Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 72 references

Asteroid sizes determined with thermophysical model and stellar occultations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thermophysical modelling can size slow-rotating asteroids as accurately as multichord occultations.

desk verdict Useful size and shape catalog for 15 slow-rotating asteroids, but the paper's headline 5% agreement claim rests partly on two-chord occultations and is overstated in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09437 v1 pith:4FAI2M4W submitted 2025-05-14 astro-ph.EP

A. Choukroun , A. Marciniak , J. Ďurech , J. Per{l}a , W. Og{l}oza , R. Szakats , L. Molnar , A. Pal
show 160 more authors
F. Monteiro I. Mieczkowska W. Beisker D. Agnetti C. Anderson S. Andersson D. Antuszewicz P. Arcoverde R.-L. Aubry P. Bacci R. Bacci P. Baruffetti L. Benedyktowicz M. Bertini D. Blazewicz R. Boninsegna Zs. Bora M. Borkowski E. Bredner J. Broughton M. Butkiewicz - Bąk N. Carlson G. Casalnuovo F. Casarramona Y.-J. Choi S. Cikota M. Collins B. Cseh G. Csörnyei H. De Groot P. Delincak P. Denyer R. Dequinze M. Dogramatzidis M. Drozdz R. Duffard D. Eisfeldt M. Eleftheriou C. Ellington S. Fauvaud M. Fauvaud M. Ferrais M. Filipek P. Fini M. Frits B. Gährken G. Galli D. Gault S. Geier B. Gimple J. Golonka L. Grazzini J. Grice K. Guhl W. Hanna M. Harman W. Hasubick T. Haymes D. Herald D. Higgins R. Hirsch J. Horbowicz A. Horti - David B. Ignacz E. Jehin A. Jones R. Jones D. Dunham Cs. Kalup K. Kaminski M. K. Kaminska P. Kankiewicz M. Kaplan A. Karagiannidis B. Kattentidt S. Kidd B. Kirpluk D.-H. Kim M.-J. Kim I. Konstanciak G. Krannich M. Kretlow J. Kubanek V. Kudak P. Kulczak M. Lecossois R. Leiva M. Libert J. Licandro P. Lindner R. Liu Y. Liu G. Lyzenga M. Maestripieri C. Malagon P. Maley A. Manna S. Messner O. Michniewicz M. A. Miftah M. Mizutani N. Morales M. Murawiecka J. Nadolny T. Nemoto J. Newman V. Nikitin P. Nosal P. Nosworthy M. O'Connell J. Oey A. M. Ortiz-Ochoa A. Ossola D. Oszkiewicz E. Pakstiene M. Pawlowski V. Perig E. Petrescu F. Pilcher E. Podlewska-Gaca M. Polacek J. Polak T. Polakis M. Polinska A. Popowicz V. Reddy J.-J. Rives M. Rottenborn N. Ruocco A. Rutkowski K. Saci T. Santana-Ros K. Sarneczky O. Schreurs V. Sempronio B. Skiff J. Skrzypek D. Smith K. Sobkowiak E. Sonbas S. Sposetti C. Stewart W. Stewart T. Swift M. Szkudlarek K. Szyszka N. Takacs L. Tychoniec M. Uno S. Urakawa K. Vida C. Weber N. Wünsche H. Yamamura H. Yoshihara M. Zawilski P. Zeleny S. Zola M. Zejmo K. Zukowski
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords asteroidsizesthermophysicalmodellingconvexinversionmodelstellaroccultationslightcurvemain-beltasteroidsthermalinertiainfrareddata
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

