Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 107 references

Dust production rates in Jupiter-family comets II: Trends and population insights from ATLAS photometry of 116 JFCs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By measuring the dust proxy A(0°)fρ in 116 Jupiter-family comets over four years, this paper establishes that the pre-perihelion activity index is on average steeper than the post-perihelion index, and that the two distributions differ…

desk verdict Largest homogeneous JFC Afρ dataset; the headline pre/post activity-index asymmetry is real-looking but the K-S test used to 'confirm' it violates independent-sample assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09192 v1 pith:EUE5WBPO submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.EP

A. Fraser Gillan , Alan Fitzsimmons , Larry Denneau , Robert J. Siverd , Ken W. Smith , John L. Tonry , David R. Young This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords Jupiter-familycometsAfrhoactivityindexATLASsurveydustproductioncometphotometrycometaryoutburstsperihelionasymmetry
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

The paper analyzes four years of ATLAS survey photometry of 116 Jupiter-family comets to measure how each comet's dust production, tracked by the Afρ parameter, varies with heliocentric distance. Its central finding is that the activity index n (the power-law slope of A(0°)fρ versus heliocentric distance) is on average steeper pre-perihelion than post-perihelion, with mean values -5.2±4.5 and -3.2±2.7, and the two distributions are significantly different by a two-sample K-S test. If right, this is the first population-level confirmation that JFC dust production ramps up faster as the comet approaches the Sun than it decays as the comet recedes. The paper also reports that most JFCs peak in dust production after perihelion, all within 10% of their orbital period, and catalogs outbursts and nuclear radius limits.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the activity index n, defined by the power law A(0°)fρ ∝ (R_h)^n, where A(0°)fρ is the dust production proxy: the product of dust grain albedo A, filling factor f, and aperture radius ρ, corrected to zero phase angle using the Schleicher-Marcus dust phase function. The index is extracted by least-squares fits to pre- and post-perihelion ATLAS photometry, with selection criteria of at least six nights of data spanning ΔR_h ≥ 0.15 au and SNR > 7. The statistical claim rests on a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test comparing the two distributions of n across the combined four-year sample.

What would settle it

Recompute the two-sample K-S test on a dataset in which each comet contributes at most one activity index (for example, randomly selecting the pre- or post-perihelion value) and in which the fitted heliocentric distance ranges are matched between the two legs; if the p-value rises above 0.05, the claimed asymmetry is an artifact of the non-independent samples.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that Jupiter-family comets show a statistically significant asymmetry in their dust activity around perihelion: fitting A(0°)fρ ∝ (R_h)^n separately to the inbound and outbound legs yields mean activity indices of n = -5.2±4.5 pre-perihelion and n = -3.2±2.7 post-perihelion, and the two samples are drawn from different distributions (K-S d = 0.29, p = 0.015). The authors conclude that JFCs typically exhibit a shallower activity index post-perihelion than pre-perihelion, meaning dust production grows more rapidly with decreasing heliocentric distance than it falls off with increasing distance. They interpret the lag and the asymmetry as consistent with low-thermal-inertia nuclei, slow-moving large grains lingering in the photometric aperture, and seasonal exposure of volatile patches.

