pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16223 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Degradation mechanisms and efficiency of heavily cratered regions on Ceres

Reem Vitale , Masatoshi Hirabayashi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords Cerescrater equilibriumimpact degradationDawn Framing Cameraasteroid surfacecrater countingsolar system bombardment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ceres reaches crater equilibrium at higher densities than the Moon because degradation per impact is comparable or greater.

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

The paper examines eight heavily cratered sites on Ceres using Dawn Framing Camera images and applies an extended crater equilibrium model to their size-frequency distributions. These sites show cumulative slopes slightly shallower than -2 at small diameters, indicating that crater production and erasure have reached balance. Model fits assuming negligible ejecta blanketing find that the amount of degradation per new crater on Ceres is comparable to or higher than on the Moon. When this per-crater efficiency is combined with Ceres much higher impact flux, the overall degradation rate turns out to be substantially elevated compared with the Moon even though the equilibrium crater density is greater.

Core claim

The crater equilibrium state on Ceres resembles that on the Moon but is denser. Performing model fitting with crater counting data under negligible ejecta blanketing for crater erasure, we further show that crater degradation per single crater production on Ceres is comparable to or higher than that on the Moon. Combining this finding and the impact flux on Ceres, which is orders of magnitude higher than that on the Moon, suggests that crater degradation is much more elevated on Ceres than on the Moon, despite its denser crater population.

What carries the argument

The extended crater equilibrium model fitted to cumulative size-frequency distributions from Dawn images at eight sites, which isolates degradation efficiency per crater under the assumption of negligible ejecta blanketing.

Load-bearing premise

Ejecta blanketing from impacts has negligible influence on crater erasure, so the observed equilibrium can be attributed to other impact-driven degradation processes.

