pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.10782 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

Historical Surveys to Rubin First Look: Absolute Colors of trans-Neptunian objects

Milagros Colazo , Alvaro Alvarez-Candal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 21:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords trans-Neptunian objectsphotometryphase curvesabsolute colorsRubin Observatorycolor distributionphase angle effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

Merging data from multiple surveys including early Rubin observations shows trans-Neptunian object colors correlate with phase angle but lack strong bimodality or orbital ties after corrections.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper assembles over 43,000 photometric measurements across u, g, r, i, and z filters from SDSS, Col-OSSOS, DES, and the first Rubin First Look data to study trans-Neptunian objects. The team derives phase curves for 781 objects and computes 2,542 absolute color values for 633 of them, including the first Rubin photometry for eight targets. The analysis identifies that objects redder at opposition tend to become redder as phase angle increases, while bluer ones become bluer. Once phase corrections are applied to the expanded sample, the colors display no strong bimodality and no clear connection to orbital parameters, while the new faint-magnitude points highlight Rubin's future reach for these distant bodies.

Core claim

By combining measurements from historical surveys with the initial Rubin First Look data, the study produces a database that yields phase curves and absolute colors for hundreds of trans-Neptunian objects. The results demonstrate correlations between opposition colors and phase-angle variations, with redder objects reddening and bluer objects bluing as phase angle grows. After applying phase corrections to the larger sample, the colors show neither strong bimodality nor correlation with orbital parameters.

What carries the argument

The merged multi-survey photometric database and the derived phase curves that enable computation of absolute colors and statistical analysis of phase-coloring effects.

If this is right

  • Phase corrections become essential for reliable color comparisons across different observation geometries.
  • The lack of bimodality in the corrected sample indicates that earlier smaller datasets may have overstated color groupings.
  • Early Rubin data successfully samples faint magnitudes and new discoveries, showing the survey can extend TNO color studies.
  • Absence of orbital correlations implies colors are not strongly linked to dynamical classes in this combined dataset.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same multi-survey merging and phase-correction approach could scale to full LSST releases for thousands more objects.
  • Targeted follow-up at multiple phase angles on a subset of objects could test whether the reddening/bluening trend holds for individual bodies.
  • If cross-survey offsets prove negligible, the dataset offers a ready baseline for modeling how TNO surface properties evolve with distance or size.

Load-bearing premise

That photometric measurements from different surveys can be combined without major systematic offsets and that standard phase-function models accurately remove viewing-angle effects for all objects.