Load-bearing premise

The statistical significance of the asymmetry rests on the assumption that the pre- and post-perihelion activity indices are independent samples, even though many comets appear in both samples and the indices are fit over different heliocentric distance ranges, some anchored to the time of maximum activity rather than to perihelion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the asymmetry is real, single-power-law models of JFC activity that assume symmetric behavior around perihelion will systematically mispredict dust production on the outbound leg.
  • The peak dust production occurring post-perihelion, within 10% of orbital period, means that surveys sampling only near perihelion may miss the epoch of maximum mass loss.
  • The ~9% per-perihelion outburst rate, with average brightening of 1.3 magnitudes, provides a baseline for estimating how often JFCs undergo sudden mass release.
  • The lack of correlation between intrinsic activity at 2 au and perihelion distance suggests that nucleus properties, not orbit, set the dust production level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is a paired analysis using only comets with both pre- and post-perihelion indices, which would remove the non-independence concern in the K-S test and give a cleaner estimate of the typical asymmetry.
  • If the asymmetry reflects slow-moving large grains lingering in the 10,000 km aperture, then smaller apertures or aperture-growth photometry should reduce the effect; this is a testable prediction.
  • The claim that activity peaks within 10% of the orbital period could be combined with thermal modeling to estimate how much of the surface is active and to forecast activity for newly discovered JFCs.
  • The absence of comets with very late peak activity hints that such behavior is rare, possibly because it requires both low eccentricity and favorable seasonal illumination, a demographic prediction future surveys can check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents ATLAS photometry of 74 Jupiter-family comets reaching perihelion in 2022 and 2023, combined with the authors' Paper I sample to yield 116 JFCs observed over 2020-2023. Using the Afρ parameter, the authors measure dust production rates as a function of heliocentric distance, derive pre- and post-perihelion activity indices n defined by A(0°)fρ ∝ R_h^n, and report that the pre-perihelion distribution of n is steeper on average than the post-perihelion distribution (−5.2±4.5 vs −3.2±2.7), with a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test giving d=0.29 and p=0.015. Additional results include the timing of maximum dust production relative to perihelion and orbital period, nuclear radius upper limits for 444P and 459P, a comparison of 67P photometry with the literature, and the identification of six new outbursts. The headline population-level claim is the statistically significant pre/post asymmetry in activity indices.

Significance. If the pre/post asymmetry in activity indices is real, this would be the first statistically significant population-level confirmation for JFCs that dust production declines more slowly after perihelion than it rises before perihelion, with implications for dust lifetimes, coma evolution, and nucleus surface processes. The paper is also a substantial empirical contribution: 116 JFCs observed with a single survey, a consistent aperture and phase-correction scheme, explicit gas-contamination checks via c−o colors, and public photometry on Zenodo. The comparison with 67P/Gardener et al. is careful and informative. However, the central statistical claim currently rests on a test whose assumptions are violated by the data structure, so the significance assessment is provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Figure 8, Table 3] The two-sample K-S test (d=0.29, p=0.015) assumes that the pre-perihelion and post-perihelion samples of n are independent. Table 3 shows that a large fraction of comets contribute both a pre- and a post-perihelion n (e.g., 19P, 22P, 67P, 103P, 104P, 117P, 118P, 237P, 244P, 327P, 408P, and P/2022 L3). For these comets, the two n values are measured from the same comet and share nucleus properties, observing geometry, and fitting systematics, so the two samples are not independent. The standard K-S null distribution is therefore not valid, and the reported p=0.015 is likely anti-conservative. The authors should replace or supplement this test with a paired analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired permutation test on comets with both n values) and should also propagate the quoted uncertainties on n, for example by a bootstrap that resamples n from its error bars. The effective number of independent comets should be reported.
  2. [§4.4] The text states that for several JFCs the activity index was measured relative to maximum activity rather than perihelion, and the caption of Figure 8(b) says 'Post-perihelion/post-maximum'. The pre/post labels are therefore not defined in the same way for all comets. Since the delay between perihelion and maximum activity is itself correlated with orbital properties (Section 4.1), mixing the two definitions can introduce a systematic bias into the comparison that is unrelated to the intended pre/post asymmetry. The authors should state how many comets were measured relative to maximum activity, list them, and rerun the population comparison excluding those objects or treating them as a separate group.
  3. [§4.5, Figure 9] The conclusion that there is no correlation between intrinsic activity at 2 au and perihelion distance rests on values extrapolated from large heliocentric distances for high-q comets. The authors themselves note this bias ('the resulting A(0°)fρ values tend to be disproportionately higher') and caution that the projected values for q>2 au should be treated with caution. As presented, this is a qualitative caveat, not a quantitative robustness check. To support the null conclusion, the authors should recompute the correlation using only comets with q<2 au, or only comets whose 2-au values are interpolated rather than extrapolated, and report whether the conclusion survives.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3] The text refers to '9P/Kowal 1', but the comet discussed is 99P/Kowal 1; this typo should be corrected (the same error appears in the conclusion item listing distant-activity comets).
  2. [Abstract] The abstract says 'Fitting A(0)fp as a function of Rh^n'; the symbol should be A(0°)fρ for consistency with the body text.
  3. [Table 3] Dashes in the A(0°)fρ and n columns are used to indicate missing values, but the table caption does not define the dash; add a note that a dash means no measurable activity index for that phase.
  4. [§4.1] The sentence '9P/Kowal 1' also appears in the list of comets with maximum activity more than 100 days after perihelion; the intended object is 99P/Kowal 1, as confirmed by Table 2 and Figure 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: activity-index fits and the pre/post-perihelion comparison are self-contained statistical measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a statistical comparison of fitted activity indices n, not a quantity defined in terms of the conclusion. Each n is obtained by a least-squares fit of A(0)frho ∝ Rh^n to ATLAS photometry (Section 4.4, Equation 4), and the pre-perihelion versus post-perihelion distributions are then compared with a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The asymmetry is not imposed by the fitting procedure or by the definition of n; it emerges from the measured photometry. The 2022-2023 data are new, and although the methodology and 2020-2021 data are inherited from Paper I (Gillan et al. 2024), the central result here—the statistically significant difference with 56 JFCs—is a new, independently derived comparison on the combined dataset. The nuclear radius upper limits assume only a geometric albedo, not the activity-index result. The 'within 10% of orbital period' finding is a direct measurement of timing relative to perihelion, not an input to any model. Concerns about the K-S test's independence assumption or the unequal heliocentric distance ranges are statistical validity issues, not circularity: they do not show that any equation reduces to its own inputs or that a fitted parameter is renamed a prediction. No step in the derivation chain is self-referential in a load-bearing way, and the work is self-contained against the ATLAS data it analyzes.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; its free parameters are observational thresholds and fitted activity indices. The key assumptions are standard domain practices (Afρ proxy, power-law activity, phase function, albedo) plus two load-bearing statistical and selection premises that are not fully justified.

