Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Down But Not Out: The Case of Long-Period Comet C/2021 O3 (Panstarrs)

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Although reports said comet C/2021 O3 disintegrated near the Sun, the nucleus survived perihelion intact.

desk verdict A valuable correction to a published disintegration claim, with one genuinely flawed quantitative argument that should be fixed but is not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09263 v1 pith:ZFPCKNLK submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.EP

David Jewitt. Jing Li , Michael Jaeger , Yoonyoung Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords long-periodcometC/2021O3(Panstarrs)nucleussurvivalperihelionheliocentricindexrotationaldisruptionforwardscatteringseasonalactivity
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 argues that long-period comet C/2021 O3 (Panstarrs) was not destroyed at its 0.287 au perihelion in April 2022, contrary to published reports of its disintegration. Combining pre- and post-perihelion ground-based photometry with near-perihelion STEREO coronagraph images, the authors find the nucleus survived and place its radius between about 1.0 and 1.7 km. The 25-fold drop in scattering cross-section after perihelion is interpreted as a decline in activity, plausibly seasonal dimming on a high-obliquity nucleus with an asymmetric volatile distribution, rather than catastrophic breakup. If correct, the result changes how the fates of Sun-grazing long-period comets are inferred from brightness measurements.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on the photometric equation $V = H + 2.5\eta \log(r_H) + 2.5\log(\Delta) - 2.5\log(\Phi(\alpha))$, where $\eta = s + 2$, with the cross-section $C \propto r_H^{-s}$. The '$\Delta$ effect' enters through the exponent $n$ in the inverse-square scaling with geocentric distance, taken as $n = 1$ so that a fixed 10-arcsecond aperture samples a linearly increasing coma volume with distance. The other load-bearing object is the rotational-disruption limit, $r_n \gtrsim (15 k_T V_{\rm th} \Delta Z / (2\omega))^{1/2}$, which uses a volatile surface layer thickness $\Delta Z \sim 4$ m to set the lower nucleus radius. The syndyne/synchrone models and forward-scattering diffraction relation $\psi \sim \lambda/(2a)$ constrain the dust particle size to about 10 $\mu$m.

What would settle it

Measure the comet's brightness in multiple apertures as its geocentric distance changes to empirically determine the $\Delta$-effect exponent $n$; if $n$ is found to be closer to 2 rather than 1, the derived heliocentric index and the inferred cross-sections would be wrong, undermining the survival interpretation built on them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that C/2021 O3 survived perihelion intact. Pre-perihelion photometry from 4 au to 2 au shows a remarkably shallow heliocentric dependence of the coma cross-section, $C \propto r_H^{-0.59\pm0.21}$, with absolute magnitude $H = 13.0 \pm 0.3$, while post-perihelion $H = 16.5$ corresponds to a cross-section of about 9 km$^2$, a factor of 25 lower. STEREO-A COR2 images near perihelion show a linear debris trail whose forward-scattered light is consistent with ~10 micron dust, and the post-perihelion coma is circular and centrally condensed, indicating a single active source. The rotational-disruption survival argument gives $r_n \gtrsim 1.0$ km, and the photometric limit gives $r_n < 1.7$ km, bracketing the nucleus radius. The paper therefore concludes that the reported disintegration was a misidentification caused by the comet being fainter than expected.