What would settle it

New high-resolution images that directly measure substantial crater erasure by ejecta deposits would show the assumption is invalid and force revision of the derived degradation rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16223 by Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Reem Vitale.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Locations of eight selected crater-counting regions in cyan. Ceres global basemap generated from the Dawn Framing Camera. Data source: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA. The mosaic map is available at the DLR Dawn GIS data portal: https://dawngis.dlr.de/data/Ceres/mosaic ceres.php et al. 2016). Some projected imagery introduces minor shape distortion near image margins, but QGIS minimizes such effects thro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observed and fitted crater size-frequency distributions (CSFDs) for eight counting areas on Ceres. Each panel corresponds to each reference: a. Reference 1 (Ac-2); b. Reference 6 (Ac-2); c. Reference 2 (Ac-6); d. Reference 7 (Ac-6); e. Reference 3 (Ac-8); and f. Reference 8 (Ac-8); g. Reference 4 (Ac-12); and h. Reference 5 (Ac-12). Black circles denote the empirical data from our crater counting, blue and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mapped crater population for Reference 1 (Ac-2). Dawn Framing Camera image ID 16063122646 centered at 42.32◦ latitude and 53.76◦ longitude, covering an area of 1,976 km2 . A total of 2,806 craters were identified and measured. The grayscale mosaic used for crater identification is shown with all craters included in the statistical analysis outlined in blue. Crater diameters were measured rim-to-rim and use… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mapped crater population for Reference 2 (Ac-6). Dawn Framing Camera image ID 16127014244 centered at 18.83◦ latitude and 38.97◦ longitude, covering an area of 1,412 km2 . A total of 1,800 craters were identified and measured. The grayscale mosaic used for crater identification is shown with all craters included in the statistical analysis outlined in blue. Crater diameters were measured rim-to-rim and use… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mapped crater population for Reference 3 (Ac-8). Dawn Framing Camera image ID 16167094521 centered at −22.22◦ latitude and 148.08◦ longitude, covering an area of 1,597 km2 . A total of 1,109 craters were identified and measured. The grayscale mosaic used for crater identification is shown with all craters included in the statistical analysis outlined in blue. Crater diameters were measured rim-to-rim and u… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mapped crater population for Reference 4 (Ac-12). Dawn Framing Camera image ID 16058131352 centered at −25.66◦ latitude and 101.64◦ longitude, covering an area of 1,508 km2 . A total of 1,095 craters were identified and measured. The grayscale mosaic used for crater identification is shown with all craters included in the statistical analysis outlined in blue. Crater diameters were measured rim-to-rim and … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mapped crater population for Reference 5 (Ac-12). Dawn Framing Camera image ID 16109133002 centered at −24.12◦ latitude and 146.91◦ longitude, covering an area of 1,634 km2 . A total of 1,570 craters were identified and measured. The grayscale mosaic used for crater identification is shown with all craters included in the statistical analysis outlined in blue. Crater diameters were measured rim-to-rim and … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mapped crater population for Reference 6 (Ac-2). Dawn Framing Camera image ID 16119125155 centered at 53.60◦ latitude and 17.72◦ longitude, covering an area of 2,021 km2 . A total of 1,521 craters were identified and measured. The grayscale mosaic used for crater identification is shown with all craters included in the statistical analysis outlined in blue. Crater diameters were measured rim-to-rim and use… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mapped crater population for Reference 7 (Ac-6). Dawn Framing Camera image ID 16112065337 centered at −13.19◦ latitude and 72.52◦ longitude, covering an area of 1,430 km2 . A total of 1,767 craters were identified and measured. The grayscale mosaic used for crater identification is shown with all craters included in the statistical analysis outlined in blue. Crater diameters were measured rim-to-rim and us… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mapped crater population for Reference 8 (Ac-8). Dawn Framing Camera image ID 16127072636 centered at 0.50◦ latitude and 171.02◦ longitude, covering an area of 1,290 km2 . A total of 1,804 craters were identified and measured. The grayscale mosaic used for crater identification is shown with all craters included in the statistical analysis outlined in blue. Crater diameters were measured rim-to-rim and us… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ceres, the dwarf planet in the main asteroid belt, hosts heavily cratered surfaces where craters are continuously eroded mainly due to impact bombardment with a limited influence by non-impact processes. Over continuous bombardment, such regions experience both crater production and erasure, eventually ceasing the crater population growth. This end-state, known as crater equilibrium, provides key information to constrain the mechanisms of crater degradation. The present study applies a recently extended crater equilibrium model to the crater equilibrium features and constrains the conditions for crater degradation on Ceres. We select eight heavily cratered sites as our test locations across four quadrangles (two sites per quadrangle) and collect crater counts using Dawn Framing Camera imagery. All sites exhibit cumulative size-frequency distributions (CSFD) with slopes slightly shallower than a power law of -2 at diameters below a few kilometers, strongly suggesting that the tested sites are at crater equilibrium. Our results show that the crater equilibrium state on Ceres resembles that on the Moon but is denser. Performing model fitting with crater counting data under negligible ejecta blanketing for crater erasure, we further show that crater degradation per single crater production on Ceres is comparable to or higher than that on the Moon. Combining this finding and the impact flux on Ceres, which is orders of magnitude higher than that on the Moon, suggests that crater degradation is much more elevated on Ceres than on the Moon, despite its denser crater population.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes crater size-frequency distributions (CSFDs) from Dawn Framing Camera imagery at eight heavily cratered sites on Ceres (two per quadrangle across four quadrangles). It reports cumulative slopes slightly shallower than -2 at diameters below a few km, interprets this as crater equilibrium, fits an extended equilibrium model to the counts under the assumption of negligible ejecta blanketing, and concludes that degradation efficiency per crater production is comparable to or higher than on the Moon; combined with Ceres' much higher impact flux, this implies substantially elevated overall degradation rates on Ceres despite its denser crater population.

