Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 261 references

Monitoring of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS shows its coma shifting from carbon-dioxide-rich to water-dominated as it approached the Sun.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:35 UTC pith:WUY3YSTO

load-bearing objection Valuable 3I/ATLAS dataset with honest hedging, but the CN slope systematic is under-quantified and the CometSpec posterior filter likely shrinks error bars and inflates the evidence for asymmetry. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15355 v1 pith:WUY3YSTO submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Very Large Telescope observations of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS III: High-resolution monitoring of CN and forbidden oxygen emission across the perihelion passage with ESPRESSO

Baltasar Luco , Thomas H. Puzia , Rohan Rahatgaonkar , Juan Pablo Carvajal , Prasanta K. Nayak This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA
keywords interstellar comet3I/ATLASCN production rateforbidden oxygen linesgreen-to-red ratioCO2/H2O proxyhigh-resolution spectroscopyCometSpec
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

3I/ATLAS, the third interstellar object known to pass through the Solar System, was observed at high spectral resolution on 23 nights spanning both sides of its perihelion. The paper argues that the comet's gas coma was initially rich in carbon dioxide and became increasingly water-dominated as it neared the Sun: the forbidden-oxygen green-to-red ratio fell from roughly 0.42 at about 2.4 au to 0.114 near perihelion, implying a CO2/H2O proxy declining from about 1.06 to 0.06. The pre-perihelion CN production rate follows a steep power law Q_CN ∝ r_h^-4.62, within the range seen for solar-system comets. The authors also release CometSpec, a fluorescence-modeling package, and the reduced spectra, giving the community a reusable tool for the next interstellar visitor. If correct, the results show that a single interstellar comet's coma chemistry can reorganize on the timescale of a perihelion passage, and that sustained monitoring can recover the thermal history of the nucleus.

Core claim

The central discovery is that 3I/ATLAS's coma chemistry tracks heliocentric distance: the green-to-red ratio of the forbidden oxygen lines declines monotonically from ~0.42 at 2.4 au to ~0.114 at perihelion, signaling that water's contribution to the oxygen emission grows as CO2 sublimation fades. An asymmetric piecewise power-law fit, with independent pre- and post-perihelion slopes and continuity at perihelion, is strongly preferred over a symmetric fit, matching the delayed water sublimation predicted by thermal-inertia models. CN is detected on 18 of 22 useful nights, and its pre-perihelion slope is -4.62 ± 1.25; the scatter around the smooth power law is unresolved and attributed to a m

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the forbidden-oxygen green-to-red ratio: the 5578 Å line is fed by photodissociation of H2O, CO2, and CO, while the 6302/6365 Å red doublet is driven mainly by H2O, so G/R serves as an indirect CO2/H2O proxy whose decline tracks the heating of subsurface ices. Production rates come from CometSpec, a fluorescence model that solves Einstein rate equations for the CN B-X violet band including the Swings effect and rotational-collisional coupling, then converts column densities with a Haser model (a two-scale-length description of parent-daughter outflow) under assumed scale lengths and an outflow velocity. Piecewise power laws with continuity at perihelion, compar

Load-bearing premise

All quantitative production rates rest on treating 3I's gas outflow as if it followed solar-system comet scale lengths and the standard r_h^-0.5 velocity law; the paper itself notes the measured HCN outflow velocity is about half of that, which would halve Q_CN, so if that discrepancy reflects a genuinely different outflow the absolute rates and the fitted CN slope would shift.