This paper tries to establish that for slow-rotating, low-amplitude main-belt asteroids, a thermophysical model that fits visible light curves and thermal infrared fluxes at the same time can determine an asteroid's size as reliably as a multichord stellar occultation, the most direct ground-based size measurement available. The authors built convex shape and spin models for 15 poorly studied asteroids, scaled them with the Convex Inversion Thermophysical Model (CITPM), and independently scaled the same shapes with occultation chords. Across the sample, the two diameters agree within about 5% in most cases, and the larger disagreements trace to poorly covered occultation events. If this holds, scarce and logistically demanding occultation campaigns could be replaced by flux-based modelling whenever dense light curves and space-based infrared data exist, removing a major bottleneck in asteroid size catalogs and in the density and thermal-inertia studies built on them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Convex Inversion Thermophysical Model (CITPM), a thermophysical model that takes the convex shape and spin solution from light-curve inversion and refines them while fitting visible light curves and thermal infrared photometry together, with the infrared weight $\omega_{\mathrm{IR}}$ chosen from the $\chi^2_{\mathrm{vis}}$--$\chi^2_{\mathrm{IR}}$ trade-off curve. In contrast to earlier thermophysical models that keep the input shape fixed, CITPM lets the shape, spin, size, albedo, surface roughness, and thermal inertia adjust to both data types, which is what allows the scale (diameter) to be recovered from flux data alone. The independent check is the occultation fit: each shape is projected onto the fundamental plane and its centroid and scale are optimised against positive and negative chords, yielding a volume-equivalent diameter from direct geometry.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to run both pipelines on asteroids whose true volumes are known independently, for example radar- or spacecraft-imaged bodies, and check whether CITPM and occultation diameters still agree with each other and with the known diameter within 5%; if both methods reproduce the known size on strongly nonconvex bodies, the convex-shape concern is minor, and if both fail together, the paper's agreement is a shared-model artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the CITPM, which optimises spin axis, convex shape, size, albedo, surface roughness, and thermal inertia against the combined target $\chi^2 = \chi^2_{\mathrm{vis}} + \omega_{\mathrm{IR}}\, \chi^2_{\mathrm{IR}}$, produces volume-equivalent diameters whose accuracy is comparable to that of multichord stellar occultations. The paper demonstrates this by comparing, for each of 15 main-belt asteroids, the CITPM diameter with the diameter obtained by projecting the same light-curve-inversion shape onto the occultation fundamental plane and fitting its silhouette to the observed chords. The two diameters agree within 5% for most targets, and the larger discrepancies are linked to events with too few or poorly placed chords, where the paper argues the CITPM value is the more reliable one. Compared against the literature, the new CITPM entries are on average closer to occultation sizes than previous diameter estimates, and the study also resolves substantial inconsistencies in earlier size determinations for the targets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a smooth convex shape built from light-curve inversion is good enough to represent the true volume of the asteroid; for a body with deep concavities, large surface features, or a satellite, both the CITPM and the occultation fit could be biased the same way, and their agreement would hide the bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For slow-rotating, low-amplitude main-belt asteroids with dense light curves and space-based infrared photometry, CITPM diameters can be treated as occultation-grade, so reliable sizes no longer have to wait for rare coordinated occultation events.
  • A disagreement larger than about 5% between the two methods becomes a useful diagnostic: when the occultation has few chords or poor chord placement, the CITPM value should be preferred over the occultation fit.
  • The new diameters, geometric albedos, and thermal-inertia estimates give density and surface studies direct input for these 15 targets, replacing older values that differed by up to 30% or more and sometimes depended on a spherical shape assumption.
  • The sample shows no trend between rotation period and normalised thermal inertia over 10-40 hours, arguing against a previously proposed correlation in this range.
  • Feeding multichord occultation sizes back into the CITPM as a fixed scale, as the paper outlines for future work, could exchange some size information for tighter constraints on thermal inertia and surface roughness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the within-5% agreement is reproduced on a wider sample, the same pipeline could be applied to survey-generated dense photometry and existing infrared archives to produce reliable diameters for hundreds of slow rotators that currently rely on albedo-assumed sizes, at a fraction of the cost of occultation campaigns.
  • The agreement is not a fully independent validation of shape: both diameters are scaled from the same convex light-curve-inversion shape, so the comparison mainly certifies the scale; a decisive extension would be to compare both methods on bodies whose shapes are known independently from radar or spacecraft imaging.
  • The claimed accuracy is demonstrated on slow rotators with small light-curve amplitudes; whether it carries over to fast rotators, high-amplitude targets, or objects with strong nonconvex topography (such as contact-binary candidates) is an open question that a follow-up sample could settle.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents shape models and equivalent-volume diameters for 15 slow-rotating, low-amplitude main-belt asteroids by combining dense optical light curves, thermal infrared data (WISE, IRAS, AKARI), and stellar occultations. Shape and spin models are first derived with convex light-curve inversion; the Convex Inversion Thermophysical Model (CITPM) then jointly optimizes shape, spin, size, albedo, thermal inertia, and roughness against visible and thermal data. In parallel, the same light-curve-inversion shape models are scaled by fitting them to stellar occultation chords. The central claim is that CITPM-derived sizes agree with occultation-derived sizes within 5% for most targets, and that CITPM is as accurate as multichord occultations. The paper also reports albedo, thermal inertia, surface roughness, and a null result for the thermal-inertia versus rotation-period correlation.