Load-bearing premise

The photometric model assumes the coma cross-section sampled by the fixed 10-arcsecond aperture scales linearly with geocentric distance (the exponent $n = 1$); if the true scaling differs, the derived heliocentric index, absolute magnitude, and cross-sections would shift, and the comparison with sublimation models would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The published disintegration reports for C/2021 O3 (Zhang et al. 2022, Combi et al. 2023, Holt et al. 2024) are incorrect; the comet survived and was simply too faint for the reported non-detection.
  • The shallow heliocentric index $s = 0.59 \pm 0.21$ indicates that activity across 2–4 au is driven by supervolatiles (CO or CO$_2$) rather than water ice, which would give $s \sim 4$–8.
  • The nucleus radius is bracketed between about 1.0 and 1.7 km, a size range large enough to resist rotational disruption yet small enough to be consistent with the fainter post-perihelion coma.
  • The 25-fold post-perihelion fading, if due to seasonal illumination on a high-obliquity nucleus, implies that pre- vs. post-perihelion brightness asymmetries in other comets should not be automatically read as evidence of destruction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same approach could be applied to other comets reported to have disintegrated near perihelion: shallow pre-perihelion indices and centrally condensed post-perihelion comae may indicate survival with reduced activity.
  • If the seasonal explanation is correct, the observed fading implies that the nucleus has a strongly inhomogeneous surface volatile distribution, which could be testable by measuring the comet's color or gas production asymmetries at later times.
  • The $n=1$ assumption is the least constrained part of the photometric model; future observations with variable aperture sizes and known coma expansion speeds could directly calibrate the Delta effect for individual comets.
  • The survival of a ~1 km nucleus at $q = 0.287$ au suggests that the size threshold for rotational disruption is near this scale, so sub-kilometer LPCs at similar perihelia should be the ones most likely to break up.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript combines ground-based optical photometry (Cometas, CFHT, Calar Alto, Jaeger Observatory), STEREO-A COR2 coronagraphic images, and SOHO/SWAN Lyman-alpha measurements to argue that long-period comet C/2021 O3 survived its 0.287 au perihelion despite prior reports of disintegration. The authors derive a shallow pre-perihelion heliocentric index, identify a forward-scattered debris trail near perihelion, and interpret the post-perihelion fading by a factor of about 25 in scattering cross-section as due to seasonal dimming rather than nucleus breakup. They bracket the pre-perihelion nucleus radius as roughly 1.0 to 1.7 km from rotational-disruption and photometric arguments.

