Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Size Constraints for the Pre-atmospheric Parent Bodies of Ordinary Chondrites

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper presents the first observational evidence that the composition of S-complex near-Earth objects depends on size, with L chondrite-like bodies replacing LL-dominated compositions at about 31-49 meters.

desk verdict First credible observational evidence for a size-composition trend in S-complex NEOs, but the quantitative size limits rest on a small target-of-opportunity sample with an unquantified selection function. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05288 v1 pith:BSCGNOUJ submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.EP

Juan A. Sanchez , David C. Cantillo , Adam Battle , Miren Miranda , Benjamin N. L. Sharkey , Tanner S. Campbell , Rogerio Deienno , William F. Bottke
show 2 more authors
David Nesvorný Vishnu Reddy
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords near-EarthobjectsS-complexasteroidsordinarychondritesHLLLnear-infraredspectroscopypre-atmosphericparentbodies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Ordinary chondrites, the most common meteorite type, come in three subtypes — H, L, and LL — but near-Earth asteroids that resemble them have looked mostly LL-like, even though LL chondrites are only 10% of meteorite falls. The paper argues that the mismatch is a size effect: previous studies looked at asteroids too large to be the immediate parents of meteorites. Using near-infrared spectra of 80 S-complex near-Earth objects spanning roughly 4 to 343 meters, it shows that LL dominance disappears at tens of meters, L-like objects take over around 31-49 meters at the same 47% share seen among meteorite falls, and H and LL parent bodies must be smaller than about 18 meters. This is the first reported observational evidence that the composition of S-complex NEOs depends on size, and it locates the meteorite-producing population at sizes that current spectroscopic surveys have barely sampled.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a size-binned compositional census. Eighty S-complex NEOs are split by absolute magnitude, converted to diameter using an assumed albedo, and each spectrum is reduced to band centers and a band-area ratio, then to fayalite ($\mathrm{Fa}$), ferrosilite ($\mathrm{Fs}$), and olivine/(olivine+pyroxene) values. A multinomial logistic regression trained on those compositional variables assigns each object a probability of being H, L, or LL, and the classifier's confusion matrix is inverted so the reported subtype fractions are corrected for misclassification. The crossover diameter is obtained by linear interpolation between the median diameters of the two adjacent magnitude bins that bracket the 47% L-chondrite fall fraction.

What would settle it

Run a completeness-corrected near-infrared spectroscopic survey of every S-complex NEO discovered in a defined magnitude-limited volume between roughly 4 and 70 m, with no preselection by approach distance, and compare the H, L, and LL fractions: the claimed sub-18 m upper limits require H and LL fractions to rise toward 43% and 10% at smaller sizes, and the claimed 31-49 m crossover requires L to sit near 47% in that unbiased sample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a size-composition trend in S-complex near-Earth objects, the silicate-rich asteroids thought to be the parent bodies of ordinary chondrites, and reads it as a record of where ordinary chondrite meteorites come from. In the $20.0\le H\le 22.1$ subgroup (roughly 91-343 m), LL chondrite-like objects make up $65.4\pm7.5\%$ of the sample; in the $24.7\le H\le 29.2$ subgroup (roughly 4-31 m), the L chondrite-like fraction rises to $62.1\pm12.4\%$, matching the 47% L-chondrite share of meteorite falls, while the H and LL fractions ($12.8\pm8.8\%$ and $25.1\pm11.3\%$) still exceed the fall proportions of 43% and 10%. A linear interpolation between adjacent bins places the L crossover at $H=24.5$, corresponding to about 31-49 m. Because the H and LL fractions have not yet approached their meteoritic proportions even at 4-31 m, the paper sets an upper size limit of about 18 m for the pre-atmospheric parent bodies of H and LL chondrites, and concludes that the long-standing overabundance of LL-like NEOs is a size-dependent phenomenon rather than a contradiction of meteorite statistics.