free parameters (4)
  • ATLAS magnitude limit for target selection = 19.5 mag
    Chosen in Section 2.2 as the detectability threshold; sets which JFCs enter the sample and therefore influences all population-level statistics.
  • c-band to o-band dust color scaling = 6%
    Applied in Section 3.2 to all c-band Afρ measurements based on an assumed average comet dust color; affects the combined Afρ values and activity indices.
  • Per-comet activity index n = Range -12.5 to 5.5 (pre) and -8.0 to 1.3 (post), Table 3
    Least-squares power-law exponents fitted to Afρ vs Rh; these fitted values are the input to the K-S test and the 2 au extrapolation, so the central claim depends on them.
  • Photometric aperture radius = 10,000 km
    Fixed in Section 3.1 for all measurements; standard in the literature but a choice that affects Afρ values and the ability to capture the coma, especially for distant comets like 99P/Kowal 1.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Afρ is a valid proxy for relative dust production and is related to Qd by Qd = Afρ * 4π rd σd vd / (3 p_o) under assumed grain properties
    Section 3.1 adopts the standard Afρ formalism (A'Hearn et al. 1984) and uses it to characterize dust production; the conversion to Qd is explicitly acknowledged as uncertain.
  • domain assumption The activity index power law A(0)fρ ∝ R_h^n holds over the observed heliocentric distance ranges
    Section 4.4 assumes a single power law based on prior studies; Holt et al. (2024) is cited as showing power laws fail for LPCs over wide ranges, but the authors assert it is appropriate for the distances ATLAS samples.
  • domain assumption The Schleicher-Marcus dust phase function correctly corrects Afρ to zero phase angle for all JFCs
    Section 3.1 applies the Schleicher (2010) phase function; the paper notes in Section 5.2.5 that testing alternative 67P phase functions did not improve inter-apparition agreement.
  • domain assumption A geometric albedo of 0.04 applies to the nuclei of 444P and 459P
    Section 5.1 assumes this albedo to convert nucleus-dominated photometry into radius upper limits; the values scale as the square root of albedo.
  • ad hoc to paper Pre- and post-perihelion activity index samples are independent for the K-S test
    Section 4.4 performs a two-sample K-S test (d=0.29, p=0.015) without accounting for paired measurements from the same comet or differences in Rh coverage, which is the weakest statistical premise of the headline claim.
  • domain assumption ATLAS detection limits and target selection do not bias population-level conclusions
    The paper acknowledges sensitivity bias (Sections 3.3, 4.2, 4.5) but does not correct for it when quoting average activity indices, outburst rates, or the 'all comets within 10%' statement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dust production rates in Jupiter-family comets II: Trends and population insights from ATLAS photometry of 116 JFCs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUE5WBPO