Significance. The observational campaign and modeling effort are valuable: 15 poorly studied asteroids now have shape models, spin parameters, thermal parameters, and publicly archived data (DAMIT, IRDB, Zenodo), and the CITPM methodology is applied to a deliberately challenging sample of slow rotators. If the 5% accuracy claim were fully supported, the paper would strengthen the case for using CITPM as a substitute for scarce occultation measurements, with direct implications for asteroid density and thermal-inertia studies. However, as detailed in the major comments, the paper's own Tables 4 and 5 show several targets with 10–20% discrepancies, and five of the fifteen occultation references come from only two-chord events whose geometric degeneracy is not folded into the quoted uncertainties. The main strength of the paper is its data and modeling pipeline rather than the currently stated validation claim; the discussion of practical difficulties such as infrared-data weighting and the thermal-inertia/roughness degeneracy is candid and useful.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.4; Tables 4 and 5] The claim that CITPM and occultation sizes agree within 5% in most cases is contradicted by the paper's own tables. For both pole solutions, the residual |D_CITPM − D_occ|/D_occ exceeds 10% for (215) Oenone (37 km vs 46–48 km), (429) Lotis (67–68 km vs 58–62 km), (907) Rhoda (71–72 km vs 63 km), and (1062) Ljuba (50–51 km vs 41–44 km). Residuals of 5–10% appear for (357) Ninina, (395) Delia, (541) Deborah, (814) Tauris, and (931) Whittemora for at least one pole solution. Depending on how the mirror-pole ambiguity is resolved, only about half or fewer of the 15 targets fall within 5%. The abstract and Section 5 should replace the qualitative '5% for most cases' statement with a quantitative residual statistic, and they should report the agreement separately for targets with genuinely multichord occultations.
  2. [Section 4.2; Section 4.3.7–4.3.8; Table 2; Table 5] Five of the fifteen validation targets—(215) Oenone, (373) Melusina, (429) Lotis, (907) Rhoda, and (1062) Ljuba—have only two-chord occultation events, for which the projected size is degenerate in the direction perpendicular to the chords. Table 5 nonetheless reports single diameter values with formal RMS uncertainties only, and these values are used as the reference in Section 4.4. The paper itself acknowledges the degeneracy for (907), where the chords 'could as well intersect the northern hemisphere, leading to a larger size determination,' and for (1062), where the size 'can also be 10% larger than the adopted 44 km.' Consequently, the quoted occultation uncertainties do not represent the true reference accuracy, and the agreement or disagreement with CITPM for these targets is not a clean validation. The comparison should either be restricted to events with at least three chords, or the two-chord degeneracy should be propagated into the reference diameter uncertainty.
  3. [Section 4.4; Figure 3] Even for targets with at least one multichord event, the statement that CITPM is as accurate as multichord occultations is not demonstrated. For (357) Ninina the preferred pole 1 gives 104 km (CITPM) versus 97 km (occultation), a +7% residual; for (814) Tauris pole 1 gives 101 versus 112 km, about −10%; and (395) Delia, (541) Deborah, and (931) Whittemora show residuals of 5–7% despite the availability of at least one event with three or more chords. The paper attributes these cases to insufficient chord number or poor chord placement, but that attribution is not quantified. A residual distribution as a function of the number of chords, together with a median or RMS residual for well-constrained events, should be reported; without that, the general conclusion overstates the accuracy of CITPM relative to multichord occultations.
  4. [Section 5; Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.6] The size validation is internal to the convex light-curve-inversion modeling framework: CITPM starts from the convex shape model and adjusts it to thermal data, while the occultation scaling uses the same convex shape model from step one. If the true shapes have nonconvex features—the paper itself discusses a possible double-dip event for (814) Tauris and a possible satellite for (279) Thule—both methods could yield biased volume-equivalent diameters, and agreement between them would not reveal that bias. Section 5's limitation statement about the convex approximation concerns only the decoupling of thermal inertia from surface roughness; it should be extended to the size determination. A concrete check, such as comparing one or two targets with disk-resolved imaging (e.g., VLT/SPHERE) or radar, would substantially strengthen the absolute-accuracy claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] The time offset is written Δt in the equation but Δ⃗t in the body text; please unify the notation.
  2. [Table 4, (672) Astarte] The geometric albedo entry for (672) Astarte appears as '0.0470.01,' which seems to be missing a delimiter or an uncertainty; please correct.
  3. [Figure 3; Figure 5] Both captions include a formula for the relative residual, but the figures show only an x-y scatter without a residuals panel; either add residuals subpanels or remove the formulas from the captions and report residuals in the text.
  4. [Appendix E; Section 4.3.6] The Appendix E caption contains a duplicated word ('this one one is shown with the solid contour'), and the Section 4.3.6 heading reads '814 T auris' with an unwanted space.
  5. [Table 2; Section 4.4] Since the chord count is used later in the validation argument, Table 2 would be clearer if the Nocc column distinguished events with at least three chords from those with only two chords, for example by adding a separate column or a footnote.
  6. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4)] The acceptable-solution criterion χ2_vis < min(χ2_vis)·1.1 does not state over which set of runs the minimum is taken; a brief clarification would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CITPM sizes are validated against independent occultation chord fits, with no shared fitted constants or definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Shape and spin models are built from dense optical light curves via convex inversion; CITPM then adjusts those models against combined visible and infrared data to obtain a size, while occultation fitting independently scales the step-one, visible-only shape models using chord timings. The paper states this explicitly: 'The asteroid models we used here were based on dense light curves in the visible range only (first step, see Section 2).' There are no shared fitted constants: the CITPM diameter is determined from thermal flux and light-curve morphology, and the occultation diameter is determined from chord geometry and timing. The central comparison in Figure 3 is therefore an external benchmark, not an output re-fed into the model. The self-citations to Durech et al. (2017) for CITPM and Durech et al. (2011) for occultation projection are method citations by coauthors, but they are not used to justify the target result; the validation is against occultation data not used in the CITPM fit. The paper's practice of declaring CITPM 'more reliable' for discrepant targets (e.g., Sections 4.3.7 and 4.3.8) is a post-hoc interpretation rather than a definitional equivalence, and the weak constraint from some two-chord occultations is an accuracy concern, not a circularity. No equation in the paper defines the CITPM size in terms of the occultation size or vice versa, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The paper argues against a Thule satellite, so it does not introduce an invented body. The main unverified inputs are the convexity assumption, the thermophysical model fidelity, the absolute calibration of IR fluxes, and the reliability of the remaining occultation chords.