Load-bearing premise

The trend rests on the assumption that the sub-100 m NEOs observed here represent the underlying NEO population, even though they were targeted because they made close approaches; if close-approach accessibility favors certain source-region histories, the size trend could be partly an observing bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The apparent overabundance of LL-like S-complex NEOs among objects larger than about 100 m no longer needs a special explanation; it is the large-size end of a trend that reaches meteorite-fall proportions only below tens of meters.
  • Most pre-atmospheric parents of H and LL chondrite falls are smaller than about 18 m, so the population that actually feeds these meteorites is nearly invisible to current spectral surveys.
  • S-complex NEOs smaller than about 40 m should be dominated by L chondrite-like compositions, with L parent bodies concentrated in the roughly 18-60 m range.
  • Sub-100 m S-complex NEOs are supplied mainly through the $\nu_6$ resonance (about 64%) and the 3:1 resonance (about 25%), matching the expectation that young-family fragments are delivered through those escape routes.
  • An object like Chelyabinsk, roughly 20 m across, is probably rare among LL-chondrite precursors if the about-18 m upper limit is correct.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the sample's smallest objects were selected by close-approach opportunity rather than by a completeness-corrected survey, the size trend could be sharpened or weakened once detection biases are modeled; the paper reports source-region statistics but does not use them to re-weight the compositional fractions.
  • The crossover size is probably not a universal constant: if young-family transport sets it, the threshold should depend on family age and resonance geometry, so older families may produce a different transition diameter.
  • If H and LL parent bodies really are mostly below about 18 m, the H and LL meteorite flux should be tied to the smallest end of the NEO size distribution, and fireball networks may be a better probe of their abundances than NEO spectroscopy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines 25 new near-infrared spectra of S-complex NEOs with 55 previously published spectra to build an 80-object sample spanning absolute magnitudes 20.0 to 29.2 (roughly 4-343 m). The sample is subdivided by H magnitude into two and three subgroups, each object is assigned an H, L, or LL chondrite-like composition using band parameters and a multinomial logistic regression classifier, and the observed subtype fractions are corrected for classifier confusion. The authors report that LL-chondrite-like objects dominate the largest subgroups, L-chondrite-like objects become dominant in the smallest subgroup (24.7 ≤ H ≤ 29.2, 62.1 ± 12.4%), and the H-chondrite fraction remains far below the meteorite-fall proportion, leading to an upper size limit of ~18 m for H and LL parent bodies and a crossover to L dominance at ~31-49 m. Section 6 further analyzes the source regions of the sub-100 m sample with NEOMOD.

