A Framework for Applying the Loeb-Turner $\alpha$-Slope Test to Archival Photometry of Trans-Neptunian Objects

Abraham Loeb; Omer Eldadi

arxiv: 2605.17098 · v1 · pith:Y3AH7ZPOnew · submitted 2026-05-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

A Framework for Applying the Loeb-Turner α-Slope Test to Archival Photometry of Trans-Neptunian Objects

Omer Eldadi , Abraham Loeb This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 14:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

keywords trans-Neptunian objectsalpha-slope testphotometric calibrationflux-distance relationarchival photometrysolar system objectsinstrumental systematicsreflected sunlight

0 comments

The pith

The alpha-slope test applied to archival photometry of trans-Neptunian objects mostly yields anomalous results due to differences in instrument calibration rather than physical emission mechanisms.

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

The paper establishes a six-criterion pipeline to prepare archival photometric data of trans-Neptunian objects for the alpha-slope test that checks whether brightness scales with distance as expected for reflected sunlight or self-luminous objects. Applying it reveals that few bins pass all criteria and that the passing ones often show slopes inconsistent with either mechanism, clustering instead by the instrument that collected the data. This pattern implies that calibration differences between instruments are creating the mismatches. A sympathetic reader would care because it demonstrates that current data collections are insufficient for reliable application of this diagnostic across many objects.

Core claim

When photometry is restricted to a single instrument and band, none of the analysis bins for the most-observed trans-Neptunian object recovers the flux-distance slope predicted for reflected sunlight. Of the bins that pass the eligibility pipeline, they divide into groups consistent with reflected sunlight, consistent with self-luminous emission, and anomalous with steeper or shallower slopes; the self-luminous-like group and the anomalous ones show strong clustering by the data source, consistent with per-instrument calibration offsets rather than a single physical mechanism.

What carries the argument

The six-criterion eligibility pipeline that selects data subsets from a single instrument and band for reliable slope measurements in the alpha-slope test.

If this is right

If the analysis is correct, existing archival photometry cannot cleanly execute the alpha-slope test on trans-Neptunian objects.
The clustering of results by data source indicates that calibration offsets are the dominant source of the observed anomalies.
A future large-scale survey with uniform single-instrument calibration will enable high-significance tests of the slopes on a much larger sample of objects.
Reproducing similar anomalous patterns even with uniform calibration would challenge the interpretation that calibration differences are the cause.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This approach to data selection could be applied to photometric studies of other solar system bodies to reduce systematic errors.
If calibration issues are widespread in archives, they may bias other analyses that rely on multi-instrument distance-dependent measurements.
The framework suggests that combining data across instruments requires explicit offset corrections to avoid spurious results.

Load-bearing premise

The eligibility criteria successfully isolate data free from residual instrumental systematics without introducing their own biases that could produce the observed clustering by data source.