free parameters (5)
  • Diameter D (equivalent-volume sphere) per target = Table 4 values, e.g., 37 km for (215) Oenone
    The central output: scaling the shape model to match the observed thermal flux in CITPM.
  • Thermal inertia Gamma per target = Table 4 values, e.g., 63+86-62 J m^-2 s^-1/2 K^-1 for (215) Oenone
    Fitted simultaneously with size; poorly constrained due to degeneracy with surface roughness.
  • Surface roughness: crater aperture gamma_c and coverage rho_c = Grid-searched (gamma_c from 10 deg to 90 deg, rho_c from 0.1 to 1) and then fixed; some targets rerun with gamma_c =…
    Free grid parameters that affect the thermal fit, hence the derived size; they are not optimized in the final run but selected by the acceptance criterion.
  • IR data weight omega_IR = Chosen per target via asymptote intersection method or heuristic inspection, range 0.001 to 0.05
    Balances visible and infrared chi-squared; the paper states it affects the diameter by a few percent and can affect convergence.
  • Hapke parameters for albedo = Not tabulated directly; derived geometric albedo p_V reported in Table 4
    Fitted to visible light curves to convert hemispherical albedo; albedo is tied to the size through the thermal model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Convex light curve inversion produces shape models adequate for size scaling.
    Used throughout; the paper concedes in Section 5 that convex approximation limits the decoupling of thermal inertia and roughness and misses nonconvex topography.
  • domain assumption The Lagerros thermophysical model implemented in CITPM correctly simulates asteroid thermal emission.
    Core of the size-from-thermal-flux pipeline; no independent end-to-end calibration is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption IRDB color-corrected fluxes from WISE, IRAS, and AKARI are absolute and accurate.
    The thermal data are taken from IRDB as absolute flux references; size scales with the square root of the flux, so calibration errors propagate directly into size.
  • domain assumption Occultation chords, after the documented exclusions, trace the true silhouette.
    Chords are the external benchmark; two chords are excluded as erroneous, and the remaining set is assumed complete and accurately timed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asteroid sizes determined with thermophysical model and stellar occultations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4FAI2M4W