Significance. If correct, the paper overturns published disintegration claims for C/2021 O3 (Zhang et al. 2022; Combi et al. 2023; Holt et al. 2024) and provides a concrete radius bracket (1.0-1.7 km) for a long-period comet nucleus that reached q=0.287 au. The combination of ground-based and STEREO forward-scattering data, including the trail position-angle analysis and the explicit lower-limit and uncertainty caveats, is a useful approach to near-Sun cometary survival. The paper also makes falsifiable statements about the post-perihelion source and the trail particle sizes (~7-13 um) that can be tested with future observations. However, the principal quantitative argument against catastrophic breakup is weakened by lower-limit logic and an unaddressed photometric jump, so the survival claim, while plausible, is not yet established at the claimed confidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, item 1; §3.2] The anti-breakup argument misuses a lower limit. Section 3.2 explicitly states that the 450x17 pixel photometry box excludes the south-eastern end of the trail and 'therefore gives a lower limit to the brightness,' yielding C≳56 km². Section 4 (item 1) then treats this as an intermediate value, writing that the near-perihelion cross-section was 'less than ... 225 km² but more than ... 9 km².' A lower limit cannot certify an upper bound below 225 km²; the true trail cross-section could exceed the pre-perihelion value. The conversion to C also assumes the Schleicher phase function value Φ≈220 at α≈171° with no quoted uncertainty, and forward-scattering phase functions are poorly constrained at such angles, so C_STEREO could shift by factors in either direction. This specific argument for a steady decline rather than a perihelion surge is therefore not supported and should be reworded or removed.
  2. [§3.1, Table 1, Fig. 6] The post-perihelion photometry contains an unaddressed 1.59 mag jump between UT 2022 May 13 (14.55±0.03, from C23) and May 17 (16.14±0.04, from Jaeger Observatory) at nearly the same heliocentric and geocentric distances. The inferred post-perihelion H=16.5, C=9 km², and radius upper limit r_n<1.7 km are derived from a mixed data set that includes these discrepant points; deleting or weighting either point changes the fading factor by roughly a factor of four. The authors should explain this jump (e.g., a real outburst, an aperture or calibration inconsistency) and provide a robust estimate of the post-perihelion cross-section and its uncertainty.
  3. [§2.3, Fig. 3] The claim that the post-perihelion coma is 'circularly symmetric' and 'indicates the presence of an active source' with 'no evidence for a debris cloud or multiple components' rests on seeing-limited images with ~3.1 arcsec FWHM. At Δ≈0.66-0.69 au, 3.1 arcsec corresponds to roughly 1400-1600 km, so a compact debris cloud or fragment cluster could appear as a single centrally condensed source. No PSF decomposition or quantitative comparison with a stellar PSF is presented. The morphological evidence alone therefore cannot exclude a young fragment/debris cloud; this limitation should be stated or tested with PSF matching.
  4. [§3.1, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The assumed 'Delta effect' exponent n=1 in Equation (1) is adopted without an uncertainty or sensitivity analysis. The paper itself notes that 'there is no physical reason why a fixed value of n should prevail at all distances and times.' Over the observed Δ≈2.6-3.1 au, the term 2.5 log(Δ) in Equation (4) changes by about 1.0 mag between n=1 and n=2, shifting the derived H, C_1, and hence the cross-section values used in the survival argument by factors of order 1.5-2.5. The authors should either bound n observationally (for example by comparing photometry in different apertures or by examining the two epochs with multi-telescope coverage) or explicitly state that the radius limits are uncertain by this factor.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports s=2.59±0.21 as the exponent in C∝r_H^{-s}, but the body (Section 3.1) finds η=2.59±0.21 and s=0.59±0.21; the abstract also calls s=4 canonical, while the body's equilibrium-sublimation argument gives s=2 (η=4). Please harmonize the notation between abstract and text.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption states 'n=2.59±0.21' where the text defines η=2.59±0.21; using η would avoid confusion with the Delta-effect exponent n.
  3. [§2.4] The phrase 'separated by our planet by ~0.5 au' should read 'separated from our planet by ~0.5 au.'
  4. [References, §3.2 and Summary] The reference to Weryk contains the typo 'Cicrular' for 'Circular.' Also, the nominal particle radius is given as ~10 um in Section 3.2, ~9 um in the Summary, and 7-13 um elsewhere; these values should be reconciled.
  5. [Table 1] The column header 'DOY 21' is ambiguous; it should indicate that DOY is counted from UT 2021 January 1, or be relabeled for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core survival argument rests on direct detections and measured photometry, and the cited model inputs are not fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that C/2021 O3 survived perihelion is supported by independent detections (STEREO COR2 images on April 27-30 and ground-based post-perihelion images on May 10-20) and by photometry that is fitted to a standard cometary magnitude relation, not derived from the survival conclusion. The heliocentric index s=0.59±0.21 and absolute magnitude H=13.0±0.3 are measured from pre-perihelion 10-arcsecond-aperture photometry; the post-perihelion cross-section is a separate measurement. The seasonal-dimming explanation is explicitly presented as non-unique and is not fitted to the data, so it cannot be circular. The rotational-disruption lower limit r_n≳1.0 km does use model parameters from prior work by the same group (Jewitt et al. 2021, 2025), including k_T=0.007 and ΔZ≈4 m, but these are adopted as external physical estimates, not derived from O3's brightness or from the survival claim itself, and the paper acknowledges their uncertainty. The STEREO C≳56 km² lower limit is used as an intermediate value in a qualitative argument against a perihelion surge; the concern that a lower limit cannot certify an upper bound below 225 km² is a statistical inference issue, not a circular reduction of the paper's equations to its inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in by self-citation in a way that forces the conclusion. The self-citations are present but non-load-bearing, so the circularity score is low.

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

The analysis rests on standard cometary photometric practice (phase function, Delta effect), assumed physical constants for albedo and dust density, and adopted rotational disruption parameters from prior work by the same group. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Delta effect exponent n = 1.0 (assumed)
    Assumed in Equation 1 to scale aperture cross-section with geocentric distance; the paper acknowledges this is a rough steady-state approximation.
  • Geometric albedo p = 0.04 (assumed)
    Used to convert scattering cross-section to nucleus radius limits and to derive the absolute magnitude scale.
  • Mean dust particle radius a = ~10 µm (estimated)
    Inferred from syndyne/synchrone position angles and forward-scattering width; used for dust mass estimates.
  • Rotational disruption parameters (k_T, V_th, omega, Delta-Z) = 0.007, 500 m/s, 1.2e-4 s^-1, ~4 m
    Assumed values from Jewitt et al. (2021, 2025) used to derive the lower limit r_n >= 1.0 km; these parameters are unmeasured for O3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Schleicher cometary phase function is valid at large phase angles, including forward scattering (Phi ~ 220 at alpha ~ 171 deg).
    Used to interpret STEREO photometry and derive a cross-section of ~56 km^2; the paper concedes the function is especially uncertain at the largest phase angles.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium sublimation scaling: supervolatile ices give f_s proportional to r_H^-2, while water ice gives f_s proportional to r_H^-4 to r_H^-8 across 2 to 4 au.
    Used to compare the measured heliocentric index with expectations and argue against water-driven activity in the 2 to 4 au range.
  • domain assumption Syndyne and synchrone models correctly describe the position angles of dust released from the nucleus.
    Used to estimate particle sizes (a ~ 7 to 13 µm) and ejection dates from the STEREO trail.
  • domain assumption The coma is optically thin and in steady state, so the aperture cross-section scales as C proportional to Delta (n=1).
    Assumed in Equation 1 for the lightcurve reduction; acknowledged as approximate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Down But Not Out: The Case of Long-Period Comet C/2021 O3 (Panstarrs)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZFPCKNLK

