi-major axis a' = 54.30 +/- 0.99 km
    Fitted to chord endpoints from the July 10 and August 26, 2021 occultations; it is the central measurement, not a hidden adjustable constant.
  • Apparent oblateness epsilon = 0.114 +/- 0.051 (abstract states 0.144 +/- 0.051)
    Fitted simultaneously with a'; the abstract and body values are inconsistent, which is flagged as a red flag.
  • Position angle of the minor axis P = 159.3 +/- 10.3 deg
    Fitted ellipse orientation parameter.
  • July 10 center offsets (f0, g0) = (-12.14 +/- 1.21, -1.41 +/- 2.65) km
    Fitted center offsets for the July event.
  • August 26 center offsets (f0, g0) = (+6.23 +/- 2.73, -6.78 +/- 1.71) km
    Fitted center offsets for the August event.
  • HG1G2 phase-curve parameters (H_g, H_r, G1_g, G1_r, G2_g, G2_r) = H_g=9.159, H_r=8.674, G1_g=0.444, G1_r=0.094, G2_g=0.354, G2_r=0.615
    Fitted to ZTF photometry to derive absolute magnitudes and albedos; these do not affect the occultation size or shape.
  • Rotational light-curve amplitude A = 0.19 mag
    Adopted from Mottola et al. (2011) to simulate rotational phase in albedo uncertainties; affects uncertainty only, not the central albedo values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Antenor's limb is approximated by an ellipse in the sky plane.
    Section 3.2 states 'as a first approximation, we assume that the occulting body limb... can be approximated by an elliptical shape.'
  • domain assumption The July and August occultations observed approximately the same projected face of Antenor.
    Section 4.1 computes a rotational-phase difference of 5.8 +/- 6.5 degrees from the adopted 7.964 h period and states 'assuming that Antenor is not highly irregular.'
  • domain assumption Adopted rotation period 7.964 +/- 0.001 h from Stephens and Warner (2019) is correct.
    Used in the phase-matching calculation and in interpreting the June chord.
  • domain assumption Gaia EDR3 star positions and the NIMA ephemeris are accurate.
    Sections 2 and 4.3; standard inputs from external catalogs and orbit fits, not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption The SORA sharp-edge occultation model with Fresnel diffraction, stellar diameter, and integration time is appropriate.
    Section 3.1; robustness is tested by refitting two July 10 curves without Fresnel diffraction, with differences smaller than the uncertainties.
  • standard math The F-test is a valid basis for comparing single-box and double-box light-curve models.
    Section 4.2; the resulting confidence is only 80%, which the authors state is not strong evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Size and Shape of Jupiter Trojan (2207) Antenor from Stellar Occultations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDMVFE36

@misc{pith2026250719638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Size and Shape of Jupiter Trojan (2207) Antenor from Stellar Occultations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDMVFE36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19638}
}
read the original abstract

Librating around the Lagrange L5, the Jupiter's Trojan (2207) Antenor has been observed in recent years and its rotational light curve suggests it to be a very likely binary asteroid candidate. From stellar occultations, we report results from three events from Europe and North America to estimate the 2D apparent size and shape of Jupiter's Trojan (2207) Antenor. For the best-fitted ellipse in the sky-plane, we determined that Antenor has a 2D apparent equatorial radius of 54.30 +/- 0.99 km at the moment of the occultations, with an apparent oblateness of 0.144 +/- 0.051. We highlight the positive detection from 2021 June 12, which shows an intriguing feature that can be interpreted as a very large topographical feature (of about 11 km) of the body or that can provide further evidence that this object is, in fact, a close or contact binary. We also determine astrometric positions, with uncertainties of a few milliarcseconds (mas) for our preferred solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19638 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves for the occultation that occurred on 2021 July 10. The black line indicates the observed data, while the red line represents the modelled light curve. The cyan markers depict the residuals. The light curves are from (a) Caussols (France), (b) Botorrita (Spain), (c) Nice (France), and (d) Linhaceira (Portugal), with their respective observers listed in table 2 . km/s. The August 26 event, with the three … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curves for the 2021 August 26 occultation. The black line represents the observed data and the red line is the modeled light curve. The cyan markers are the residuals. The light curves are from (a) Kelsey (Canada), (b) Sentinel (USA), (c) Dateland (USA), and (d) Wickenburg (USA), whose respective observers are listed on table 2. One important aspect is that considering Antenor’s rotational period of 7.964 ± 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Chords in the sky plane relative to Antenor (in blue and green), and their uncertainties (in red). The black line is the best-fitted ellipse, and all the ellipses in the 1𝜎 region are in gray. The left panel (a) is the event on 2021 July 10, and the right panel (b) is the event on 2021 August 26. The dashed lines stand for the negative chords of the July occultation. The data for the negative observation of August 2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Double-chord observed for 2021 June 12 occultation. The figure presents a sequence of images showing the moment of the occultation by Antenor in 2021 June 12. The points (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) represents five moments of the occultation event. The moment when the st…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best fitted limb to the double-chord and ellipses within their respective 1𝜎 region. Two solutions can be obtained, one with the centre north of the chord (in black), and another to the south (in blue). The solution in blue is the preferred solution. 4.3. Astrometrical…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Difference between JPL ephemeris and NIMA solution in RA (left panel) and DEC (right panel) considering all data available on MPC and proprietary astrometrical positions obtained at OPD and OHP (cyan dots), plus data from GaiaFPR (blue dots). The gray region delimits t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Difference between JPL ephemeris and NIMA solution with the data presented in figure 6 plus the preferred astrometrical positions obtained in the project and presented in table 5 (yellow dots). Note that the gray region that delimits the 1-𝜎 uncertainty of the NIMA eph…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Apparent magnitude reduced to unit distance as a function of the Solar phase angle. Left plot: g filter. Right plot: r filter. Photometric measurements are from the Zwicky Transient Facility. The error bars have a total length of 2𝜎 and take into consideration the obse…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    O Mu obiWWwǦvRzǏUٽqu; d-W/R )wK 7N / 'm 0aB| ?O/ ?0zľcG wz XT| & gV v, ˾4aя v ˏ#ދd:[ H v8j>V8?