@misc{pith2026250509437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asteroid sizes determined with thermophysical model and stellar occultations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4FAI2M4W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09437}
}
read the original abstract

Context. The sizes of many asteroids, especially slowly rotating, low-amplitude targets, remain poorly constrained due to selection effects. These biases limit the availability of high-quality data, leaving size estimates reliant on spherical shape assumptions. Such approximations introduce significant uncertainties propagating, e.g. into density determinations or thermophysical and compositional studies, affecting our understanding of asteroid properties. Aims. This work targets poorly studied main-belt asteroids, most of which lacked shape models. Using only high-quality dense light curves, thermal IR observations (incl. WISE), and stellar occultations, we aimed to produce reliable shape models and scale them via two independent techniques, allowing size comparison. We conducted two campaigns to obtain dense photometric light curves and to acquire multi-chord stellar occultations. Methods. Shape and spin models were reconstructed using lightcurve inversion. Sizes were determined by (1) thermophysical modeling with the Convex Inversion Thermophysical Model (CITPM), optimizing spin and shape models to visible lightcurve and IR data, and (2) scaling shape models with stellar occultations. Results. We obtained precise sizes and shape models for 15 asteroids. CITPM- and occultation-derived sizes agree within 5% in most cases, demonstrating the modeling's reliability. Larger discrepancies usually stem from incomplete occultation chord coverage. The study also gives insights into surface properties incl. albedo, roughness and thermal inertia. Conclusions. Using high-quality data and an advanced TPM integrating thermal and visible data with shape adjustment enabled precise size estimates comparable to those from multi-chord stellar occultations. We resolved major inconsistencies in previous size estimates, providing solid input for future studies on asteroid densities and surfaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09437 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Crater coverage ρc against crater aperture γc against ther￾mal inertia Γ in J m−2 s − 1 2 K −1 of the best solutions for asteroid (814) Tauris. All blue points correspond to acceptable solutions according to equations 4. The red points represent the 10 best solutions among all acceptable ones. All points are grouped, ex￾cept for the red point with Γ > 140, which is isolated. This point was not used to determine fina… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between thermally derived asteroid diame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the error-weighted average of ther￾mally derived asteroid diameters from the MP3C database and CITPM diameters derived in this work (Tables 1 and 4). The hor￾izontal axis corresponds to the CITPM-derived size, while the vertical axis represents the a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Thermal inertia normalised to 1 AU (in J m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Kiss, C., et al