What would settle it

Measure the HCN parent and CN daughter simultaneously with matched fields of view across the same heliocentric range: if the CN/HCN ratio breaks the Haser-model expectation, or if direct infrared CO2/H2O ratios diverge from the G/R-derived proxy at matched apertures, the chemical-evolution narrative would need revision.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • 3I/ATLAS is not compositionally inert: its coma shifts from CO2-rich to H2O-dominated within a few tenths of an au of perihelion, so single-epoch characterization of an interstellar object can miss its dominant volatile.
  • The near-perihelion G/R of 0.114 and CO2/H2O proxy of about 0.06 place 3I near the water-dominated end, comparable to 2I/Borisov and above the locus of typical solar-system comets at the same distances.
  • The pre-perihelion CN power-law index is consistent with solar-system comets, so at least this volatile-release behavior is not exotic.
  • Post-perihelion log(Q_C2/Q_CN) in the range -0.79 to -0.10 places 3I near the carbon-chain-depleted boundary, revising earlier pre-perihelion classifications.
  • The measured red-doublet ratio of 2.97 ± 0.03 matches the theoretical branching ratio, validating the flux calibration and the clean separation of cometary and telluric lines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the G/R trend is generic for interstellar comets, a modest number of optical spectra across a perihelion passage could rank an ISO's volatile budget without infrared access; a testable prediction is that direct infrared CO2/H2O measurements from other observatories should track the G/R decline when apertures are matched.
  • Because the paper shows that absolute Q_CN depends sensitively on the assumed outflow velocity (halving the velocity to a measured value halves Q_CN), the power-law slope is more secure than the normalization; coordinated HCN and CN campaigns could decide whether HCN is CN's sole parent and recalibrate the assumed scale lengths.
  • The unexplained scatter in CN residuals is a target for future work: phase-folding at the three candidate rotation periods shows no coherent pattern, but a denser, longer-baseline campaign could test rotationally modulated outgassing or discrete outbursts.
  • The agreement between the fiber-B column density and the Haser-model prediction is an internal check of the adopted scale lengths; repeating that check at several heliocentric distances would convert a single validation into a systematic calibration of outflow physics in CO2-rich comae.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents VLT/ESPRESSO high-resolution spectroscopy of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS on 23 nights spanning r_h = 1.67–2.45 au, covering both branches of the perihelion passage. The authors fit the CN B–X (0,0) band with a new public package, CometSpec, to derive production rates Q_CN, and model the three forbidden [O I] lines to obtain the green-to-red (G/R) ratio and a CO2/H2O proxy. The main reported results are: a pre-perihelion CN power-law index b_pre = −4.62 ± 1.25; a G/R ratio declining from ~0.42 ± 0.14 at r_h ≈ 2.4 au to ~0.114 ± 0.004 near perihelion; a strongly preferred asymmetric (pre/post) piecewise power-law fit for the oxygen lines; a CO2/H2O proxy ranging from ~0.06 to ~1.06; and detections of Ni I, Fe I, C2, and CH. The paper emphasizes that 3I/ATLAS evolves from a CO2-rich coma to a H2O-dominated coma near perihelion, consistent with delayed subsurface heating. The data, fits, and CometSpec are publicly released.