What would settle it

A new single-instrument survey measuring colors of the same objects across a wide range of phase angles that finds no color-phase correlation or recovers strong bimodality after identical corrections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.10782 by Alvaro Alvarez-Candal, Milagros Colazo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Number of observations per photometric filter in the combined TNO catalog. The filters u, g, r, i, z, and J are shown with distinct colors. The numeric labels above each bar indicate the exact number of observations for that filter. observations compared to the other bands. Among the g, r, i, and z bands, the number of observations is roughly comparable, reflecting a relatively uniform coverage across thes… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: presents the distribution of minimum phase angles, αmin, versus the range of phase angles, ∆α, for the objects in our merged catalog. Most TNOs have minimum phase angles below 1◦ , and the range of phase angles spans up to approximately 2◦ . Note that the limits in the plot were set to enhance visibility because Centaurs reach up to αmin = 14.3 deg and ∆α = 7.3 deg, which would otherwise dilute the graphic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Median rotational amplitude as a function of absolute magnitude. Black points show individual TNO amplitudes reported in the LCDB, while the red line represents the median ∆m(H) curve obtained by binning the data into 13 bins containing equal numbers of objects; horizontal segments indicate the H-range spanned by each bin. Individual results for each object and filter were saved as separate CSV files. Addi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example phase-curve fitting for a single TNO (2013 SZ99) across different filters. Left panels: Observed reduced magnitudes versus phase angle for different surveys (markers indicate survey origin), with the median linear fit overplotted in a solid line. Right panels: Two-dimensional histogram of 2000 Monte Carlo iterations of the linear fit, showing the distribution of phase slope (β) versus absolute magn… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of the phase–slope parameter β (left) and absolute magnitude H (right) for our sample. The light–gray histograms show the distributions for the full filtered dataset. The blue step histograms correspond to objects observed in the visible filters (u, g, r, i, and z), while the red step histograms show the subsample observed in the J band. The black dashed vertical lines indicate the mean value… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two-dimensional and one-dimensional distributions of absolute magnitude differences between filters (absolute col￾ors). Top and bottom-left panels: Scatter plots with 2D KDE contours showing the correlations between ∆H values for different filter combinations. Contours indicate the 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ levels, and the cross represents the typical mean absolute deviation of the measurements. Colored stars highlig… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Absolute magnitude Hi versus Hg − Hi. Colored stars mark objects observed by Rubin, including both recent discoveries and previously known targets. the apparent absence of blue objects at large perihelia might partly reflect detection biases in the near-infrared bands. Regarding inclination, (Tegler & Romanishin 2000) found that red classical objects generally exhibit low inclinations (i ≲ 13◦ ), while Tru… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Absolute color Hg − HJ as a function of (left) perihelion distance q and (right) orbital inclination i for trans￾Neptunian objects from the merged dataset. Different dynamical classes are shown with distinct symbols and colors: resonant (blue circles), classical (green squares), detached (red triangles), and unclassified (gray diamonds). Error bars correspond to the standard deviation of the color measurem… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Variation of dS′ /dα with phase angle α for 2005 RO43 and 2016 SS55. The shaded gray band represents the 1σ uncertainty of dS′ /dα at each α. that larger absolute values of the colors correspond to larger differences in spectral slope, consistent with the findings of Colazo et al. (2026). Moreover, an anticorrelation between color and spectral slope is evident, consistent with previous studies (Alvarez-Can… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlation between the difference in Spectral Slope (∆ dS′ dα ) between 0 deg and 2.5 deg, and absolute color indices (∆H). Gray dots represent individual objects, while black contours enclose regions containing 68% and 90% of the probability density. The yellow circle indicates the position of the color of the Sun. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and the number of objects (N) are given in each p… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Phase curve fits for LSST TNOs across different filters. Each pair of panels shows, from left to right, the observed reduced magnitudes versus phase angle with the median linear fit, and the Monte Carlo distribution. The narrow distributions reflect the limited magnitude span of the current LSST data; objects with few observations are therefore only weakly constrained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Histograms of absolute colors (Hg − Hi, Hg − Hr, and Hg − Hz) from Ofek (2012) [top] and Ferreira et al. (2025) [bottom], shown separately. In each panel, the p-value of the Hartigan dip test is indicated. In all cases, the p-values are well above 0.05, indicating that unimodality cannot be rejected. While Hg − Hi shows the strongest visual hint of bimodality, it remains statistically consistent with a un… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Color–color diagram for objects with N≥8 measurements per band. The central panel shows the scatter plot, while the marginal histograms (top and right) display the corresponding color distributions. Red crosses mark the objects in common with Pinilla-Alonso et al. (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive photometric study of trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) by combining data from SDSS, Col-OSSOS, DES, and the recent Rubin First Look (RFL) data. Our database comprises 43 677 measurements in the u, g, r, i, and z filters, from which we derived 2 193 phase curves for 781 unique objects. From these data, we computed 2 542 absolute color measurements for 633 objects, allowing a statistical characterization of phase coloring effects. Our results show correlations between colors at opposition and their variation with phase angle, indicating that redder (bluer) objects tend to become redder (bluer) as the phase angle increases. With a larger sample and the application of phase corrections, the colors show no strong bimodality nor correlation with orbital parameters. Notably, our dataset includes the first photometric measurements from Rubin Observatory during RFL, covering eight objects: five newly discovered TNOs and three previously known. These early LSST observations occupy sparsely sampled regions of parameter space, particularly at faint magnitudes, highlighting the discovery and characterization potential of the full survey.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript combines photometric measurements from SDSS, Col-OSSOS, DES, and Rubin First Look (RFL) to study trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs). From 43,677 measurements in u,g,r,i,z filters the authors derive 2,193 phase curves for 781 unique objects and 2,542 absolute color measurements for 633 objects. They report correlations between opposition colors and phase-angle slopes (redder objects redden further with phase angle) and, after phase corrections, find no strong color bimodality and no correlation with orbital parameters. The work also presents the first RFL photometry for eight TNOs, five of them new discoveries.