Significance. If the model assumptions and fits hold, the work supplies a quantitative comparison of impact-driven degradation efficiency between Ceres and the Moon, using multi-site data to constrain surface evolution on a main-belt dwarf planet. The explicit use of an extended equilibrium model and the flux scaling step are strengths that could inform regolith and crater-retention models for low-gravity bodies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model fitting and results] Model-fitting section (and abstract statement on 'negligible ejecta blanketing'): Setting ejecta blanketing to zero directly determines the fitted degradation-efficiency parameter. A sensitivity analysis or quantitative justification is required showing that ejecta contributions remain negligible on Ceres given its lower gravity and regolith properties; otherwise the inferred per-crater degradation rate (and the subsequent claim of comparability or elevation relative to the Moon) could decrease substantially.
  2. [Crater counting and CSFDs] Crater-counting and CSFD analysis (likely §4 or methods): The manuscript does not provide the raw crater counts, diameter binning details, or formal uncertainties on the reported CSFD slopes. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the equilibrium interpretation or the model-fit results are robust to reasonable choices in site boundaries, minimum diameter, or binning.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'two sites per quadrangle' but does not name the quadrangles or give their locations; adding this would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have incorporated revisions to provide additional justification, data transparency, and sensitivity tests as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model fitting and results] Model-fitting section (and abstract statement on 'negligible ejecta blanketing'): Setting ejecta blanketing to zero directly determines the fitted degradation-efficiency parameter. A sensitivity analysis or quantitative justification is required showing that ejecta contributions remain negligible on Ceres given its lower gravity and regolith properties; otherwise the inferred per-crater degradation rate (and the subsequent claim of comparability or elevation relative to the Moon) could decrease substantially.

    Authors: We agree that the assumption of negligible ejecta blanketing is a key modeling choice that influences the fitted degradation-efficiency parameter. Our original justification rested on Ceres' low gravity (~0.029 m/s²) and thin regolith, which disperses ejecta over wide areas and minimizes local blanketing in the selected heavily cratered sites. To strengthen this, we have added a quantitative sensitivity analysis in the revised manuscript (new subsection in Section 5). We re-fit the extended equilibrium model while varying the ejecta blanketing efficiency from 0 to 0.3 and show that the inferred per-crater degradation rate on Ceres remains comparable to or higher than the lunar value across this range, with the overall conclusion unchanged. We have also expanded the methods discussion to include supporting references on Ceres regolith properties and impactor velocities. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Crater counting and CSFDs] Crater-counting and CSFD analysis (likely §4 or methods): The manuscript does not provide the raw crater counts, diameter binning details, or formal uncertainties on the reported CSFD slopes. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the equilibrium interpretation or the model-fit results are robust to reasonable choices in site boundaries, minimum diameter, or binning.

    Authors: We fully agree that raw data, binning details, and uncertainties are necessary for verification and reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we have added a new appendix (Appendix A) that tabulates all raw crater diameters and counts for the eight sites. We now explicitly describe the binning (logarithmic bins with factor 2^{1/4}), the minimum reliable diameter (0.5 km set by image resolution), and the site boundary definitions tied to the quadrangle maps. Formal Poisson uncertainties have been added to all CSFD plots and slope fits. We have also included a brief robustness subsection reporting that the equilibrium slopes and model results remain consistent when varying minimum diameter (0.3–1 km) and site boundaries within reasonable limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: data-driven fit under explicit assumption yields independent comparison

full rationale

The derivation fits an extended equilibrium model directly to eight observed CSFDs from Ceres sites, obtaining a degradation efficiency parameter under the stated assumption of negligible ejecta blanketing. This parameter is compared to independent lunar literature values and then scaled by an external impact-flux ratio. No claimed result reduces by construction to the input counts or to a self-citation; the model application remains falsifiable against the crater data and does not rename or smuggle prior results as new predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the extended crater equilibrium model, the assumption that ejecta blanketing is negligible, and the accuracy of the crater counts at the eight selected sites.