Significance. If correct, this is the most detailed high-resolution spectroscopic monitoring of an interstellar comet across perihelion, and it provides an important empirical constraint on the volatile evolution of ISOs. The public release of CometSpec and the reduced spectra is a substantial methodological contribution. The paper includes several strong internal consistency checks: the measured red-doublet ratio F6302/F6365 = 2.97 ± 0.03 agrees with the theoretical relativistic value; the fiber-B Haser-model column density agrees with a direct fluorescence fit; and the geocentric velocity residuals from the [O I] lines are at the ~200 m/s level. However, the central CN power-law index and the significance of the oxygen asymmetry depend on modeling assumptions that are not fully stress-tested, as detailed below.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1, Fig. 7, §4.3] The robustness test for the CN power-law index b_pre = −4.62 ± 1.25 does not actually probe the slope. In the Haser model, Q_CN is linearly proportional to the outflow velocity for fixed column density and aperture, so multiplying v by a constant shifts the intercept in log Q–log r but leaves the exponent unchanged. The two lighter lines in Fig. 7 therefore do not bracket b_pre. The exponent is instead sensitive to the heliocentric dependence of v(r) and of the parent/daughter scale lengths, both assumed to scale as r^−2 in §4.3. If, for example, v is approximately constant (as measured for HCN by Cordiner et al. 2026) or the scale lengths have a different r-dependence, the conversion from column density to Q_CN carries an r-dependent term that directly shifts b_pre. The paper acknowledges this qualitatively (§5.1) but does not quantify it; the statement that 'relative values remain cons
  2. [App. A, §5.2, Table 2] The iterative posterior filter in CometSpec deliberately reduces the reported uncertainties: App. A states that when the filter is enabled, 'the reported uncertainties describe the dispersion within the high-probability core and are, therefore, smaller than those derived from the full posterior.' This affects the quoted per-epoch [O I] fluxes and G/R values, and consequently the BIC comparison that underlies the central claim of a 'strongly preferred' asymmetric oxygen fit (ΔBIC = 105, 2011, 277 in §5.2). Because BIC depends on the data uncertainties, artificially small error bars inflate the ΔBIC. Moreover, the pre- and post-perihelion exponents in Table 2 are formally consistent within their bootstrap uncertainties, which is in tension with a ΔBIC of hundreds. The authors should either report the BIC comparison using unfiltered posterior uncertainties or demonstrate explicitly that the
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2] Typo: 'an the posterior distributions' should read 'and the posterior distributions'.
  2. [Throughout] The notation for the forbidden oxygen lines is inconsistent: '[Oi]' appears in the abstract and many places, while '[O I]' is the standard notation. Please unify.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption says the two lighter lines 'bracket the systematic uncertainty introduced by the model assumptions,' but as noted in the major comment they only test a constant velocity scaling. Please rephrase to avoid overstating the test.
  4. [Table E.2] The CO2/H2O column is left blank for the first four rows with a note 'omitted as they are closer to the asymptotic value.' This is unclear; please explain the criterion or provide the values with caveats.
  5. [§4.6.1] The sentence 'the limit of −0.18 defined by A’Hearn et al. (1995) to classify a comet as C2-depleted comes from narrow-band photometry' would benefit from explicitly stating that the comparison with the current fiber-based measurement is therefore indirect.
  6. [§7 / Data availability] The CometSpec code is on GitHub, but there is no version tag or archival DOI. A Zenodo DOI for the exact version used would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results are derived from new ESPRESSO line fluxes under stated external model assumptions; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claims rest on new spectroscopic measurements, not on imported conclusions. CN column densities come from MCMC fluorescence fits to the observed B2Sigma+-X2Sigma+ band; Q_CN is then obtained with a standard Haser model using adopted solar-system scale lengths and outflow velocity, with the paper explicitly stating these are assumptions and that values should be taken as relative rather than absolute (Sect. 4.3). The fitted pre-perihelion exponent b_pre=-4.62 is therefore a fit to new data under stated, externally sourced parameters, not a quantity defined by the fit. The G/R ratio is measured directly from the [OI] line fluxes, and its mapping to a CO2/H2O proxy uses published photodissociation rates and branching ratios (Decock et al. 2013; Bhardwaj & Raghuram 2012; Slanger et al. 2006); this is an interpretive calibration, not a self-definition. The asymmetry in the oxygen fits is selected by BIC on the observed fluxes, and the consistency with thermal-inertia models cites both same-group (Puzia et al. 2025) and independent (Yaginuma et al. 2026) work; the prediction is not the input of the fit. The same-group citations (Rahatgaonkar et al. 2025, Puzia et al. 2025) are contextual prior observations/models and are not used to force the conclusions. The one notable limitation is methodological, not circular: the Fig. 7 test that doubles/halves the outflow velocity changes only the intercept of the Haser conversion, not the fitted slope, so it does not bracket b_pre's sensitivity to r-dependent v or scale-length scaling; the paper itself acknowledges the potential r-dependence of v in Sect. 5.1. This is an uncertainty/robustness gap, not a case of the derivation reducing to its inputs. Data and software are publicly released for independent re-analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on adopted cometary modeling parameters: Haser scale lengths and outflow velocity for CN, and photodissociation-rate conversions for the oxygen proxy. The paper states these assumptions but does not independently constrain them for 3I. No new physical entities are introduced; CometSpec is software, not a physical postulate.