@misc{pith2026250609192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dust production rates in Jupiter-family comets II: Trends and population insights from ATLAS photometry of 116 JFCs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUE5WBPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09192}
}
read the original abstract

Jupiter-family comets (JFCs) have orbital periods of less than 20 years and therefore undergo more frequent sublimation compared to other comet populations. The JFCs therefore represent the ideal dynamical population for investigating the dust production rates at high-cadence. We analyzed observations by the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) of 74 JFCs that reached perihelion in 2022 and 2023. The work contained in this study builds upon our previous work (Gillan et al. 2024), for a total of 116 JFCs over a four-year period. Using the Afrho parameter, we measured the dust production rates of each JFC as a function of heliocentric distance. We found that there remained a clear preference for JFCs to reach their maximum A(0)frho post-perihelion, with 170P/Christensen, 254P/McNaught and P/2020 WJ5 (Lemmon) reaching a maximum A(0)frho between 200-400 days after perihelion. However, all JFCs reached their maximum dust production within 10% of their orbital period relative to perihelion. Fitting A(0)fp as a function of Rh^n, we measured statistically significant differences in the distribution of pre-perihelion and post-perihelion activity index n, with average activity indices of -5.2 +/- 4.5 and -3.2 +/- 2.7 respectively. We derived upper limits for the nuclear radii of comets 444P/WISE-PANSTARRS and 459P/Catalina as Rn \leq 1.5 +/- 0.2 km and Rn \leq 1.7 +/- 0.1 km respectively. We measured six outbursts in comets 97P/Metcalf-Brewington, 99P/Kowal 1, 118P/Shoemaker-Levy 4, 285P/LINEAR and 382P/Larson. From our four years of observing JFC outbursts in the ATLAS data, the average increase in magnitude was - 1.3 +/- 0.8.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The variation of Qd as a function of grain velocity and particle size is shown for particles ranging from 1µm to to 1mm and dust ejection velocities between vd = 0 − 300 m s −1 for 327P/Van Ness. 3.2. 327P/Van Ness as a representative JFC Each comet in our data set was measured and an￾alyzed using a consistent methodology. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The transmission curves for the ATLAS c and o￾filters are shown in cyan and orange respectively. A template comet spectrum with template gas abundances is plotted in black with the molecular emissions labelled above each fea￾ture in the spectrum. To identify comets with potentially significant gas contamination, we calculated the average (g ′ − r ′ ) and (g ′−i ′ ) color from Solontoi et al. (2012). For comets not e… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. JFCs reaching perihelion in 2022 and 2023 the were visible to ATLAS. The blue stars represent the perihelion of each comet, pink represents the pre-perihelion Rh observed range by ATLAS and black represents the post-perihelion Rh observed range by ATLAS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Maximum A(0◦ )f ρ vs days from perihelion for each JFC is shown. The green vertical line represents the perihelion for each individual comet and the plot is color￾coded according to orbital eccentricity. The range of A(0◦ )f ρ values in the combined dataset spans well …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maximum A(0◦ )f ρ vs time from perihelion as a function of orbital period for each JFC is shown. The green vertical line represents the perihelion for each individ￾ual comet and the plot is color-coded according to perihelion distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: JFC maximum activity as a function of heliocen￾tric distance is shown. The green dashed line indicates the corresponding A(0◦ )f ρ for m(o) = 18.5 at opposition, neces￾sary for clear detection of a coma. The absence of measured JFCs below this line is consistent with A…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The top panel, (a) shows the activity index, n, for the JFC subset pre-perihelion. Plot (b) shows n for JFCs post-perihelion/post-max. Binned to ∆n = 3. To measure the intrinsic variation in A(0◦ )f ρ within the JFC population, we have used the measured activ￾ity indic…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A(0◦ )f ρ projected to 2 au against the perihe￾lion distance for each JFC that has a measurable n in the 4 year ATLAS sample. Orange points show the JFCs projected A(0◦ )f ρ at 2 au and green points show the projected A(0◦ )f ρ at 2 au post-perihelion. The red dashed l…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between our 67P o-band magni￾tudes transformed to r(P S1) and and those obtained by Gar￾dener et al. (2022). Good agreement is seen pre-perihelion until MJD ∼ 59500 and post-perihelion after MJD∼ 59650. The reason for this discrepancy is not obvious. The G2…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between our measurements of A(0◦ )f ρ for 67P in 2021-2022, values calculated from the magnitudes reported by Gardener et al. (2022), and values for the 2014/15 apparition calculated from the average rP S1 lightcurve also reported by Gardener et al. (2022).…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., et al