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2023 a , , 238, 105801, 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105801

    Assafin , M. 2023 a , , 238, 105801, 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105801

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    2023 b , , 239, 105816, 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105816

    ---. 2023 b , , 239, 105816, 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105816

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Bellm , E. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Graham , M. J., et al. 2019, , 131, 018002, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  7. [7]

    F., Marschall , R., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Vokrouhlick \'y , D

    Bottke , W. F., Marschall , R., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Vokrouhlick \'y , D. 2023, , 219, 83, 10.1007/s11214-023-01031-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-023-01031-4 2023

  8. [8]

    L., et al

    Braga-Ribas , F., Sicardy , B., Ortiz , J. L., et al. 2013, , 773, 26, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/26

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/26 2013

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2014, , 508, 72, 10.1038/nature13155

    ---. 2014, , 508, 72, 10.1038/nature13155

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2019, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Braga-Ribas , F., Crispim , A., Vieira-Martins , R., et al. 2019, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1365, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012024, 10.1088/1742-6596/1365/1/012024

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Olkin , C

    Buie , M. W., Olkin , C. B., Merline , W. J., et al. 2015, , 149, 113, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/113

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    G., & Lindegren , L

    Butkevich , A. G., & Lindegren , L. 2014, , 570, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424483

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, , 687, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449789

    Carry , B., Peloton , J., Le Montagner , R., Mahlke , M., & Berthier , J. 2024, , 687, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449789

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Magnier , E

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

    2016 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Desmars , J., Camargo , J. I. B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al. 2015, , 584, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526498

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    L., et al

    Dias-Oliveira , A., Sicardy , B., Ortiz , J. L., et al. 2017, , 154, 22, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa74e9

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Elliot , J. L. 1979, , 17, 445, 10.1146/annurev.aa.17.090179.002305

    1979

  10. [18]

    R., Sheppard , S

    Fern \'a ndez , Y. R., Sheppard , S. S., & Jewitt , D. C. 2003, , 126, 1563, 10.1086/377015

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Camargo , J

    Ferreira , F. S., Camargo , J. I. B., Boufleur , R., et al. 2025, , 540, 460, 10.1093/mnras/staf650

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    F., Tanga , P., Machado , P., & Corsaro , E

    Ferreira , J. F., Tanga , P., Machado , P., & Corsaro , E. 2020, , 641, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038190

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 3

    Gaia Collaboration . 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 3. Non-single stars (Gaia Collaboration, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/357. Originally published in: Astron. Astrophys., in prep. (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    R., Morgado , B

    Gomes-J \'u nior , A. R., Morgado , B. E., Benedetti-Rossi , G., et al. 2022, , 511, 1167, 10.1093/mnras/stac032

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Bauer , J

    Grav , T., Mainzer , A. K., Bauer , J. M., Masiero , J. R., & Nugent , C. R. 2012, , 759, 49, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/49