free parameters (1)
  • degradation efficiency per crater
    Obtained by fitting the equilibrium model to the observed CSFDs under the negligible-ejecta-blanketing assumption.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The extended crater equilibrium model correctly captures the balance between crater production and erasure on Ceres when ejecta blanketing is negligible.
    Invoked when performing model fitting to the crater counting data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5553 in / 1344 out tokens · 36510 ms · 2026-05-10T07:14:37.380411+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

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Ciarniello, M., et al

    Ammannito, E., DeSanctis, M. C., Ciarniello, M., et al. 2016, Science, 353, aaf4279, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4279

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf4279 2016

  2. [2]

    L., Conway, S., Jabaud, B., Tobie, G., & Artoni, R

    Becq, N. L., Conway, S., Jabaud, B., Tobie, G., & Artoni, R. 2025, Icarus, 428, 116353, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116353

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116353 2025

  3. [3]

    B., McEwen, A

    Bierhaus, E. B., McEwen, A. S., Robbins, S. J., et al. 2018, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 53, 638, doi: 10.1111/maps.13057

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13057 2018

  4. [4]

    T., Raymond, C

    Bland, M. T., Raymond, C. A., Schenk, P. M., et al. 2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 538, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2743

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo2743 2016

  5. [5]

    Icarus, 179, 63-94

    Bottke, W. F., Durda, D. D., Nesvorn´ y, D., et al. 2005, Icarus, 179, 63, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.017 2005

  6. [6]

    L., Schmidt, B

    Buczkowski, D. L., Schmidt, B. E., Williams, D. A., et al. 2016, Science, 353, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4332

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf4332 2016

  7. [7]

    L., Scully, J

    Buczkowski, D. L., Scully, J. E., Quick, L., et al. 2019, Icarus, 320, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.012 2019

  8. [8]

    C., Hesse, M

    Castillo-Rogez, J. C., Hesse, M. A., Formisano, M., et al. 2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 1963, doi: 10.1029/2018GL081473

    work page doi:10.1029/2018gl081473 2019

  9. [9]

    T., Schmidt, B

    Chilton, H. T., Schmidt, B. E., Duarte, K., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124, 1512, doi: 10.1029/2018JE005634

    work page doi:10.1029/2018je005634 2019

  10. [10]

    B., Tosi, F., et al

    Combe, J.-P., McCord, T. B., Tosi, F., et al. 2016, Science, 353, aaf3010, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf3010

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf3010 2016

  11. [11]

    S., Ghent, R

    Costello, E. S., Ghent, R. R., Hirabayashi, M., & Lucey, P. G. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006172, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006172

    work page doi:10.1029/2019je006172 2020

  12. [12]

    S., Ghent, R

    Costello, E. S., Ghent, R. R., & Lucey, P. G. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL092960, doi: 10.1029/2021GL092960 Crater Analysis Techniques Working Group. 1979, Icarus, 37, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90009-5

    work page doi:10.1029/2021gl092960 2021

  13. [13]

    D., Schmidt, B

    Duarte, K. D., Schmidt, B. E., Chilton, H. T., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124, 3329, doi: 10.1029/2018JE005673

    work page doi:10.1029/2018je005673 2019

  14. [14]

    Hughson, K. H. G., & Park, R. S. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124, 14, doi: 10.1029/2018JE005813

    work page doi:10.1029/2018je005813 2019

  15. [15]

    I., & Thomson, B

    Fassett, C. I., & Thomson, B. J. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 119, 2255, doi: 10.1002/2014JE004698

    work page doi:10.1002/2014je004698 2014

  16. [16]

    I., Beyer, R

    Fassett, C. I., Beyer, R. A., Deutsch, A. N., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 127, doi: 10.1029/2022JE007510

    work page doi:10.1029/2022je007510 2022

  17. [17]

    C., et al

    Formisano, M., Federico, C., De Sanctis, M. C., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 123, 2445, doi: 10.1029/2017JE005417

    work page doi:10.1029/2017je005417 2018

  18. [18]