    Agarwal, J., Della Corte, V., Feldman, P. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, s606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2386 A’Hearn, M. F., & Cowan, J. J. 1980, Moon and Planets, 23, 41, doi: 10.1007/BF00897579 A’Hearn, M. F., Millis, R. C., Schleicher, D. O., Osip, D. J., & Birch, P. V. 1995, Icarus, 118, 223, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1190 A’Hearn, M. F., Schleicher, D. G., M...

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    2024, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 45, 11, doi: 10.1007/s12036-024-09996-6 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Moulane, Y. 2024, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 45, 11, doi: 10.1007/s12036-024-09996-6 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1007/s12036-024-09996-6 2024

  3. [3]

    M., Stevenson, R., Kramer, E., et al

    Bauer, J. M., Stevenson, R., Kramer, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/85

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/85 2015

  4. [4]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1850

    Bertini, I., La Forgia, F., Tubiana, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1850

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1850 2017

  5. [5]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 2924, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2843 24

    Bertini, I., La Forgia, F., Fulle, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2924, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2843 24

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2843 2019

  6. [6]

    S., Diepvens, A., & de Sousa, O

    Betzler, A. S., Diepvens, A., & de Sousa, O. F. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2696

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2696 2023

  7. [7]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1412

    Boehnhardt, H., Lara, L., Gray, Z., & Bagnulo, S. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1412

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1412 2024

  8. [8]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, S376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2859

    Boehnhardt, H., Riffeser, A., Kluge, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, S376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2859

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2859 2016

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    2022, Icarus, 372, 114752, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114752

    Borysenko, S., Kokhirova, G., & Rakhmatullaeva, F. 2022, Icarus, 372, 114752, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114752

    2022

  2. [10]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2006, Science, 314, 1711, doi: 10.1126/science.1135840

    Brownlee, D., Tsou, P., Al´ eon, J., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1711, doi: 10.1126/science.1135840

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Hicks, M

    Buratti, B. J., Hicks, M. D., Soderblom, L. A., et al. 2004, Icarus, 167, 16, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2003.05.002

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Troll, V

    Carracedo, J. C., Troll, V. R., Day, J. M. D., et al. 2022, Geology Today, 38, 94, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gto.12388

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    L., Barker, E

    Cochran, A. L., Barker, E. S., & Gray, C. L. 2012, Icarus, 218, 144, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.12.010

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Cordiner, M., et al

    Cochran, A. L., Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Cordiner, M., et al. 2015, SSRv, 197, 9, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0183-6 De Sanctis, M. C., Lasue, J., & Capria, M. T. 2010, AJ, 140, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/1

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, PASP, 125, 357, doi: 10.1086/670337

    Denneau, L., Jedicke, R., Grav, T., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 357, doi: 10.1086/670337

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    1981, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Divine, N. 1981, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 174, The Comet Halley. Dust and Gas Environment, ed. B. Battrick & E. Swallow, 47–53

    1981

  11. [19]

    M., Schwamb, M

    Dobson, M. M., Schwamb, M. E., Benecchi, S. D., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 75, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acc463

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Schwamb, M

    Dobson, M. M., Schwamb, M. E., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.13644, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13644