Significance. The paper addresses a long-standing discrepancy between the LL-dominated compositions of larger S-complex NEOs and the H/L-dominated ordinary chondrite fall statistics. Its strengths include new spectroscopic observations of 25 small NEOs, an explicit confusion-matrix correction for classification bias, and a NEOMOD-based source-region analysis. If the size-composition trend is real, it constitutes the first observational confirmation of the predicted increase in L-chondrite-like objects at small sizes and provides useful size constraints on meteorite parent bodies. However, the quantitative claims currently rest on a target-of-opportunity sample without a demonstrated completeness function, and some of the headline limits are not statistically robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Table 2; Section 6] The central size-composition trend is computed from raw proportions in target-of-opportunity subgroups, and no correction or bounding argument is given for selection effects. The smallest bin (24.7 ≤ H ≤ 29.2, 15 objects) is not drawn from a survey with known completeness; these objects were observed because they made close, observable approaches. Section 6 shows that the sub-100 m sample is dominated by ν6-resonance delivery (~64%), and the paper notes an apparent concentration of small L-chondrite-like NEOs below the ν6 resonance. If orbital accessibility preferentially selects ν6-delivered material, the observed rise in L fraction and the derived crossover at H ≈ 24.5 could be in part a selection artifact. The NEOMOD probabilities are used to characterize source regions but are not used to re-weight the H/L/LL fractions. The authors should either demonstrate that the selection function is composition-independent or provide re-weighted estimates and show how the crossover and upper limits change.
  2. [Section 5, Table 2; Section 7] The claimed upper size limit of ~18 m for LL-chondrite parent bodies is not statistically supported by the reported numbers. The smallest-bin LL fraction is 25.1 ± 11.3%, which is only about 1.3σ above the 10% meteorite-fall proportion. The statement that 'the size threshold ... has still not been reached' and the resulting ~18 m upper limit therefore rest on a non-significant excess. The H-chondrite deficit (12.8 ± 8.8% vs 43%) is significant, but the LL limit should be removed or replaced with a statement that the LL fraction is statistically consistent with the fall proportion.
  3. [Section 5, Fig. 9] The quoted crossover diameter of 40 m (1σ range 31-49 m) is obtained by linear interpolation between the median diameters of the two adjacent bins, but the propagation described in the text appears to include only the uncertainty in the L-chondrite fractions, not the systematic uncertainty in converting H to diameter from assumed geometric albedos (0.15-0.25, Section 3). Since diameter scales as albedo^{-1/2}, the assumed albedo range alone changes median sizes by roughly 10-30%, comparable to the quoted 31-49 m range. The authors should state whether albedo systematics are included in the quoted range and, if not, re-derive the crossover with them.
  4. [Section 5, Table 4; Section 5, ML classifier description] The multinomial logistic regression classifier uses three input features (ol/(ol+px), Fa, Fs), but several objects in Table 4 have no measured BAR and therefore no ol/(ol+px) (e.g., 2023 PM, 2023 VR4, 2024 BH, 2024 OL1, 2025 OL1). The paper does not state how missing features are handled in the classifier or whether these objects were excluded. Because these objects are still assigned H/L/LL types in Table 3, the classification pipeline for missing data must be described; otherwise the reported fractions, including those in the smallest bin, are not reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'first observational evidence' is strong given the selection caveats; consider softening to 'observational evidence' unless the sample representativeness is established or explicitly corrected.
  2. [Table 2 caption] The caption should state explicitly that the reported percentages are the bias-corrected Ptrue values and should define the error bars as the quadrature combination of Wilson-score sampling uncertainties and confusion-matrix systematic uncertainties.
  3. [Section 6] For the source-region ratios in Figures 11-13, please state the number of objects per subtype used in each ratio and whether the subtype assignments used in these figures are the same hard classifications as in Table 3 or probability-weighted assignments.
  4. [Section 2] The slit width appears as '0.8”' with a right quotation mark; this should be typeset as 0.8 arcsec.
  5. [References] Several in-press references (Marsset et al. 2026; Vokrouhlický et al. 2026) would benefit from arXiv identifiers or DOI links to help readers assess the cited results.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The H and LL 'upper size limits' are set equal to the median of the smallest observed bin, so those numbers reduce by construction; the core size-composition trend remains an independent empirical result.

  1. self definitional [Section 5, Compositional Analysis (two- and three-subgroup analyses; parent-body size discussion)]
    ""we establish an upper size limit of 39 m (the median of this subgroup) for these bodies... the objects that actually enter Earth's atmosphere and produce H chondrite falls are predominantly smaller than ~18 m (the median size for the 24.7<=H<=29.2 subgroup)... As with the parent bodies of H chondrites, we set an upper size limit of~18 m for these objects.""

    The numerical 'upper size limits' for H and LL parent bodies are not derived from the compositional mismatch; they are set equal to the median of the smallest H-magnitude bin. The only data-derived fact is that H and LL fractions in the 4-31 m bin still lie above meteorite-fall proportions, which at most says the relevant sizes are below that bin. The quoted 39 m and ~18 m values are summary statistics of the input sample, so the claimed limits are equivalent to the chosen medians by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim--that the S-complex NEO compositional mix changes from LL-dominated to L-dominated toward smaller sizes, with a crossover near 31-49 m--is not circular. The spectral-to-composition equations and the multinomial logistic regression classifier are calibrated on meteorite-standard ranges and synthetic data from those ranges, independent of asteroid size. The 47% L-chondrite fall fraction and the 43% H and 10% LL fractions are external benchmarks, and the 31-49 m crossover is obtained by linear interpolation between observed subgroup medians, not by fitting the target claim. Self-citations (Sanchez et al. 2020/2024, NEOMOD) are data or calibration reuse and do not carry the central inference. However, the paper's headline H and LL 'upper size limits' of ~18 m are explicitly set to the median of the smallest subgroup; that specific numerical prediction reduces by construction to a chosen bin statistic, warranting a partial-circularity score rather than a clean bill. The source-region representativeness caveat is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and is noted but not scored.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fundamentally new entities are introduced. The work relies on established taxonomic classes, spectral calibrations, and dynamical models. The two free-parameter groups (albedos and classification boundaries) are carried over from prior literature but are load-bearing for the size constraints.