    2018, Icarus, 316, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.015

    Frigeri, A., Schmedemann, N., Williams, D., et al. 2018, Icarus, 316, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.015 2018

  19. [19]

    R., Ermakov, A

    Fu, R. R., Ermakov, A. I., Marchi, S., et al. 2017, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 476, 153, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.07.053

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2017.07.053 2017

  20. [20]

    2018, Icarus, 302, 296, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.028

    Gou, S., Yue, Z., Di, K., & Liu, Z. 2018, Icarus, 302, 296, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.028 2018

  21. [21]

    Hartmann, W. K. 1984, Icarus, 60, 56, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90138-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(84)90138-6 1984

  22. [22]

    2023, Planetary and Space Science, 231, 105687, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105687

    Heyer, T., Iqbal, W., Oetting, A., et al. 2023, Planetary and Space Science, 231, 105687, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105687

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2023.105687 2023

  23. [23]

    2016, Science, 353, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4759

    Hiesinger, H., Marchi, S., Schmedemann, N., et al. 2016, Science, 353, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4759

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf4759 2016

  24. [24]

    I., Costello, E

    Hirabayashi, M., Fassett, C. I., Costello, E. S., & Minton, D. A. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 250, doi: 10.3847/psj/ad8883

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad8883 2024

  25. [25]

    A., Fassett, C

    Hirabayashi, M., Howl, B. A., Fassett, C. I., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 123, 527, doi: 10.1002/2017JE005377

    work page doi:10.1002/2017je005377 2018

  26. [26]

    A., & Fassett, C

    Hirabayashi, M., Minton, D. A., & Fassett, C. I. 2017, Icarus, 289, 134–143, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.12.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.12.032 2017

  27. [27]

    Hughson, K. H. G., Russell, C. T., Schmidt, B. E., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124, 1819, doi: 10.1029/2018JE005666

    work page doi:10.1029/2018je005666 2019

  28. [28]

    A., Neukum, G., Bottke, W

    Ivanov, B. A., Neukum, G., Bottke, W. F., & Hartmann, W. K. 2002, The Comparison of Size-Frequency Distributions of Impact Craters and Asteroids and the Planetary Cratering Rate (The University of Arizona Press), 89–102, doi: 10.2307/j.ctv1v7zdn4.13

    work page doi:10.2307/j.ctv1v7zdn4.13 2002

  29. [29]

    2018, Icarus, 316, 84, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.09.014 Kurt Menke, G., Smith Jr, R., Pirelli, L., John Van Hoesen, G., et al

    Krohn, K., Jaumann, R., Otto, K., et al. 2018, Icarus, 316, 84, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.09.014 Kurt Menke, G., Smith Jr, R., Pirelli, L., John Van Hoesen, G., et al. 2016, Mastering QGIS (Packt Publishing Ltd)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.09.014 2018

  30. [30]

    E., Byrne, S., Sch¨ orghofer, N., et al

    Landis, M. E., Byrne, S., Sch¨ orghofer, N., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 122, 1984, doi: 10.1002/2017JE005335

    work page doi:10.1002/2017je005335 2017

  31. [31]

    I., Raymond, C

    Marchi, S., Ermakov, A. I., Raymond, C. A., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, doi: 10.1038/ncomms12257

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms12257 2016

  32. [32]

    S., & Bierhaus, E

    McEwen, A. S., & Bierhaus, E. B. 2006, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34, 535, doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125018

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125018 2006

  33. [33]

    Melosh, H. J. 1989, in Oxford Monographs on Geology and

    work page 1989

  34. [34]

    A., Crown, D., et al

    Mest, S., Williams, D. A., Crown, D., et al. 2016, in Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU General Assembly 2016 25

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    A., Fassett, C

    Minton, D. A., Fassett, C. I., Hirabayashi, M., Howl, B. A., & Richardson, J. E. 2019, Icarus, 326, 63, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.02.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.02.021 2019