free parameters (5)
  • CN power-law exponent b_pre = -4.62 (+1.25/-1.22)
    Fitted to Q_CN vs r_h pre-perihelion with upper limits treated as censored; reported as a central result.
  • CN piecewise-fit perihelion normalization Q_peri = log Q_peri = 26.57 (+0.24/-0.26)
    Normalization of the asymmetric CN fit, constrained by the data.
  • [OI] line pre/post power-law exponents = a_pre=-4.52/-7.22/-7.33; a_post=-3.35/-5.51/-5.67 for 5578/6302/6365 Å
    Fitted to forbidden-oxygen line fluxes; drive the G/R model and the asymmetry claim.
  • [OI] line normalizations c = 2.24e-15, 2.05e-14, 7.40e-15 erg cm^-2 s^-1
    Fitted normalizations of the [Oi] piecewise power laws.
  • Per-epoch CometSpec fit parameters (logN, T_kin, f_col, FWHM_L, Δv) = varies per night
    MCMC-fitted fluorescence parameters; logN directly enters Q_CN; f_col is partially degenerate with omitted transitions and the paper says it should be interpreted with caution.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Haser-model parent/daughter scale lengths for CN (1.3×10^4 km parent, 2.1×10^5 km daughter at 1 au, scaled r^-2) apply to 3I
    Adopted from A'Hearn et al. (1995) in Sect. 4.3; authors note 3I's CO2/CO-rich coma may have different outflow dynamics; one-epoch fiber-B test gives partial support.
  • domain assumption Outflow velocity v=0.85 r_h^-0.5 km/s describes gas expansion
    Cochran & Schleicher (1993) relation used for all Q values; authors show Cordiner et al. (2026) measured 0.276±0.015 km/s, which would halve Q_CN.
  • domain assumption HCN is the dominant parent of CN
    Used to interpret Q_CN and Q_CN/Q_HCN comparisons in Sect. 5.1; the paper notes some HCN datasets are inconsistent with this interpretation.
  • domain assumption Kurucz solar irradiance is a valid proxy for the actual solar flux and is constant over the campaign
    Sect. 4.1; the authors explicitly state that solar UV variability is a systematic source of error with no standard calibration.
  • domain assumption G/R ratio converts to CO2/H2O via Bhardwaj & Raghuram (2012) effective production rates, Slanger et al. (2006) branching ratio, and negligible CO contribution
    Sect. 5.2; the authors caution that different literature photodissociation rates change derived CO2/H2O ratios substantially.
  • domain assumption Fluorescence equilibrium rate equations with optically thin coma and single f_col collision scaling apply
    Sect. 4.1; standard cometary fluorescence modeling assumption, explicit in CometSpec.
  • standard math Linear algebra solution of Mx=b yields normalized level populations
    Affine rate-equation system solved numerically; standard linear algebra.
  • domain assumption Telluric and cometary [OI] line profiles can be separated with two Voigt components sharing Lorentzian width
    Sect. 4.4; supported by the red-doublet ratio check and velocity residuals, but priors were tuned per night and sometimes highly restrictive.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33012 in / 15691 out tokens · 156729 ms · 2026-08-01T23:35:51.261632+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

3I/ATLAS is only the third known interstellar object to traverse the Solar System. We obtained high-resolution ($R\simeq 140000$) spectroscopy of 3I/ATLAS on 23 nights with VLT/ESPRESSO ($r_{h}=1.67-2.45$au). CN production rates were derived by fitting the $B^2\Sigma^+-X^2\Sigma^+$ band, using CometSpec, a publicly released Python package for flexible fluorescence modeling. The three forbidden [OI] lines were modeled to derive the green-to-red (G/R) flux ratio and a CO$_2$/H$_2$O proxy. We fit $Q_{CN}=a(r_{h}/1\text{au})^b$ to the production rate versus heliocentric distance relation. The pre-perihelion CN power-law index is $b_{pre}=-4.62^{+1.25}_{-1.22}$, within the range observed for solar-system comets. The CN residuals about the smooth model show substantial scatter that we attribute to a combination of systematics and possible physical drivers that the present cadence cannot disentangle. The G/R ratio decreases from $\sim 0.42\pm 0.14$ at $r_{h}\simeq 2.4$au to $\sim 0.114 \pm 0.004$ near perihelion. The asymmetric piecewise oxygen fit is strongly preferred over the symmetric one, consistent with thermal-inertia models, although denser post-perihelion sampling would be needed to confirm this. The CO$_2$/H$_2$O proxy spans $\sim 0.06-1.06$ and is comparable to the values reported by Subaru/HDS and SPHEREx, and to those measured for 2I/Borisov. We additionally identify NiI and FeI, and report post-perihelion production rates for C$_2$ and CH. Our high-resolution monitoring of 3I/ATLAS reveals a CO$_2$-rich coma that becomes progressively H$_2$O-dominated near perihelion, with a G/R asymmetry consistent with delayed H$_2$O sublimation predicted by thermal-inertia models. Together with the public release of CometSpec and the reduced data, these results provide both an empirical reference and a methodological framework for the next generation of interstellar-object monitoring campaigns.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15355 by Baltasar Luco, Juan Pablo Carvajal, Prasanta K. Nayak, Rohan Rahatgaonkar, Thomas H. Puzia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spectrum fit of 3I’s violet CN band for the night of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Recovery fraction as a function of CN production rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fits of the [O i] 6302 Å line for four nights: September 22 (rh =1.9 au) and 24 (rh =1.85 au) pre-perihelion (left panels), and November 25 (rh =1.67 au) and November 27 (rh =1.72 au) post-perihelion (right panels). The solid black line shows the observed data. The cometary line fit is shown in dashed blue (pre-perihelion) and orange (post-perihelion), while the telluric fit is shown in dot-dashed green (p… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates this remarkable agreement. 20 15 10 5 0 5 [k m s 1 ] Pre-perihelion Post-perihelion (JPL) [OI] 5578 Å [OI] 6302 Å [OI] 6365 Å 2.56 2.36 2.16 1.96 1.76 1.56 1.36 1.56 1.76 1.96 2.16 2.36 Heliocentric Distance [AU] 1000 0 1000 R e sid u al [k m s 1 ] [OI] 5578 Å: mean=-56, std=228 m/s [OI] 6302 Å: mean=-102, std=136 m/s [OI] 6365 Å: mean=12, std=205 m/s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detected emission features in the ESPRESSO spectra of 3I/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of fiber A (nucleus; yellow) and fiber B (coma; orange) spectra obtained on 2025-09-24, covering key spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CN evolution during the ESPRESSO campaign. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 3I Oxygen forbidden line fluxes and the green-to-red ratio (G/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