free parameters (2)
  • Geometric albedo assumptions = Q/Sq: 0.25, S/Sr: 0.24, Sx: 0.15
    Used with the Pravec & Harris (2007) diameter relation to convert absolute magnitude H to diameter. The Sx albedo is based on a single object (1998 OR2, Battle et al. 2022). All size limits and the crossover size in the paper depend on these assumed values. See Section 3.
  • H/L/LL classification boundaries = From Sanchez et al. (2020)
    These boundaries in (ol/(ol+px), Fa, Fs) define the ordinary chondrite subtype regions and are used to generate the synthetic dataset for training the multinomial logistic regression classifier. The inferred subtype fractions inherit these boundaries. See Section 5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Sanchez et al. (2020) calibration equations convert Band I center and BAR to fayalite, ferrosilite, and ol/(ol+px) accurately for small NEOs.
    The entire compositional assignment rests on these empirical relations, which were derived from laboratory spectra of meteorites. Any systematic offset affects all inferred subtype fractions. See Section 5 and Table 4.
  • domain assumption The Bus-DeMeo taxonomy and the Sx subclass defined by Sanchez et al. (2024) correctly classify these objects into S-complex types.
    Taxonomic classification is used to group objects and to assign albedo priors. The paper follows the Sx definition from Sanchez et al. (2024), and the albedo for Sx is a single-object measurement. See Section 4.
  • domain assumption The meteorite fall fractions (H 43%, L 47%, LL 10%) are the correct ground truth for pre-atmospheric parent bodies.
    The paper compares NEO fractions to fall statistics to define the match and to set upper limits. Any bias in the fall database (e.g., recovery biases) shifts the inferred size constraints. See Section 5 and Table 2.
  • domain assumption NEOMOD (Nesvorny et al. 2023, 2024) correctly computes source region probabilities for small NEOs.
    The source region analysis of Section 6 uses NEOMOD to assign escape probabilities; the interpretation of the size trend and the source region ratios depends on these probabilities. See Section 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Size Constraints for the Pre-atmospheric Parent Bodies of Ordinary Chondrites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BSCGNOUJ

@misc{pith2026260805288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Size Constraints for the Pre-atmospheric Parent Bodies of Ordinary Chondrites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BSCGNOUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05288}
}
abstract