    Alí-Lagoa, V ., Müller, T. G., Kiss, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A84 Alí-Lagoa, V ., Müller, T. G., Usui, F., & Hasegawa, S. 2018, A&A, 612, A85

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    & Dudzi´nski, G

    Bartczak, P. & Dudzi´nski, G. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5050

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Bus, S. J. & Binzel, R. P. 2002, Icarus, 158, 146

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    2021, Nature, 598, 49 ˇCapek, D

    Cambioni, S., Delbo, M., Poggiali, G., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 49 ˇCapek, D. & V okrouhlický, D. 2010, A&A, 519, A75

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2012, Planet

    Carry, B. 2012, Planet. Space Sci., 73, 98

    2012

  6. [6]

    2019, A&A, 623, A132

    Carry, B., Vachier, F., Berthier, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A132

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    2021, A&A, 650, A129 Delbo’, M., Mueller, M., Emery, J

    Carry, B., Vernazza, P., Vachier, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A129 Delbo’, M., Mueller, M., Emery, J. P., Rozitis, B., & Capria, M. T. 2015, in Asteroids IV , ed. P. Michel, F. E. DeMeo, & W. F. Bottke, 107–128 Delbo’, M. & Tanga, P. 2009, Planetary and Space Science, 57, 259

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    L., et al

    Dias-Oliveira, A., Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 22 ˇDurech, J., Delbo’, M., Carry, B., Hanuš, J., & Alí-Lagoa, V . 2017, A&A, 604, A27 ˇDurech, J., Hanuš, J., & Alí-Lagoa, V . 2018, A&A, 617, A57 ˇDurech, J., Kaasalainen, M., Herald, D., et al. 2011, Icarus, 214, 652 ˇDurech, J., Kaasalainen, M., Warner, B. D., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, 2...

    work page 2017

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    2022, A&A, 662, A71

    Ferrais, M., Jorda, L., Vernazza, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A71

    2022

  2. [10]

    2020, A&A, 638, L15

    Ferrais, M., Vernazza, P., Jorda, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, L15

    2020

  3. [11]

    F., Tanga, P., Spoto, F., Machado, P., & Herald, D

    Ferreira, J. F., Tanga, P., Spoto, F., Machado, P., & Herald, D. 2022, A&A, 658, A73

    2022

  4. [12]

    2024, Minor Planet Bulletin, 51, 100

    Franco, L., Pilcher, F., Oey, J., et al. 2024, Minor Planet Bulletin, 51, 100

    2024

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 677, A189

    Fuksa, M., Brož, M., Hanuš, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A189

    2023

  6. [14]

    2019, Journal for Occultation Astronomy, 9, 3 Hanuš, J., Delbo’, M., ˇDurech, J., & Alí-Lagoa, V

    George, T., Garlitz, J., & Morton, A. 2019, Journal for Occultation Astronomy, 9, 3 Hanuš, J., Delbo’, M., ˇDurech, J., & Alí-Lagoa, V . 2015, Icarus, 256, 101 Hanuš, J., Delbo’, M., ˇDurech, J., & Alí-Lagoa, V . 2018, Icarus, 309, 297 Hanuš, J., Delbo’, M., V okrouhlický, D.,...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Hapke, B. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 3039

    1981

  8. [16]

    1984, Icarus, 59, 41

    Hapke, B. 1984, Icarus, 59, 41

    1984

  9. [17]

    1986, Icarus, 67, 264

    Hapke, B. 1986, Icarus, 67, 264

    1986

  10. [18]

    Harris, A. W. 1998, Icarus, 131, 291

    1998

  11. [19]

    Harris, A. W. & Drube, L. 2016, ApJ, 832, 127

    2016

  12. [20]