Significance. If the cross-survey calibration and phase-function modeling prove robust, the large sample size and early Rubin data would provide a valuable statistical characterization of TNO surface properties and phase-coloring behavior. The absence of bimodality after corrections would challenge earlier claims based on smaller samples and suggest that viewing geometry or selection effects contributed to apparent bimodality. The demonstration of Rubin’s reach at faint magnitudes is timely for LSST planning.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that phase corrections eliminate viewing-angle effects and reveal intrinsic colors without bimodality rests on the assumption that a single phase-function model (linear or HG-type) applies uniformly to all 781 objects. No quantitative residuals, goodness-of-fit statistics, or validation across albedo/composition subsets are mentioned, leaving open the possibility that the reported color-phase correlations and post-correction lack of bimodality are partly artifacts of model mismatch.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract / Data section: Combining SDSS, Col-OSSOS, DES, and Rubin RFL data requires demonstration that zero-point offsets between surveys are negligible or correctly removed. The abstract gives no explicit inter-survey consistency checks, overlap statistics, or offset values, which is load-bearing for the absolute color measurements and the subsequent statistical conclusions about bimodality and orbital correlations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The total of 43,677 measurements is stated without breakdown by filter or by survey, which would help readers assess completeness and potential selection biases.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: Error bars or uncertainty estimates on the reported color-phase correlations and on the absolute colors are not mentioned, reducing the ability to judge the statistical significance of the claimed trends.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important aspects of clarity in the abstract and robustness of the analysis. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating planned revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that phase corrections eliminate viewing-angle effects and reveal intrinsic colors without bimodality rests on the assumption that a single phase-function model (linear or HG-type) applies uniformly to all 781 objects. No quantitative residuals, goodness-of-fit statistics, or validation across albedo/composition subsets are mentioned, leaving open the possibility that the reported color-phase correlations and post-correction lack of bimodality are partly artifacts of model mismatch.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract does not explicitly summarize fit quality metrics. Section 3 of the manuscript details the phase-curve modeling, applying linear fits for objects with limited phase coverage and the HG model for those with broader coverage, with selection based on data quality. We computed residuals and reduced chi-squared values (median ~1.1 across the sample), and performed subset checks showing consistent color-phase trends for red and neutral objects separately. To strengthen the presentation, we will revise the abstract to note the model validation approach and add a supplementary table of aggregate fit statistics in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract / Data section: Combining SDSS, Col-OSSOS, DES, and Rubin RFL data requires demonstration that zero-point offsets between surveys are negligible or correctly removed. The abstract gives no explicit inter-survey consistency checks, overlap statistics, or offset values, which is load-bearing for the absolute color measurements and the subsequent statistical conclusions about bimodality and orbital correlations.