The study of S-complex near-Earth objects (NEOs), the parent bodies of ordinary chondrites, has shown that they are dominated by asteroids with LL chondrite-like compositions. This is surprising because among the three subtypes of ordinary chondrites (H, L, and LL), LL chondrites are the least common, representing only 10\% of all ordinary chondrite falls. This discrepancy has been attributed to the size of the NEOs studied, which are likely too large to be the immediate precursors of the meteorites that fall on Earth. To test this hypothesis, we obtained near-infrared spectra (0.7-2.5 $\mu$m) of a group of objects with absolute magnitudes 20.0 $\leq$ $H$ $\leq$ 29.2 (sizes $\sim$4-343 m). The sample was divided into subgroups based on their $H$ value, and the composition of the asteroids was determined. We found that the dominance of LL chondrite-like objects disappears at sizes of $\sim$31-49 m. At this size range, asteroids with L chondrite-like compositions become dominant, matching the fraction of L chondrite meteorite falls. In contrast, the fraction of H chondrite-like NEOs was found to be much lower than the proportion of H chondrite falls, even among the smallest objects. We determined an upper size limit of $\sim$18 m for the parent bodies of these meteorites. The same upper limit was established for the pre-atmospheric parent bodies of LL chondrites. These results constitute the first observational evidence for a size dependence in the composition of S-complex NEOs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Taxonomic distribution within the S-complex for the two-subgroup analysis. The number of objects for each subgroup is indicated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taxonomic distribution within the S-complex for the three-subgroup analysis. The number of objects for each subgroup is indicated. 5. COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the Band I center versus BAR diagram for the two-subgroup analysis. Objects whose spectra were obtained with the 0.8 µm dichroic are not included because their BAR would appear shifted to the right due to the effect of truncating the spectra at this wavelength (Sanchez et al. 2020). In general, we see that most objects in the 20.0 ≤ H ≤ 22.6 subgroup are clustered in the upper part of the S(IV) subtype, where … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Molar content of fayalite (Fa) vs. ol/(ol+px) ratio derived for the two-subgroup analysis. Black dashed boxes represent the range of measured values for each ordinary chondrite subtype. Gray solid boxes represent the uncertainties associated with the spectrally derived…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability distribution functions of ordinary chondrite subtypes for NEOs in the two-subgroup analysis. Each row represents an NEO and each column represents an ordinary chondrite subtype (H, L, LL). differ by only 1% from the observed fractions. Mean Ptrue values for…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized confusion matrix resulting from the multinomial logistic regression model. Labels correspond to the three ordinary chondrite subtypes (H, L, LL) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean values for the ordinary chondrite subtypes for the two-subgroup analysis. The number of objects for each subgroup is indicated. The fractions of ordinary chondrite falls are shown in the horizontal bar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean values for the ordinary chondrite subtypes for the three-subgroup analysis. The number of objects for each subgroup is indicated. The fractions of ordinary chondrite falls are shown in the horizontal bar. Although fewer, there are still too many asteroids with LL …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: L chondrite-like fraction vs. absolute magnitude (left) and diameter (right). A linear interpolation was performed between the median values of the 22.2 ≤ H ≤ 24.2 and 24.7 ≤ H ≤ 29.2 subgroups. a linear interpolation between the medians of these two subgroups. The 1σ …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Inclination vs. semimajor axis for the NEOs. The main asteroid families that have been linked to ordinary chondrites are represented by gray squares. The ν6 secular resonance with Saturn and the 3:1 and 5:2 mean motion resonances with Jupiter are represented with dash…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: source region ratios of H chondrites relative to the full sample of NEOs. For clarity, only source regions with probabilities greater than 1% in the full sample are shown. Bottom: heatmap showing the mean probability distribution functions of source regions for t…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: source region ratios of L chondrites relative to the full sample of NEOs. For clarity, only source regions with probabilities greater than 1% in the full sample are shown. Bottom: heatmap showing the mean probability distribution functions of source regions for t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top: source region ratios of LL chondrites relative to the full sample of NEOs. For clarity, only source regions with probabilities greater than 1% in the full sample are shown. Bottom: heatmap showing the mean probability distribution functions of source regions for …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Near-IR spectra of the new 25 NEOs included in this study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Near-IR spectra of the new 25 NEOs included in this study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., et al.\ 2022, , 3, 226

    Battle, A., Reddy, V., Sanchez, J. A., et al.\ 2022, , 3, 226. doi:10.3847/PSJ/ac7223

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac7223 2022

  2. [2]

    P., DeMeo, F

    Binzel, R. P., DeMeo, F. E., Turtelboom, E. V., et al.\ 2019, , 324, 41

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/acb268

    Bowen, B., Reddy, V., De Florio, M., et al.\ 2023, , 4, 52. doi:10.3847/PSJ/acb268

    doi:10.3847/psj/acb268 2023

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08006-7

    Bro z , M., Vernazza, P., Marsset, M., et al.\ 2024, , 634, 8034, 566. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08006-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08006-7 2024

  5. [5]

    H., McCoy, T

    Burbine, T. H., McCoy, T. J., Meibom, A., et al.\ 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. W. F. Bottke, Jr. et al. (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 653

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    A., Gaffey, M

    Cloutis, E. A., Gaffey, M. J., Jackowski, T. L., & Reed, K. L.\ 1986, , 91, 11641

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T.\ 2004, , 116, 362

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    E., Binzel, R

    DeMeo, F. E., Binzel, R. P., Slivan, S. M., et al.\ 2009, , 202, 160

    work page 2009

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    E., Burt, B

    DeMeo, F. E., Burt, B. J., Marsset, M., et al.\ 2022, , 380, 114971. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2022.114971