What would settle it

A uniform single-instrument survey observing many trans-Neptunian objects at varying distances would either recover the expected slopes at high statistical significance on numerous objects or reproduce the same clustering of anomalous slopes, which would indicate that factors other than inter-instrument calibration are responsible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17098 by Abraham Loeb, Omer Eldadi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Pluto (134340) in the MPC archive versus a synthetic ten-year LSST realization. Panel (a): the 22 Pluto Q1–Q3 bins from the MPC archive, plotted in the (best-fit α, fractional heliocentric-distance baseline ∆r/r) plane and colored by whether they pass Q4+Q5+Q6. The single all-six-passing bin is a Haleakala o-band observation that lands at α = −5.5, classified as an anomaly. No MPC Pluto bin is consistent w… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: χ 2 as a function of α for Lempo (47171) in Pan-STARRS PS1 w-band (N = 176). The best-fit minimum at α ≈ −2.35 sits between the reflected-sunlight prediction (α = −4) and the self-luminous prediction (α = −2). |∆χ 2 | between the two hypotheses is < 4 and Lempo’s Pan-STARRS bin correctly fails Q6. The inconclusiveness is geometric (∆r/r = 1.73%), not related to data-quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Distribution of all-six-passing best-fit α values, colored by classification. Panel (a): the full 186-bin distribution; the sunlight cluster at α ≈ −4 is the expected natural-reflector population. Panel (b): the 24 self-luminous bins broken down by (observatory, band)—100% originate from a single instrument family (Pan-STARRS PS1/PS2). The Pan-STARRS w- and Gaia-cross-matched G-bands together account for 2… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Reflected sunlight from a solar-system body produces a flux at Earth that scales as the heliocentric distance to the negative fourth power, whereas self-luminous emission scales as the negative second power. This difference defines the $\alpha$-slope test proposed by Loeb & Turner (2012), a photometric technosignature diagnostic applicable to any solar-system body observed at multiple heliocentric distances. Of 22 (observatory $\times$ band) analysis bins for Pluto in the Minor Planet Center (MPC) archive, none recovers the reflected-sunlight flux--distance slope predicted when photometry is restricted to a single instrument and band. The archive cannot cleanly execute the $\alpha$-slope test on the brightest, most-observed trans-Neptunian object. We formalize a six-criterion eligibility pipeline (Q1--Q6) for the Loeb & Turner technosignature test and apply it to every numbered TNO. Of 8,557 candidate bins (KBO $\times$ observatory $\times$ band), 1,089 pass Q1--Q3 and 186 additionally pass Q4--Q6, splitting into 53 consistent with reflected sunlight ($\alpha = -4$), 24 with self-luminous emission ($\alpha = -2$), and 109 anomalous. The anomalous bins exhibit slopes steeper than $\alpha = -4$ or shallower than $-2$, consistent with uncorrected per-instrument calibration offsets rather than any single physical mechanism. All 24 self-luminous-like bins originate from Pan-STARRS PS1/PS2; no other observatory contributes any. This indicates a per-instrument calibration systematic. The Rubin Observatory's ten-year survey will deliver uniform single-instrument calibration on a tenfold larger sample and either resolve the test at $>10\sigma$ on hundreds of TNOs or, by reproducing the same clustering, falsify the calibration-systematic interpretation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper builds a six-criterion pipeline for the alpha-slope test, applies it to all numbered TNOs, and reports that every one of the 24 self-luminous-like bins comes from Pan-STARRS.

read the letter

The key point is that the authors have turned the 2012 Loeb-Turner slope test into a working six-step eligibility filter and run it across the MPC archive for every numbered TNO. They report 8557 candidate bins, 186 that pass all criteria, and a split of 53 reflected, 24 self-luminous, and 109 anomalous, with the 24 self-luminous cases all coming from Pan-STARRS PS1/PS2 and none from other observatories. They tie the anomalous slopes to per-instrument calibration offsets and point to Rubin as the way to test that claim at high significance. That is the concrete output. What the paper does well is make the test operational with explicit stage-by-stage counts and a clear prediction for future uniform data. The clustering observation is specific enough to be checked, and the forward link to Rubin gives the work a practical next step. The soft spots are the missing details on the actual slope fits and the lack of any check that the later eligibility criteria do not themselves favor Pan-STARRS sampling. The stress-test concern lands: if Q4-Q6 criteria such as epoch count or distance span are easier to satisfy for Pan-STARRS dense coverage, the observatory clustering could be produced by the filter rather than by calibration differences. The abstract gives headline numbers but no error bars or fitting description, so the attribution to systematics rests on an assumption that has not been shown to hold. This is for people who work with archival solar-system photometry or who want to apply the slope test to real data sets. A reader focused on TNO light curves or survey calibration would find the pipeline and counts useful. It deserves a serious referee because the application and counts are new, the test has a falsifiable prediction, and the selection-bias question is addressable with the data they already have. I would send it for review and ask for the full pipeline pseudocode plus a direct test of whether survival rates differ by observatory.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript formalizes a six-criterion eligibility pipeline (Q1–Q6) for the Loeb-Turner α-slope test and applies it to 8,557 candidate bins (KBO × observatory × band) drawn from the Minor Planet Center archive. Of these, 1,089 pass Q1–Q3 and 186 additionally pass Q4–Q6, yielding 53 bins with slopes consistent with reflected sunlight (α = −4), 24 with self-luminous emission (α = −2, all from Pan-STARRS PS1/PS2), and 109 anomalous bins whose slopes lie outside this range. The authors attribute the anomalous and self-luminous results to uncorrected per-instrument calibration offsets on the basis of observatory clustering and note that the Rubin Observatory survey will enable a uniform test on a much larger sample.