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

261 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    F., Millis , R

    A'Hearn , M. F., Millis , R. C., Schleicher , D. O., Osip , D. J., & Birch , P. V. 1995, , 118, 223

    1995

  2. [2]

    T., Opitom , C., Fitzsimmons , A., et al

    Bannister , M. T., Opitom , C., Fitzsimmons , A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.11605

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    T., et al

    Belyakov, M., Wong, I., Bolin, B. T., et al. 2026, , 1001, L11

    2026

  4. [4]

    & Haider , S

    Bhardwaj , A. & Haider , S. A. 2002, Advances in Space Research, 29, 745

    2002

  5. [5]

    & Raghuram , S

    Bhardwaj , A. & Raghuram , S. 2012, , 748, 13

    2012

  6. [6]

    2026, , 708, L16

    Biver , N., Bockel \'e e-Morvan , D., Moreno , R., et al. 2026, , 708, L16

    2026

  7. [7]

    2015, , 197, 47

    Bockel \'e e-Morvan , D., Calmonte , U., Charnley , S., et al. 2015, , 197, 47

    2015

  8. [8]

    L., A'Hearn , M

    Bodewits , D., Farnham , T. L., A'Hearn , M. F., et al. 2014, , 786, 48

    2014

  9. [9]

    W., Feldman , P

    Bodewits , D., Noonan , J. W., Feldman , P. D., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 867

    2020

  10. [10]

    & Minor Planet Center

    Borisov, G. & Minor Planet Center . 2019, MPEC 2019-R106: COMET C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) , Minor Planet Electronic Circular

    2019

  11. [11]

    J., Neff , B., Loch , S

    Bromley , S. J., Neff , B., Loch , S. D., et al. 2021, , 2, 228

    2021

  12. [12]

    J., Noonan , J

    Bromley , S. J., Noonan , J. W., Cochran , A. L., et al. 2024, , 528, 7358

    2024

  13. [13]

    Brooke , J. S. A., Ram , R. S., Western , C. M., et al. 2014, , 210, 23

    2014

  14. [14]

    2021, , 656, A160

    Cambianica , P., Cremonese , G., Munaretto , G., et al. 2021, , 656, A160

    2021

  15. [15]

    L., Barker , E

    Cochran , A. L., Barker , E. S., & Gray , C. L. 2012, , 218, 144

    2012

  16. [16]

    Cochran , A. L. & Schleicher , D. G. 1993, , 105, 235

    1993

  17. [17]

    Combi , M. R. & Delsemme , A. H. 1980, , 237, 641

    1980

  18. [18]

    R., M \"a kinen , J

    Combi , M. R., M \"a kinen , J. T. T., Bertaux , J.-L., et al. 2013, , 225, 740

    2013

  19. [19]

    Combi , M. R. & McCrosky , R. E. 1991, , 91, 270

    1991

  20. [20]

    A., Milam , S

    Cordiner , M. A., Milam , S. N., Biver , N., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 861

    2020

  21. [21]

    A., Roth , N

    Cordiner , M. A., Roth , N. X., Kelley , M. S. P., et al. 2025, , 991, L43

    2025

  22. [22]