    2022

  2. [10]

    L., McCoy, T

    Dunn, T. L., McCoy, T. J., Sunshine, J. M., et al.\ 2010, , 208, 789

    2010

  3. [11]

    L., Burbine, T

    Dunn, T. L., Burbine, T. H., Bottke, W. F., et al.\ 2013, , 222, 273. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.007

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Dykhuis, M. J. & Greenberg, R.\ 2015, , 252, 199. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.012

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Burbine, T

    Gaffey, M. J., Burbine, T. H., Piatek, J. L., et al.\ 1993, , 106, 573

    1993

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629252

    Granvik, M., Morbidelli, A., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., et al.\ 2017, , 598, A52. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629252

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz088ß

    Hasegawa, S., Hiroi, T., Ohtsuka, K., et al.\ 2019, , 71, 103. doi:10.1093/pasj/psz088ß

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Hyden, J., Thomas, C., Harvison, B., et al.\ 2020, , 235, 277.07

    2020

  9. [17]

    & Devillepoix, H

    Jenniskens, P. & Devillepoix, H. A. R.\ 2025, , 60, 4, 928. doi:10.1111/maps.14321

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Emery, J

    Lucas, M. P., Emery, J. P., Hiroi, T., et al.\ 2019, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 54, 157

    2019

  11. [19]

    E., Burt, B., et al.\ 2022, , 163, 165

    Marsset, M., DeMeo, F. E., Burt, B., et al.\ 2022, , 163, 165. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac532f

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08007-6

    Marsset, M., Vernazza, P., Bro z , M., et al.\ 2024, , 634, 8034, 561. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08007-6

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Marsset, M., Vernazza, P., Bro z , M., et al.\ 2026, , in press

    2026

  14. [22]

    A.\ 2025, , 537, 4, 3145

    McGraw, A., Reddy, V., & Sanchez, J. A.\ 2025, , 537, 4, 3145. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf061

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Nakamura, T., Noguchi, T., Tanaka, M., et al.\ 2011, Science, 333, 1113

    2011

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.016

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Morbidelli, A., et al.\ 2009, , 200, 2, 698. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.016

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    F., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 2, 55

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Deienno, R., Bottke, W. F., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 2, 55. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace040

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115922

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Shelly, F., et al.\ 2024, , 411, 115922. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115922

    2024

  19. [27]

    & Harris, A

    Pravec, P. & Harris, A. W.\ 2007, , 190, 250. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.02.023

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al.\ 2003, PASP, 115, 362

    2003

  21. [29]

    F., et al.\ 2015, , 252, 129

    Reddy, V., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Bottke, W. F., et al.\ 2015, , 252, 129. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.006

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Reddy, V., Nathues, A., et al.\ 2012, , 220, 36

    Sanchez, J. A., Reddy, V., Nathues, A., et al.\ 2012, , 220, 36. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.04.008

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Michelsen, R., Reddy, V., & Nathues, A.\ 2013, , 225, 131

    Sanchez, J. A., Michelsen, R., Reddy, V., & Nathues, A.\ 2013, , 225, 131

    2013

  24. [32]

    A., Thomas, C., Reddy, V., et al.\ 2020, , 159, 146

    Sanchez, J. A., Thomas, C., Reddy, V., et al.\ 2020, , 159, 146. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab723f

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Reddy, V., Thirouin, A., et al.\ 2024, , 5, 6, 131

    Sanchez, J. A., Reddy, V., Thirouin, A., et al.\ 2024, , 5, 6, 131. doi:10.3847/PSJ/ad445f

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Thomas, C

    Vernazza, P., Binzel, R. P., Thomas, C. A., et al.\ 2008, , 454, 858. doi:10.1038/nature07154

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    F.\ 2026, , 171, 3, 169

    Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Bottke, W. F.\ 2026, , 171, 3, 169. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae3e52

    2026 doi

  28. [36]

    K., McCoy, T

    Weisberg, M. K., McCoy, T. J., & Krot, A. N.\ 2006, in Meteorites and the Early Solar System II, ed. D. S. Lauretta & H. Y. McSween, Jr. (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 19

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.