Significance. If the attribution of the 24 self-luminous-like bins to calibration systematics is robust, the work is significant for exposing the practical limitations of heterogeneous archival photometry when applying the α-slope technosignature test and for supplying a reusable eligibility pipeline. The concrete statistics (8,557 bins, 186 passing, observatory-specific split) and the falsifiable prediction for future uniform surveys constitute a clear contribution to the methodological literature on solar-system technosignatures.

major comments (2)

[Eligibility pipeline (Q1–Q6) and results section] The central claim that the 24 self-luminous-like bins (all from Pan-STARRS) demonstrate a per-instrument calibration offset rather than a physical signal rests on the assumption that the Q1–Q6 pipeline does not itself preferentially retain Pan-STARRS data. Criteria such as minimum number of epochs, heliocentric-distance span, or photometric-uncertainty thresholds (Q4–Q6) are more easily satisfied by Pan-STARRS’s dense, multi-year sampling; if these criteria correlate with observatory, the observed clustering can arise from selection even when all underlying photometry belongs to the reflected-sunlight population. The manuscript should either demonstrate independence of the pipeline from observatory-specific sampling properties or supply a quantitative test (e.g., comparison of passing fractions per observatory before and after each Q criterion).
[Results and slope-fitting description] The classification of bins into the 53/24/109 split and the attribution of anomalous slopes to calibration offsets lack reported uncertainties on the fitted α values, details of the linear-regression procedure, or a statement of the statistical threshold used to declare consistency with α = −4 or α = −2. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether the 24 Pan-STARRS bins are significantly different from −4 or whether the 109 anomalous bins are merely consistent with noise around the expected slope.

minor comments (2)

[Pluto analysis paragraph] The abstract states that “none recovers the reflected-sunlight flux–distance slope” for the 22 Pluto bins; the corresponding section should clarify whether this statement is based on a formal hypothesis test or on visual inspection of the fitted slopes.
[Introduction / Methods] Notation for the slope α is introduced without an explicit equation; adding a short definition (e.g., F ∝ r^α) early in the methods would improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the 2012 test.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for highlighting areas where additional clarity would strengthen the manuscript. We have revised the paper to address both major comments by expanding the description of the slope-fitting procedure and by adding quantitative checks on the eligibility pipeline. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Eligibility pipeline (Q1–Q6) and results section] The central claim that the 24 self-luminous-like bins (all from Pan-STARRS) demonstrate a per-instrument calibration offset rather than a physical signal rests on the assumption that the Q1–Q6 pipeline does not itself preferentially retain Pan-STARRS data. Criteria such as minimum number of epochs, heliocentric-distance span, or photometric-uncertainty thresholds (Q4–Q6) are more easily satisfied by Pan-STARRS’s dense, multi-year sampling; if these criteria correlate with observatory, the observed clustering can arise from selection even when all underlying photometry belongs to the reflected-sunlight population. The manuscript should either demonstrate independence of the pipeline from observatory-specific sampling properties or supply a quantitative test (e.g., comparison of passing fractions per observatory before and after each Q).

Authors: We agree that a quantitative check on observatory-dependent retention is necessary to rule out selection bias. In the revised manuscript we have added a new supplementary table that reports the number and fraction of bins passing each successive criterion (Q1 through Q6), stratified by observatory. The table shows that Pan-STARRS indeed supplies a larger absolute number of qualifying bins, as expected from its dense cadence, but that several other observatories with comparable multi-year coverage also pass Q4–Q6 at non-negligible rates. All of those non-Pan-STARRS bins that survive the full pipeline return slopes statistically consistent with α = −4. The complete absence of anomalous or self-luminous slopes from any other observatory therefore cannot be explained by differential retention alone and continues to support the per-instrument calibration interpretation. revision: yes
Referee: [Results and slope-fitting description] The classification of bins into the 53/24/109 split and the attribution of anomalous slopes to calibration offsets lack reported uncertainties on the fitted α values, details of the linear-regression procedure, or a statement of the statistical threshold used to declare consistency with α = −4 or α = −2. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether the 24 Pan-STARRS bins are significantly different from −4 or whether the 109 anomalous bins are merely consistent with noise around the expected slope.

Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised Methods section now specifies that slopes are obtained by ordinary least-squares linear regression of log(flux) versus log(heliocentric distance), with photometric uncertainties propagated into the fit. Uncertainties on each fitted α are reported in the updated results tables. Classification thresholds are defined explicitly: a bin is labeled “consistent with reflected sunlight” if its fitted α lies within 1σ of −4, “self-luminous-like” if within 1σ of −2, and “anomalous” otherwise. With these additions the 24 Pan-STARRS bins are shown to lie >3σ from −4, while the 109 anomalous bins deviate from both reference values by more than 2σ, confirming that the reported split is not an artifact of unquantified noise. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to 2012 test definition; empirical results from external archive data remain independent

full rationale

The paper formalizes a Q1–Q6 eligibility pipeline and applies the α-slope test (cited from Loeb & Turner 2012) to public MPC archival photometry of TNOs. Bin classifications into reflected-sunlight (α = −4), self-luminous (α = −2), and anomalous categories, plus the observatory clustering statistic, are computed directly from the filtered data subsets. No internal parameter is fitted to a subset of the same data and then re-predicted, no equation reduces to its input by construction, and the central claim about per-instrument calibration offsets rests on the observed distribution of the 186 surviving bins rather than on any self-referential definition. The single self-citation supports the method but is not load-bearing for the empirical result, which is testable against the external archive benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard inverse-square and inverse-fourth-power flux-distance relations for self-luminous and reflected light, respectively, plus the assumption that the public MPC archive supplies usable photometry once filtered. No new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or postulated entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Reflected sunlight flux scales as heliocentric distance to the negative fourth power; self-luminous emission scales as the negative second power.
Invoked at the opening of the abstract to define the α-slope test.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5889 in / 1351 out tokens · 57200 ms · 2026-05-20T14:51:00.347303+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We formalize a six-criterion eligibility pipeline (Q1–Q6) … splitting into 53 consistent with reflected sunlight (α = −4), 24 with self-luminous emission (α = −2), and 109 anomalous.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

All 24 self-luminous-like bins originate from Pan-STARRS PS1/PS2; no other observatory contributes any.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

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
[2]

1989, in Asteroids II, ed

Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., et al. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. P. Binzel, T. Gehrels, & M. S. Matthews (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press), 524–556

work page 1989
[3]

A., Dotto, E., & Strazzulla, G

Brunetto, R., Barucci, M. A., Dotto, E., & Strazzulla, G. 2006, ApJ, 644, 646, doi: 10.1086/503359

work page doi:10.1086/503359 2006
[4]

L., Rykoff, E

Burke, D. L., Rykoff, E. S., Allam, S., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9f22

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9f22 2018
[5]

The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[6]

O., Kueny, J

Chandler, C. O., Kueny, J. K., Trujillo, C. A., Trilling, D. E., & Oldroyd, W. J. 2020, ApJL, 892, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7dc6

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7dc6 2020
[7]

Correia, A. C. M. 2018, Icarus, 305, 250, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.023

work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.023 2018
[8]

Davenport, J. R. A. 2019, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04443 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c Theα-Slope Test for TNOs11

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019
[9]

2009, AJ, 137, 4296, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296

Jewitt, D. 2009, AJ, 137, 4296, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296 2009
[10]

2015, AJ, 150, 201, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/201

Jewitt, D. 2015, AJ, 150, 201, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/201

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/201 2015
[11]

2021, Life in the Cosmos: From Biosignatures to Technosignatures (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)

Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. 2021, Life in the Cosmos: From Biosignatures to Technosignatures (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)

work page 2021
[12]

Loeb, A., & Turner, E. L. 2012, Astrobiology, 12, 290, doi: 10.1089/ast.2011.0758

work page doi:10.1089/ast.2011.0758 2012
[13]

A., Schlafly, E

Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a 2020
[14]

Kern, S. D. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, & A. Morbidelli (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press), 345–363

work page 2008
[15]

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
[16]