    A., Roth , N

    Cordiner , M. A., Roth , N. X., Micheli , M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.06911

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    M., Kuan , Y.-J., Charnley , S

    Coulson , I. M., Kuan , Y.-J., Charnley , S. B., et al. 2026, , 546, stag063

    2026

  24. [24]

    R., Licandro , J., et al

    de la Fuente Marcos , R., Alarcon , M. R., Licandro , J., et al. 2025, , 700, L9

    2025

  25. [25]

    2013, , 555, A34

    Decock , A., Jehin , E., Hutsem \'e kers , D., & Manfroid , J. 2013, , 555, A34

    2013

  26. [26]

    2015, , 573, A1

    Decock , A., Jehin , E., Rousselot , P., et al. 2015, , 573, A1

    2015

  27. [27]

    2025, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2025-N12

    Denneau , L., Siverd , R., Tonry , J., et al. 2025, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2025-N12

    2025

  28. [28]

    & Feldman , P

    Festou , M. & Feldman , P. D. 1981, , 103, 154

    1981

  29. [29]

    & Johnson , J

    Fink , U. & Johnson , J. R. 1984, , 89, 1565

    1984

  30. [30]

    J., et al

    Fitzsimmons , A., Hainaut , O., Meech , K. J., et al. 2019, , 885, L9

    2019

  31. [31]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 133

    Fitzsimmons , A., Snodgrass , C., Rozitis , B., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 133

    2018

  32. [32]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  33. [33]

    2005, , 53, 1243

    Fray , N., B \'e nilan , Y., Cottin , H., Gazeau , M.-C., & Crovisier , J. 2005, , 53, 1243

    2005

  34. [34]

    M., et al

    Freudling , W., Romaniello , M., Bramich , D. M., et al. 2013, , 559, A96

    2013

  35. [35]

    & Marty , B

    F \"u ri , E. & Marty , B. 2015, Nature Geoscience, 8, 515

    2015

  36. [36]

    E., Mendoza , C., & Zeippen , C

    Galavis , M. E., Mendoza , C., & Zeippen , C. J. 1997, , 123, 159

    1997

  37. [37]

    2024, in Comets III, ed

    G \"o tz , C., Deca , J., Mandt , K., & Volwerk , M. 2024, in Comets III, ed. K. J. Meech , M. R. Combi , D. Bockel \'e e-Morvan , S. N. Raymond , & M. E. Zolensky , 543--574

    2024

  38. [38]

    Hall , L. A. & Anderson , G. P. 1991, , 96, 12,927

    1991

  39. [39]

    Hanuschik , R. W. 2003, , 407, 1157

    2003

  40. [40]

    1957, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 43, 740

    Haser , L. 1957, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 43, 740

    1957

  41. [41]

    J., Dorsey , R

    Hopkins , M. J., Dorsey , R. C., Forbes , J. C., et al. 2025, , 990, L30

    2025

  42. [42]

    Huebner , W. F. & Mukherjee , J. 2015, , 106, 11

    2015

  43. [43]

    2021, , 652, L1

    Hutsem \'e kers , D., Manfroid , J., Jehin , E., Opitom , C., & Moulane , Y. 2021, , 652, L1

    2021

  44. [44]

    2026, , 706, A43

    Hutsem \'e kers , D., Manfroid , J., Jehin , E., et al. 2026, , 706, A43

    2026

  45. [45]

    2003, Earth Moon and Planets, 92, 465

    Jewitt , D. 2003, Earth Moon and Planets, 92, 465

    2003

  46. [46]

    2022, , 931, 24

    Kawakita, H. 2022, , 931, 24

    2022

  47. [47]

    2026, , 1000, L60

    Kawakita , H., Tsujimoto , K., Shinnaka , Y., et al. 2026, , 1000, L60

    2026

  48. [48]

    2004, , 601, 1152

    Kawakita , H., Watanabe , J.-i., Furusho , R., et al. 2004, , 601, 1152

    2004

  49. [49]

    Knight , M. M. & Schleicher , D. G. 2013, , 222, 691

    2013

  50. [50]

    Ralchenko , Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team

    Kramida, A., Yu. Ralchenko , Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team . 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2016, January 31]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2024

  51. [51]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2005, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana Suppl., 8, 189

    2005

  52. [52]