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    1988, ApJL, 328, L69, doi: 10.1086/185162

    Duncan, M., Quinn, T., & Tremaine, S. 1988, ApJL, 328, L69, doi: 10.1086/185162

    1988 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, AJ, 158, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1d50

    Ehlert, S., Moticska, N., & Egal, A. 2019, AJ, 158, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1d50

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Knight, M

    Eisner, N. L., Knight, M. M., Snodgrass, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0f42

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Groussin, O., Thomas, N., et al

    El-Maarry, M. R., Groussin, O., Thomas, N., et al. 2017, Science, 355, 1392, doi: 10.1126/science.aak9384

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Bodewits, D., Li, J

    Farnham, T. L., Bodewits, D., Li, J. Y., et al. 2013, Icarus, 222, 540, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.019

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Kelley, M

    Farnham, T. L., Kelley, M. S. P., Knight, M. M., & Feaga, L. M. 2019, ApJL, 886, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab564d

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2009, Icarus, 201, 311, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.044

    Fink, U. 2009, Icarus, 201, 311, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.044

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, Icarus, 309, 265, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.03.011

    Fink, U., & Doose, L. 2018, Icarus, 309, 265, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.03.011

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, Icarus, 221, 721, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.09.001

    Fink, U., & Rubin, M. 2012, Icarus, 221, 721, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.09.001

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Schlafly, E

    Finkbeiner, D. P., Schlafly, E. F., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 66, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/66

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2010, A&A, 522, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014928

    Fulle, M., Colangeli, L., Agarwal, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014928

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 2835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty464

    Fulle, M., Bertini, I., Della Corte, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty464

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2995

    Gardener, D., Snodgrass, C., & Ligier, N. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2995

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Masiero, J. R. 2023, PSJ, 4, 3, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/aca8ac

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Fitzsimmons, A., Denneau, L., et al

    Gillan, A. F., Fitzsimmons, A., Denneau, L., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 25, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad1394

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2007, SSRv, 128, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9140-8

    Glassmeier, K.-H., Boehnhardt, H., Koschny, D., K¨ uhrt, E., & Richter, I. 2007, SSRv, 128, 1, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9140-8

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    2009, Icarus, 199, 568, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.07.015

    Groussin, O., Lamy, P., Toth, I., et al. 2009, Icarus, 199, 568, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.07.015

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    2015, Science, 347, aaa0709, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa0709 Harrington Pinto, O., Womack, M., Fernandez, Y., &

    Gulkis, S., Allen, M., von Allmen, P., et al. 2015, Science, 347, aaa0709, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa0709 Harrington Pinto, O., Womack, M., Fernandez, Y., &

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    2022, PSJ, 3, 247, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac960d

    Bauer, J. 2022, PSJ, 3, 247, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac960d

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    N., Tonry, J

    Heinze, A. N., Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    E., Knight, M

    Holt, C. E., Knight, M. M., Kelley, M. S. P., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 273, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad8e38

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Pollacco, D. L. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1784, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17016.x

    2010

  36. [44]

    Hughes, D. W. 1990, QJRAS, 31, 69

    1990

  37. [45]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    G., Fitzsimmons, A., & Snodgrass, C

    Hyland, M. G., Fitzsimmons, A., & Snodgrass, C. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz075

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, Icarus, 313, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.008

    Ivanova, O., Reshetnyk, V., Skorov, Y., et al. 2018, Icarus, 313, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.008

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    V., Skorov, Y

    Ivanova, O. V., Skorov, Y. V., Korsun, P. P., Afanasiev, V. L., & Blum, J. 2011, Icarus, 211, 559, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.10.026

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    1990, ApJ, 351, 277, doi: 10.1086/168463 —

    Jewitt, D. 1990, ApJ, 351, 277, doi: 10.1086/168463 —. 1996, Earth Moon and Planets, 72, 185, doi: 10.1007/BF00117517 25

    1990 doi

  42. [50]

    Kelley, M. S. P., Lister, T., Zwicky Transient Facility Collaboration, & LCO Outbursting Objects Key Project. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15544, 1

    2022

  43. [51]