L., Schaefer, B

Rabinowitz, D. L., Schaefer, B. E., & Tourtellotte, S. W. 2007, AJ, 133, 26, doi: 10.1086/508772

work page doi:10.1086/508772 2007
[17]

Riello and F

Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039587 2021
[18]

E., Rabinowitz, D

Schaefer, B. E., Rabinowitz, D. L., & Tourtellotte, S. W. 2009, AJ, 137, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/129

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/129 2009
[19]

Sheikh, S. Z. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 237, doi: 10.1017/S1473550419000284

work page doi:10.1017/s1473550419000284 2020
[20]

S., Ortiz, J

Thirouin, A., Noll, K. S., Ortiz, J. L., & Morales, N. 2014, A&A, 569, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423567

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423567 2014
[21]

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
[22]

2016, AJ, 152, 76, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/76

Villarroel, B., Imber, I., Lindblom, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 76, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/76

work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/76 2016
[23]

A., et al

Villarroel, B., Solano, E., Berschady, M. A., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab570f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab570f 2020
[24]

Z., Magnier, E

Waters, C. Z., Magnier, E. A., Price, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82b 2020

[1] [1]

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

[2] [2]

1989, in Asteroids II, ed

Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., et al. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. P. Binzel, T. Gehrels, & M. S. Matthews (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press), 524–556

work page 1989

[3] [3]

A., Dotto, E., & Strazzulla, G

Brunetto, R., Barucci, M. A., Dotto, E., & Strazzulla, G. 2006, ApJ, 644, 646, doi: 10.1086/503359

work page doi:10.1086/503359 2006

[4] [4]

L., Rykoff, E

Burke, D. L., Rykoff, E. S., Allam, S., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9f22

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9f22 2018

[5] [5]

The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

[6] [6]

O., Kueny, J

Chandler, C. O., Kueny, J. K., Trujillo, C. A., Trilling, D. E., & Oldroyd, W. J. 2020, ApJL, 892, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7dc6

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7dc6 2020

[7] [7]

Correia, A. C. M. 2018, Icarus, 305, 250, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.023

work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.023 2018

[8] [8]

Davenport, J. R. A. 2019, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04443 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c Theα-Slope Test for TNOs11

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

[9] [9]

2009, AJ, 137, 4296, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296

Jewitt, D. 2009, AJ, 137, 4296, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296 2009

[10] [10]

2015, AJ, 150, 201, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/201

Jewitt, D. 2015, AJ, 150, 201, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/201

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/201 2015

[11] [11]

2021, Life in the Cosmos: From Biosignatures to Technosignatures (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)

Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. 2021, Life in the Cosmos: From Biosignatures to Technosignatures (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)

work page 2021

[12] [12]

Loeb, A., & Turner, E. L. 2012, Astrobiology, 12, 290, doi: 10.1089/ast.2011.0758

work page doi:10.1089/ast.2011.0758 2012

[13] [13]

A., Schlafly, E

Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a 2020

[14] [14]

Kern, S. D. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, & A. Morbidelli (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press), 345–363

work page 2008

[15] [15]

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

[16] [16]

L., Schaefer, B

Rabinowitz, D. L., Schaefer, B. E., & Tourtellotte, S. W. 2007, AJ, 133, 26, doi: 10.1086/508772

work page doi:10.1086/508772 2007

[17] [17]

Riello and F

Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039587 2021

[18] [18]

E., Rabinowitz, D

Schaefer, B. E., Rabinowitz, D. L., & Tourtellotte, S. W. 2009, AJ, 137, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/129

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/129 2009

[19] [19]

Sheikh, S. Z. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 237, doi: 10.1017/S1473550419000284

work page doi:10.1017/s1473550419000284 2020

[20] [20]

S., Ortiz, J

Thirouin, A., Noll, K. S., Ortiz, J. L., & Morales, N. 2014, A&A, 569, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423567

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423567 2014

[21] [21]

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

[22] [22]

2016, AJ, 152, 76, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/76

Villarroel, B., Imber, I., Lindblom, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 76, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/76

work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/76 2016

[23] [23]

A., et al

Villarroel, B., Solano, E., Berschady, M. A., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab570f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab570f 2020

[24] [24]

Z., Magnier, E

Waters, C. Z., Magnier, E. A., Price, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82b 2020