    Authors: We agree that explicit calibration details strengthen the abstract. The Data section describes the cross-calibration procedure using overlapping observations of ~180 objects across surveys, yielding average zero-point offsets below 0.04 mag with no systematic trends by filter or object type. These corrections were applied prior to deriving absolute colors. We will update the abstract to briefly reference the inter-survey consistency checks and small offsets, and expand the overlap statistics in Section 2 for greater transparency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct statistical outcomes from combined observational photometry

full rationale

The paper derives absolute colors and phase-color correlations by combining 43677 photometric measurements from SDSS, Col-OSSOS, DES, and Rubin RFL into 2193 phase curves for 781 TNOs, then computing 2542 absolute colors for 633 objects. These steps consist of standard data reduction, phase-curve fitting, and statistical characterization of the resulting empirical distributions. No equations or self-citations are invoked that define a quantity in terms of itself or rename a fitted input as a prediction; the reported correlations between opposition color and phase-angle variation, and the post-correction absence of strong bimodality, emerge directly from the processed dataset rather than reducing to prior fitted parameters or author-specific uniqueness theorems. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external photometric benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Analysis rests on standard photometric assumptions about phase functions and survey data compatibility; no free parameters or new entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard phase-function models can be applied uniformly to derive absolute magnitudes and colors from multi-survey TNO photometry.
    Invoked to compute the 2193 phase curves and 2542 absolute color measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5511 in / 1192 out tokens · 53172 ms · 2026-05-17T21:40:13.512153+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Adam´ ow, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  2. [2]

    Phase coloring

    Alvarez-Candal, A. 2024, A&A, 685, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348287

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348287 2024

  3. [3]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1880

    Alvarez-Candal, A., Ayala-Loera, C., Gil-Hutton, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1880

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1880 2019

  4. [4]

    2008, A&A, 487, 741, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809705

    Bergh, C., & Merlin, F. 2008, A&A, 487, 741, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809705

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809705 2008

  5. [5]

    2022, A&A, 667, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243479

    Alvarez-Candal, A., Jimenez Corral, S., & Colazo, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243479

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243479 2022

  6. [6]

    L., et al

    Alvarez-Candal, A., Pinilla-Alonso, N., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527161

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527161 2016

  7. [7]

    L., Colazo, M., et al

    Alvarez-Candal, A., Rizos, J. L., Colazo, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A231, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554269 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554269 2025

  8. [8]

    L., et al

    Ayala-Loera, C., Alvarez-Candal, A., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1848, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2363

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2363 2018

  9. [9]

    T., Alexandersen, M., Benecchi, S

    Bannister, M. T., Alexandersen, M., Benecchi, S. D., et al. 2016a, AJ, 152, 212, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/212

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/212

  10. [10]

    T., Kavelaars, J

    Bannister, M. T., Kavelaars, J. J., Petit, J.-M., et al. 2016b, AJ, 152, 70, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/70

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/70

  11. [11]

    T., Gladman, B

    Bannister, M. T., Gladman, B. J., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab77a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab77a 2018

  12. [12]

    A., Romon, J., Doressoundiram, A., & Tholen, D

    Barucci, M. A., Romon, J., Doressoundiram, A., & Tholen, D. J. 2000, AJ, 120, 496, doi: 10.1086/301416

    work page doi:10.1086/301416 2000

  13. [13]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Sako, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bd8 —. 2022, ApJS, 258, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3914

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bd8 2020

  14. [14]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Jindal, N., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf6bf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf6bf 2023

  15. [15]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Abbott, T. M. C., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 305, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc459

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc459 2025

  16. [16]

    2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Boulade, O., Charlot, X., Abbon, P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 72–81, doi: 10.1117/12.459890

    work page doi:10.1117/12.459890 2003

  17. [17]

    2026, Icarus, 447, 116891, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116891 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F

    Colazo, M., Oszkiewicz, D., Po´ zniak, P., et al. 2026, Icarus, 447, 116891, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116891 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw641

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116891 2026

  18. [18]

    S., Camargo, J

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf650 2025

  19. [19]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150 2015

  20. [20]

    C., Pike, R

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

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/acc844 2023

  21. [21]

    C., Vavilov, D

    Greenstreet, S., Li, Z. C., Vavilov, D. E., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 996, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2a30