    R., Hurst, G., & James, N

    Kidger, M. R., Hurst, G., & James, N. 1997, Earth Moon and Planets, 78, 169, doi: 10.1023/A:1006228113533

    1997 doi

  44. [52]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87 – 90

    2016

  45. [53]

    M., A’Hearn, M

    Knight, M. M., A’Hearn, M. F., Biesecker, D. A., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 926, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/926

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Kokotanekova, R., & Samarasinha, N

    Knight, M. M., Kokotanekova, R., & Samarasinha, N. H. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.09309, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.09309

    2023 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    M., Snodgrass, C., Vincent, J.-B., et al

    Knight, M. M., Snodgrass, C., Vincent, J.-B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2472 K¨ uppers, M., Bertini, I., Fornasier, S., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 987, doi: 10.1038/nature04236

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2009, A&A, 508, 1045, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811462

    Jorda, L. 2009, A&A, 508, 1045, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811462

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    E., & Smith, G

    Langland-Shula, L. E., & Smith, G. H. 2007, ApJL, 664, L119, doi: 10.1086/520839

    2007 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Lin, Z

    Lara, L. M., Lin, Z. Y., & Meech, K. 2011, A&A, 532, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116892

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    F., & Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., & Duncan, M. J. 1997, Icarus, 127, 13, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.5637

    1997

  52. [60]

    2023, in 2nd NEO and Debris Detection Conference, 2, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07954

    Denneau, L. 2023, in 2nd NEO and Debris Detection Conference, 2, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07954

    2023 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1667, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913116

    Licandro, J., Campins, H., Kelley, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1667, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913116

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 462, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad012

    Lin, Z.-Y. 2023, PASJ, 75, 462, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad012

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    C., & Fitzsimmons, A

    Lowry, S. C., & Fitzsimmons, A. 2001, A&A, 365, 204, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000180

    2001 doi

  56. [64]

    C., Fitzsimmons, A., & Collander-Brown, S

    Lowry, S. C., Fitzsimmons, A., & Collander-Brown, S. 2003, A&A, 397, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021486

    2003 doi

  57. [65]

    P., & Chen, W

    Ma, Y., Williams, I. P., & Chen, W. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1081, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05996.x

    2002

  58. [66]

    A., Schlafly, E

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

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Boakes, P

    Mannel, T., Bentley, M. S., Boakes, P. D., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834851

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    2020, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 227, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00227

    Marschall, R., Markkanen, J., Gerig, S.-B., et al. 2020, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 227, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00227

    2020

  61. [69]

    B., et al

    Marshall, D., Groussin, O., Vincent, J. B., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833104

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    H., & Agarwal, J

    Mastropietro, M., Kim, Y., Hsieh, H. H., & Agarwal, J. 2024, A&A, 690, A298, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451090

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol

    McKinney, W., et al. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol. 445, Austin, TX, 51–56

    2010

  64. [72]

    J., & Svoren, J

    Meech, K. J., & Svoren, J. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C

    2004

  65. [73]

    J., Pittichov´ a, J., Yang, B., et al

    Meech, K. J., Pittichov´ a, J., Yang, B., et al. 2011, Icarus, 213, 323, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.02.016

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Szab´ o, G

    Milani, G. A., Szab´ o, G. M., Sostero, G., et al. 2007, Icarus, 187, 276, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.10.014

    2007 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Mottola, S., et al

    Miles, R., Faillace, G. A., Mottola, S., et al. 2016, Icarus, 272, 327, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.019

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    2014, ApJ, 791, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/118

    Moreno, F., Pozuelos, F., Aceituno, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/118

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1591

    Opitom, C., Snodgrass, C., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1591

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    2002, Earth Moon and Planets, 89, 27, doi: 10.1023/A:1021577915502

    Prialnik, D. 2002, Earth Moon and Planets, 89, 27, doi: 10.1023/A:1021577915502

    2002 doi

  71. [79]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.05907, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.05907

    Prialnik, D., & Jewitt, D. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.05907, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.05907

    2022 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    M., Sip˝ ocz, B., G¨ unther, H., et al

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B., G¨ unther, H., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123

    2018

  73. [81]