  36. [36]

    A., & Malhotra, R

    Minton, D. A., & Malhotra, R. 2010, Icarus, 207, 744, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.12.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.12.008 2010

  37. [37]

    A., Richardson, J

    Minton, D. A., Richardson, J. E., & Fassett, C. I. 2015, Icarus, 247, 172, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.10.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.10.018 2015

  38. [38]

    2022, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

    Fassett, C. 2022, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1391, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1391

    Tsiganis, K. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1391, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1391

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1391 2010

  40. [40]

    2016,, Dataset ID: DAWN-A-FC2-3-RDR-CERES-IMAGES-V1.0 NASA Planetary Data System

    Nathues, A., Sierks, H., Gutierrez-Marques, P., et al. 2016,, Dataset ID: DAWN-A-FC2-3-RDR-CERES-IMAGES-V1.0 NASA Planetary Data System

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/112

    Nathues, A., Platz, T., Thangjam, G., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/112

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/112 2017

  42. [42]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 794, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1146-8 Nesvorn´ y, D., Roig, F., & Bottke, W

    Nathues, A., Schmedemann, N., Thangjam, G., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 794, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1146-8 Nesvorn´ y, D., Roig, F., & Bottke, W. F. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/103

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1146-8 2020

  43. [43]

    2001, Space Science Reviews, 96, 55–86, doi: 10.1023/a:1011989004263 O’Brien, D

    Neukum, G., Ivanov, B., & Hartmann, W. 2001, Space Science Reviews, 96, 55–86, doi: 10.1023/a:1011989004263 O’Brien, D. P., Marchi, S., Morbidelli, A., et al. 2014, Planetary and Space Science, 103, 131, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2014.05.013

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1011989004263 2001

  44. [44]

    Sizemore, H. G. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124, 1188, doi: 10.1029/2018JE005660

    work page doi:10.1029/2018je005660 2019

  45. [45]

    2018, Icarus, 316, 28, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.015

    Pasckert, J., Hiesinger, H., Ruesch, O., et al. 2018, Icarus, 316, 28, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.015 2018

  46. [46]

    2016, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0007 Pokorn´ y, P., Mazarico, E., & Schorghofer, N

    Platz, T., Nathues, A., Schorghofer, N., et al. 2016, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0007 Pokorn´ y, P., Mazarico, E., & Schorghofer, N. 2021,

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    2018, Planetary and Space Science, 162, 41, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2017.05.006 QGIS Development Team

    Povilaitis, R., Robinson, M., van der Bogert, C., et al. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 162, 41, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2017.05.006 QGIS Development Team. 2021, QGIS Geographic Information System, QGIS Association. https://www.qgis.org

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2017.05.006 2018

  48. [48]

    C., Buczkowski, D

    Quick, L. C., Buczkowski, D. L., Ruesch, O., et al. 2019, Icarus, 320, 119, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.07.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.07.016 2019

  49. [49]

    Richardson, J. E. 2009, Icarus, 204, 697, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.029 2009

  50. [50]

    A., Michael, G., et al

    Riedel, C., Minton, D. A., Michael, G., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006273

    work page doi:10.1029/2019je006273 2020

  51. [51]

    J., Kirchoff, M

    Robbins, S. J., Kirchoff, M. R., & Ostrach, L. R. 2025, Geophysical Research Letters, 52, doi: 10.1029/2024GL110570

    work page doi:10.1029/2024gl110570 2025

  52. [52]

    J., Antonenko, I., Kirchoff, M

    Robbins, S. J., Antonenko, I., Kirchoff, M. R., et al. 2014, Icarus, 234, 109, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.02.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.02.022 2014

  53. [53]

    2016, Science, 353, aaf4286, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4286

    Ruesch, O., Platz, T., Schenk, P., et al. 2016, Science, 353, aaf4286, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4286

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf4286 2016

  54. [54]