    C., La Forgia , F., et al

    Lazzarin , M., Mura , A. C., La Forgia , F., et al. 2026, , 998, L30

    2026

  53. [53]

    W., Lee , C.-H., Gerdes , D

    Lin , H. W., Lee , C.-H., Gerdes , D. W., et al. 2020, , 889, L30

    2020

  54. [54]

    M., Bach, Y

    Lisse, C. M., Bach, Y. P., Bryan, S., et al. 2025, RNAAS, 9, 242

    2025

  55. [55]

    M., Bach , Y

    Lisse , C. M., Bach , Y. P., Bryan , S. A., et al. 2026, RNAAS, 10, 26

    2026

  56. [56]

    & A'Hearn , M

    Magnani , L. & A'Hearn , M. F. 1986, , 302, 477

    1986

  57. [57]

    2021, , 593, 372

    Manfroid , J., Hutsem \'e kers , D., & Jehin , E. 2021, , 593, 372

    2021

  58. [58]

    2009, , 503, 613

    Manfroid , J., Jehin , E., Hutsem \'e kers , D., et al. 2009, , 503, 613

    2009

  59. [59]

    McGlynn , T. A. & Chapman , R. D. 1989, , 346, L105

    1989

  60. [60]

    J., Chanover , N

    McKay , A. J., Chanover , N. J., Morgenthaler , J. P., et al. 2013, , 222, 684

    2013

  61. [61]

    J., Cochran , A

    McKay , A. J., Cochran , A. L., Dello Russo , N., & DiSanti , M. A. 2020, , 889, L10

    2020

  62. [62]

    J., Cochran , A

    McKay , A. J., Cochran , A. L., DiSanti , M. A., et al. 2015, , 250, 504

    2015

  63. [63]

    J., Kelley , M

    McKay , A. J., Kelley , M. S. P., Cochran , A. L., et al. 2016, , 266, 249

    2016

  64. [64]

    K., Syme , A.-M., Borsovszky , J., et al

    McKemmish , L. K., Syme , A.-M., Borsovszky , J., et al. 2020, , 497, 1081

    2020

  65. [65]

    J., Weryk , R., Micheli , M., et al

    Meech , K. J., Weryk , R., Micheli , M., et al. 2017, , 552, 378

    2017

  66. [66]

    J., et al

    Micheli , M., Farnocchia , D., Meech , K. J., et al. 2018, , 559, 223

    2018

  67. [67]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1426

    Mommert , M., Kelley , M., de Val-Borro , M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1426

    2019

  68. [68]

    2023, , 670, A159

    Moulane , Y., Jehin , E., Manfroid , J., et al. 2023, , 670, A159

    2023

  69. [69]

    W., Stern , S

    Noonan , J. W., Stern , S. A., Feldman , P. D., et al. 2018, , 156, 16

    2018

  70. [70]

    2021, , 650, L19

    Opitom , C., Jehin , E., Hutsem \'e kers , D., et al. 2021, , 650, L19

    2021

  71. [71]

    2025, , 544, L31

    Opitom , C., Snodgrass , C., Jehin , E., et al. 2025, , 544, L31

    2025

  72. [72]

    T., Bhandare , A., et al

    'Oumuamua ISSI Team , Bannister , M. T., Bhandare , A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 594

    2019

  73. [73]

    2021, , 645, A96

    Pepe , F., Cristiani , S., Rebolo , R., et al. 2021, , 645, A96

    2021

  74. [74]

    Persson , S. E. 2022, , 134, 075001

    2022

  75. [75]

    Pierce , D. M. & Cochran , A. L. 2021, , 2, 19

    2021

  76. [76]

    H., Rahatgaonkar , R., Carvajal , J

    Puzia , T. H., Rahatgaonkar , R., Carvajal , J. P., Nayak , P. K., & Luco , B. 2025, , 990, L27

    2025

  77. [77]

    & Bhardwaj , A

    Raghuram , S. & Bhardwaj , A. 2013, , 223, 91

    2013

  78. [78]

    & Bhardwaj , A

    Raghuram , S. & Bhardwaj , A. 2014, , 566, A134

    2014

  79. [79]

    P., Puzia , T

    Rahatgaonkar , R., Carvajal , J. P., Puzia , T. H., et al. 2025, , 995, L34

    2025

  80. [80]

    2022, , 30, 7

    Romano , D. 2022, , 30, 7

    2022

Showing first 80 references.