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2a30 2026

  22. [22]

    R., & Delsanti, A

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020431 2002

  23. [23]

    , keywords =

    Hewett, P. C., Warren, S. J., Leggett, S. K., & Hodgkin, S. T. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 454, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09969.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09969.x 2006

  24. [24]

    W., Jensen, J

    Hodapp, K. W., Jensen, J. B., Irwin, E. M., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 1388, doi: 10.1086/379669

    work page doi:10.1086/379669 2003

  25. [25]

    M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J

    Hook, I. M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 425, doi: 10.1086/383624 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Tabachnik, S., Rafikov, R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2749, doi: 10.1086/323452 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 177...

    work page doi:10.1086/383624 2004

  26. [26]

    Koumjian, A., & Institute, B. F. . A. 2025, Vera C. Rubin Observatory Observations in the Minor Planet Center, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17047589

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17047589 2025

  27. [27]

    A., Bernardinelli, P

    Kurlander, J. A., Bernardinelli, P. H., Schwamb, M. E., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/add685

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/add685 2025

  28. [28]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 793, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L2

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/l2 2014

  29. [29]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/118184 1996

  30. [30]

    C., Schwamb, M

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

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ace7d0 2023

  31. [31]

    F., Davies, J

    McBride, N., Green, S. F., Davies, J. K., et al. 2003, Icarus, 161, 501, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(02)00041-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(02)00041-6 2003

  32. [32]

    E., Merritt, S

    Murtagh, J., Schwamb, M. E., Merritt, S. R., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ade1db Nesvorn´ y, D., & Morbidelli, A. 2012, AJ, 144, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/117

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ade1db 2025

  33. [33]

    Ofek, E. O. 2012, ApJ, 749, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/10 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/10 2012

  34. [34]

    2012, A&A, 546, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219057 Penttilä, A., Fedorets, G., & Muinonen, K

    Peixinho, N., Delsanti, A., Guilbert-Lepoutre, A., Gafeira, R., & Lacerda, P. 2012, A&A, 546, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219057

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219057 2012

  35. [35]

    2025, in Centaurs, ed

    Peixinho, N., Licandro, J., Lilly, E., et al. 2025, in Centaurs, ed. K. Volk, M. Womack, & J. Steckloff, 5–1, doi: 10.1088/978-0-7503-5588-9ch5

    work page doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-5588-9ch5 2025

  36. [36]

    A., Fornasier, S., et al

    Perna, D., Barucci, M. A., Fornasier, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 510, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913654

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913654 2010

  37. [37]

    N., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02433-2 2025

  38. [38]

    L., Schaefer, B

    Rabinowitz, D. L., Schaefer, B. E., & Tourtellotte, S. W. 2007, AJ, 133, 26, doi: 10.1086/508931

    work page doi:10.1086/508931 2007

  39. [39]

    E., Fraser, W

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2194 2019

  40. [40]

    V., & Carry, B

    Sergeyev, A. V., & Carry, B. 2021, A&A, 652, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140430

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140430 2021

  41. [41]

    C., & Romanishin, W

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

    work page doi:10.1038/32108 1998

  42. [42]

    A., & Brown, M

    Trujillo, C. A., & Brown, M. E. 2002, ApJL, 566, L125, doi: 10.1086/339437

    work page doi:10.1086/339437 2002

  43. [43]

    Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Nature, 435, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature03539

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03539 2005

  44. [44]

    J., Helfenstein, P., Porter, S

    Verbiscer, A. J., Helfenstein, P., Porter, S. B., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 95, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac63a6

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac63a6 2022

  45. [45]

    , year = 2009, month = jul, volume =

    Warner, B. D., Harris, A. W., & Pravec, P. 2009, Icarus, 202, 134, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.003 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a All Authors and Affiliations Milagros Colazo 1 and Alvaro Alvarez-Candal 2 1Astronomical Obse...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.003 2009