    Harris, A. W. & Harris, A. W. 1997, Icarus, 126, 450

    1997

  13. [21]

    Harris, A. W. & Lagerros, J. S. V . 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. W. F. Bottke, Jr., A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi, & R. P. Binzel, 205–218

    2002

  14. [22]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 4570

    Herald, D., Gault, D., Anderson, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4570

    2020

  15. [23]

    2024, Small Bodies Occultations Bundle V4.0, NASA Planetary Data System, urn:nasa:pds:smallbodiesoccultations::4.0

    Herald, D., Gault, D., Carlson, N., et al. 2024, Small Bodies Occultations Bundle V4.0, NASA Planetary Data System, urn:nasa:pds:smallbodiesoccultations::4.0

    2024

  16. [24]

    R., & Tholen, D

    Hung, D., Hanuš, J., Masiero, J. R., & Tholen, D. J. 2022, Planet. Sci. J., 3, 56

    2022

  17. [25]

    2020, AJ, 159, 264

    Jiang, H., Ji, J., & Yu, L. 2020, AJ, 159, 264

    2020

  18. [26]

    2011, Multimodal inverse problems: Maximum compatibility estimate and shape reconstruction

    Kaasalainen, M. 2011, Multimodal inverse problems: Maximum compatibility estimate and shape reconstruction

    2011

  19. [27]

    & ˇDurech, J

    Kaasalainen, M. & ˇDurech, J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.09947

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    & Lamberg, L

    Kaasalainen, M. & Lamberg, L. 2006, Inverse Problems, 22, 749

    2006

  21. [29]

    & Torppa, J

    Kaasalainen, M. & Torppa, J. 2001, Icarus, 153, 24

    2001

  22. [30]

    2001, Icarus, 153, 37

    Kaasalainen, M., Torppa, J., & Muinonen, K. 2001, Icarus, 153, 37

    2001

  23. [31]

    & Viikinkoski, M

    Kaasalainen, M. & Viikinkoski, M. 2012, A&A, 543, A97

    2012

  24. [32]

    Lagerros, J. S. V . 1997, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting

    1997

  25. [33]

    Lagerros, J. S. V . 1998, A&A, 332, 1123

    1998

  26. [34]

    Lang, K. R. 1999, Astrophysical formulae

    1999

  27. [35]

    Leiva, R., Sicardy, B., Camargo, J. I. B., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 159

    2017

  28. [36]

    2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 471

    Lu, X.-P., Zhao, H.-B., & You, Z. 2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 471

    2013

  29. [37]

    MacLennan, E. M. & Emery, J. P. 2019, AJ, 157, 2

    2019

  30. [38]

    MacLennan, E. M. & Emery, J. P. 2021, Planet. Sci. J., 2, 161

    2021

  31. [39]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 53

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53

    2011

  32. [40]

    G., et al

    Marciniak, A., Alí-Lagoa, V ., Müller, T. G., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A139

    2019

  33. [41]

    2018, A&A, 610, A7

    Marciniak, A., Bartczak, P., Müller, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 610, A7

    2018

  34. [42]

    2021, A&A, 654, A87

    Marciniak, A., ˇDurech, J., Alí-Lagoa, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A87

    2021

  35. [43]

    2023, A&A, 679, A60

    Marciniak, A., ˇDurech, J., Choukroun, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A60

    2023

  36. [44]

    2015, Planet

    Marciniak, A., Pilcher, F., Oszkiewicz, D., et al. 2015, Planet. Space Sci., 118, 256

    2015

  37. [45]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 569

    Marsset, M., Brož, M., Vernazza, P., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 569

    2020

  38. [46]

    2017, A&A, 604, A64

    Marsset, M., Carry, B., Dumas, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A64

    2017

  39. [47]

    R., Grav, T., Mainzer, A

    Masiero, J. R., Grav, T., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791, 121

    2014

  40. [48]

    R., Mainzer, A

    Masiero, J. R., Mainzer, A. K., Bauer, J. M., et al. 2020, Planet. Sci. J., 1, 5

    2020

  41. [49]