    1990, ApJ, 355, 667, doi: 10.1086/168800

    Quinn, T., Tremaine, S., & Duncan, M. 1990, ApJ, 355, 667, doi: 10.1086/168800

    1990 doi

  74. [82]

    2010, Composite Dust Phase Function for Comets

    Schleicher, D. 2010, Composite Dust Phase Function for Comets. https://asteroid.lowell.edu/comet/dustphase details.html

    2010

  75. [83]

    Schleicher, D. G. 2007, Icarus, 190, 406, doi: 10.1016/j. icarus.2007.04.01310.1016/j.icarus.2007.04.039 —. 2008, AJ, 136, 2204, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2204

    2007 arXiv

  76. [84]

    G., Birch, P

    Schleicher, D. G., Birch, P. V., Farnham, T. L., & Bair, A. N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13005, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13005

    2024 doi arXiv

  77. [85]

    P., Keihm, S., von Allmen, P., et al

    Schloerb, F. P., Keihm, S., von Allmen, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526152

    2015 doi

  78. [86]

    E., Jones, R

    Schwamb, M. E., Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc173

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    L., et al

    Sierks, H., Barbieri, C., Lamy, P. L., et al. 2015, Science, 347, aaa1044, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1044

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    C., & Weissman, P

    Snodgrass, C., Fitzsimmons, A., Lowry, S. C., & Weissman, P. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 458, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18406.x 26

    2011

  82. [90]

    M., et al

    Snodgrass, C., Tubiana, C., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322020

    2013 doi

  83. [91]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, S138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2300

    Snodgrass, C., Opitom, C., de Val-Borro, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, S138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2300

    2016 doi

  84. [92]

    F., Aceituno, F., et al

    Snodgrass, C., A’Hearn, M. F., Aceituno, F., et al. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160249, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0249

    2017

  85. [93]

    2012, Icarus, 218, 571, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.10.008

    Solontoi, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Juri´ c, M., et al. 2012, Icarus, 218, 571, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.10.008

    2012 doi

  86. [94]

    1989, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Thiel, K., Koelzer, G., Kochan, H., et al. 1989, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 302, Physics and Mechanics of Cometary Materials, ed. J. J. Hunt & T. D. Guyenne, 221–225

    1989

  87. [95]

    Tonry, J. L. 2011, PASP, 123, 58, doi: 10.1086/657997

    2011 doi

  88. [96]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018a, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    doi

  89. [97]

    L., Denneau, L., Flewelling, H., et al

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Flewelling, H., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 867, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae386

    doi

  90. [98]

    T., et al

    Tosi, F., Capaccioni, F., Capria, M. T., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 649, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0740-0 Trigo-Rodr ´ ıguez, J. M., Garc ´ ıa-Melendo, E., Davidsson, B. J. R., et al. 2008, A&A, 485, 599, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078666

    2019 doi

  91. [99]

    2013, Icarus, 222, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.03.034

    Veverka, J., Klaasen, K., A’Hearn, M., et al. 2013, Icarus, 222, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.03.034

    2013 doi

  92. [100]

    Mandell, A. M. 2018, JQSRT, 217, 86, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.05.023

    2018 doi

  93. [101]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 Weso lowski, M. 2022, Icarus, 375, 114847, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114847

    2020

  94. [102]

    Whipple, F. L. 1978, Moon and Planets, 18, 343, doi: 10.1007/BF00896489

    1978 doi

  95. [103]

    1955, ApJ, 122, 190, doi: 10.1086/146069

    Whitney, C. 1955, ApJ, 122, 190, doi: 10.1086/146069

    1955 doi

  96. [104]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf

    2018 doi

  97. [105]

    2017, PASP, 129, 031001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/129/973/031001

    Womack, M., Sarid, G., & Wierzchos, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 031001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/129/973/031001

    2017 doi

  98. [106]

    A., et al

    Womack, M., Curtis, O., Rabson, D. A., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 17, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abd32c

    2021 doi

  99. [107]

    1985, A&A, 142, 31 27 Fig

    Yamamoto, T. 1985, A&A, 142, 31 27 Fig. Set 1

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.