    T., & Raymond, C

    Russell, C. T., & Raymond, C. A. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 163, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-9836-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9836-2 2011

  55. [55]

    T., Raymond, C

    Russell, C. T., Raymond, C. A., Ammannito, E., et al. 2016, Science, 353, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4219

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaf4219 2016

  56. [56]

    R., Zahnle, K., & Moore, J

    Schenk, P., Chapman, C. R., Zahnle, K., & Moore, J. M. 2004, Ages and interiors: the cratering record of the Galilean satellites

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    2020, Nature Communications, 11, 3679

    Schenk, P., Scully, J., Buczkowski, D., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 3679

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    2014, Planetary and Space Science, 103, 104, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2014.04.004

    Schmedemann, N., Kneissl, T., Ivanov, B., et al. 2014, Planetary and Space Science, 103, 104, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2014.04.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2014.04.004 2014

  59. [59]

    E., Hughson, K

    Schmidt, B. E., Hughson, K. H. G., Chilton, H. T., et al. 2017, Nature Geoscience, 10, 338, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2936

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo2936 2017

  60. [60]

    E., Sizemore, H

    Schmidt, B. E., Sizemore, H. G., Hughson, K. H. G., et al. 2020, Nature Geoscience, 13, 605, doi: 10.1038/s41561-020-0581-6 Schr¨ oder, S. E., Poch, O., Ferrari, M., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 274, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20494-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-020-0581-6 2020

  61. [62]

    E., Buczkowski, D., Neesemann, A., et al

    Scully, J. E., Buczkowski, D., Neesemann, A., et al. 2018, Icarus, 316, 46, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.10.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.10.038 2018

  62. [63]

    E., Buczkowski, D

    Scully, J. E., Buczkowski, D. L., Raymond, C. A., et al. 2019a, Icarus, 320, 7, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.014 2018

  63. [64]

    E., Bowling, T., Bu, C., et al

    Scully, J. E., Bowling, T., Bu, C., et al. 2019b, Icarus, 320, 213, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.029 2018

  64. [65]

    U., Jaumann, R., et al

    Sierks, H., Keller, H. U., Jaumann, R., et al. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 163, 263, doi: 10.1007/s11214-011-9745-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9745-4 2011

  65. [66]

    K., Bergantini, A., Zhu, C., et al

    Singh, S. K., Bergantini, A., Zhu, C., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 2690

    work page 2021

  66. [67]

    Soderblom, L. A. 1970, Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 75, 2655, doi: 10.1029/JB075i014p02655

    work page doi:10.1029/jb075i014p02655 1970

  67. [68]

    M., Byrne, S., Bland, M

    Sori, M. M., Byrne, S., Bland, M. T., et al. 2017, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 1243, doi: 10.1002/2016GL072319

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl072319 2017

  68. [69]

    2018, Icarus, 302, 104, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.013 26

    Strom, R., Marchi, S., & Malhotra, R. 2018, Icarus, 302, 104, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.013 26

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.013 2018

  69. [70]

    L., Hirabayashi, M., Montalvo, P

    Talkington, C. L., Hirabayashi, M., Montalvo, P. E., et al. 2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, doi: 10.1029/2022GL099241

    work page doi:10.1029/2022gl099241 2022

  70. [71]

    2022, Icarus, 377, 114909, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2022.114909

    Iwata, T. 2022, Icarus, 377, 114909, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2022.114909

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2022.114909 2022

  71. [72]

    Xiao, Z., & Werner, S. C. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 120, 2277, doi: 10.1002/2015JE004860

    work page doi:10.1002/2015je004860 2015

  72. [73]

    2020, PhD thesis, Northern Arizona University

    Zeilnhofer, M. 2020, PhD thesis, Northern Arizona University

    work page 2020

  73. [74]

    F., & Barlow, N

    Zeilnhofer, M. F., & Barlow, N. G. 2020, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

    work page 2020