    R., Mainzer, A

    Masiero, J. R., Mainzer, A. K., Bauer, J. M., et al. 2021, Planet. Sci. J., 2, 162

    2021

  42. [50]

    R., Mainzer, A

    Masiero, J. R., Mainzer, A. K., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 68

    2011

  43. [51]

    R., Mainzer, A

    Masiero, J. R., Mainzer, A. K., Grav, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, L8

    2012

  44. [52]

    R., Nugent, C., Mainzer, A

    Masiero, J. R., Nugent, C., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 168

    2017

  45. [53]

    2013, Icarus, 226, 419

    Matter, A., Delbo, M., Carry, B., & Ligori, S. 2013, Icarus, 226, 419

    2013

  46. [54]

    F., Nesvorný, D., & Levison, H

    Morbidelli, A., Bottke, W. F., Nesvorný, D., & Levison, H. F. 2009, Icarus, 204, 558

    2009

  47. [55]

    P., et al

    Mueller, M., Marchis, F., Emery, J. P., et al. 2010, Icarus, 205, 505 Müller, T., Marciniak, A., Kiss, C., et al. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 2326, past, Present and Future of Small Body Science and Exploration

    2010

  48. [56]

    J., van Duinen, R., et al

    Neugebauer, G., Habing, H. J., van Duinen, R., et al. 1984, ApJ, 278, L1

    1984

  49. [57]

    R., Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., et al

    Nugent, C. R., Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 63

    2016

  50. [58]

    2014, Minor Planet Bulletin, 41, 73

    Pilcher, F. 2014, Minor Planet Bulletin, 41, 73

    2014

  51. [59]

    2020, A&A, 638, A11

    Podlewska-Gaca, E., Marciniak, A., Alí-Lagoa, V ., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A11

    2020

  52. [60]

    L., Braga-Ribas, F., Desmars, J., et al

    Rommel, F. L., Braga-Ribas, F., Desmars, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A40

    2020

  53. [61]

    L., Braga-Ribas, F., Ortiz, J

    Rommel, F. L., Braga-Ribas, F., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A167

    2023

  54. [62]

    & Green, S

    Rozitis, B. & Green, S. F. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2042

    2011

  55. [63]

    Ryan, E. L. & Woodward, C. E. 2010, AJ, 140, 933 Sat¯o, I., Hamanowa, H., Tomioka, H., & Uehara, S. 2015, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5, 193

    2010

  56. [64]

    1949, Proceedings of the IRE, 37, 10 Szakáts, R., Müller, T., Alí-Lagoa, V ., et al

    Shannon, C. 1949, Proceedings of the IRE, 37, 10 Szakáts, R., Müller, T., Alí-Lagoa, V ., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A54

    1949

  57. [65]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3382

    Tanga, P., Carry, B., Colas, F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3382

    2015

  58. [66]

    2013, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Tanga, P., Delbo’, M., & Gerakis, J. 2013, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 45, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #45, 208.29

    2013

  59. [67]

    F., Noah, P

    Tedesco, E. F., Noah, P. V ., Noah, M., & Price, S. D. 2002, AJ, 123, 1056

    2002

  60. [68]

    Tholen, D. J. 1984, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    1984

  61. [69]

    G., et al

    Usui, F., Kuroda, D., Müller, T. G., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, 1117 Vereš, P., Jedicke, R., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2015, Icarus, 261, 34

    2011

  62. [70]

    D., Harris, A

    Warner, B. D., Harris, A. W., & Pravec, P. 2009, Icarus, 202, 134

    2009

  63. [71]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  64. [72]

    L., Yang, B., Ji, J., & Ip, W.-H

    Yu, L. L., Yang, B., Ji, J., & Ip, W.-H. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2388 12 Choukroun et al.: Asteroid sizes from thermophysical model and stellar occultations Appendix A: Published TPM and Occultation values Table A.1: Diameters from the literature obtained through TPM and those deter...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.