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, , 679, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346022

    Hanu s , J., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Nesvorn \'y , D., et al. 2023, , 679, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346022

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    W., & Harris , A

    Harris , A. W., & Harris , A. W. 1997, , 126, 450, 10.1006/icar.1996.5664

    1997

  18. [26]

    2022, , 515, 1346, 10.1093/mnras/stac1595

    Kilic , Y., Braga-Ribas , F., Kaplan , M., et al. 2022, , 515, 1346, 10.1093/mnras/stac1595

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Laher , R

    Masci , F. J., Laher , R. R., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Tsiganis , K., & Gomes , R

    Morbidelli , A., Levison , H. F., Tsiganis , K., & Gomes , R. 2005, , 435, 462, 10.1038/nature03540

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al

    Morgado , B. E., Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al. 2021, , 652, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141543

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, , 614, 239, 10.1038/s41586-022-05629-6

    ---. 2023, , 614, 239, 10.1038/s41586-022-05629-6

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, , 141, 170, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/170

    Mottola , S., Di Martino , M., Erikson , A., et al. 2011, , 141, 170, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/170

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    N., Cellino , A., et al

    Muinonen , K., Belskaya , I. N., Cellino , A., et al. 2010, , 209, 542, 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.04.003

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, JPL HORIZONS System

    NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory . 2025, JPL HORIZONS System. https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/

    2025

  26. [34]

    2013, , 768, 45, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/45

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., & Morbidelli , A. 2013, , 768, 45, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/45

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    Nicholson , S. B. 1961, Leaflet of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 8, 239

    1961

  28. [36]

    L., Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al

    Ortiz , J. L., Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al. 2012, , 491, 566, 10.1038/nature11597

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Powell, M. J. D. 1994, in Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 275, Advances in Optimization and Numerical Analysis, ed. S. Gomez & J.-P. Hennart (Dordrecht: Springer), 51--67, 10.1007/978-94-015-8330-5_4

    1994 doi

  30. [38]

    O., & Gil-Hutton , R

    Roig , F., Ribeiro , A. O., & Gil-Hutton , R. 2008, , 483, 911, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079177

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Braga-Ribas , F., Desmars , J., et al

    Rommel , F. L., Braga-Ribas , F., Desmars , J., et al. 2020, , 644, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039054

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Russell , H. N. 1916, , 43, 173, 10.1086/142244

    1916 doi

  33. [41]

    2000, , 145, 25, 10.1006/icar.1999.6316

    Sat \= o , I., S arounov \'a , L., & Fukushima , H. 2000, , 145, 25, 10.1006/icar.1999.6316

    2000

  34. [42]

    G., Slyusarev , I

    Shevchenko , V. G., Slyusarev , I. G., & Belskaya , I. N. 2014, , 49, 103, 10.1111/maps.12234

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Ortiz , J

    Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., Buie , M. W., Ortiz , J. L., & Roques , F. 2024, , 32, 6, 10.1007/s00159-024-00156-x

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Assafin , M., et al

    Sicardy , B., Ortiz , J. L., Assafin , M., et al. 2011, , 478, 493, 10.1038/nature10550

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    D., & Coley , D

    Stephens , R. D., & Coley , D. R. 2017, Minor Planet Bulletin, 44, 252

    2017

  38. [46]

    D., Pravec , P., Ku \`e \'a kov \'a , H., et al

    Stephens , R. D., Pravec , P., Ku \`e \'a kov \'a , H., et al. 2018, Minor Planet Bulletin, 45, 341

    2018

  39. [47]

    D., & Warner , B

    Stephens , R. D., & Warner , B. D. 2019, Minor Planet Bulletin, 46, 315

    2019

  40. [48]

    2023, in LPI Contributions, Vol

    Tanga , P., Berthier , J., Cellino , A., et al. 2023, in LPI Contributions, Vol. 2851, LPI Contributions, 2209

    2023

  41. [49]

    2013, , 87, 78, 10.1016/j.pss.2013.08.015

    Timerson , B., Brooks , J., Conard , S., et al. 2013, , 87, 78, 10.1016/j.pss.2013.08.015

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    L., Stubbs , C

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

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    G., et al

    Usui , F., Kuroda , D., M \"u ller , T. G., et al. 2011, , 63, 1117, 10.1093/pasj/63.5.1117

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    2009, , 199, 458, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.011

    Widemann , T., Sicardy , B., Dusser , R., et al. 2009, , 199, 458, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.011

    2009 doi

  45. [53]

    Willmer , C. N. A. 2018, , 236, 47, 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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