@misc{pith2026250609263,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Down But Not Out: The Case of Long-Period Comet C/2021 O3 (Panstarrs)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZFPCKNLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09263}
}
abstract

We combine ground- and space-based observations of long-period comet C/2021 O3 (Panstarrs) (perihelion distance 0.287 au) in order to investigate its reported near-perihelion destruction. Pre-perihelion photometric observations show a remarkably small heliocentric dependence of the scattered light, $\propto r_H^{-s}$ with $s = 2.59\pm0.21$, distinct from values reported in other long-period comets, for which $s$ = 4 is the canonical standard. The index is smaller than expected of coma production by equilibrium sublimation of either supervolatiles (for which $s \sim$ 4 is expected), or water ice ($s \sim$ 6 to 8) across the $\sim$4 au to 2 au range. The absolute magnitude deduced from the pre-perihelion data is $H$ = 13.0$\pm$0.3 (coma scattering cross-section $\sim$225 km$^2$ for an assumed geometric albedo 0.04) while, after perihelion, the cross-section fades by a factor of 25 to $H$ = 16.5 ($\sim$9 km$^2$). STEREO spacecraft observations near perihelion show a long debris trail whose properties are consistent with forward scattering from radius $\sim$7 $\mu$m particles. The data show that the nucleus of C/2021 O3 was not destroyed at perihelion. Although the lightcurve from 3.9 au inbound to 0.8 au outbound cannot be uniquely interpreted, a simple and plausible explanation is provided by seasonal dimming on a nucleus having high obliquity and an asymmetric distribution of near-surface volatiles. The survival of the nucleus against rotational disruption suggests a pre-perihelion nucleus radius $r_n \gtrsim$ 1.0 km while the photometric limit to the radius of the nucleus after perihelion is $r_n < 1.7$ km (geometric albedo 0.04 assumed).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09263 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — (Upper:) Observing geometry as viewed from Earth as a function of observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Pre-perihelion appearance of C/2021 O3 on UT 2021 September 03 (DOY 246) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Post-perihelion appearance of C/2021 O3 on UT 2022 May 17 (DOY 502), when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Single COR2 image at rH = 0.37 au (DOY 483 - 484) showing the full 8.4◦ wide field of view, the central occulting spot, and coronal structures. C/2021 O3 is marked between the two arrows. The cardinal directions and a 1◦ scale bar are also shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Composite from STEREO-A computed from 173 COR2 images taken in the pe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Photometry within 10′′ apertures extracted from images in the Cometas archive (filled red circles) and from CFHT (yellow square), Calar Alto (X) and Jaeger Observatory (green diamond). The solid curve shows Equation 4 with H = 13.00±0.26 and n = 2.59±0.21 (solid blac…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — (Left:) Synchrones for ejection 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 days prior to the April 29 (DOY [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Position angle expected from syndyne (solid red line) and synchrone (dashed blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., M¨ akinen, T., Bertaux, J.-L., et al

    Combi, M. R., M¨ akinen, T., Bertaux, J.-L., et al. 2023, Icarus, 398, 115543. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115543 Evangelista-Santana, M., De Pr´ a, M., Carvano, J. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524,

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [16]

    Observations UT Date DOY 21a Obsb rH c ∆d αe θ−⊙f θ−V g δ⊕h Magi 2021 Aug 28 240 B74 3.936 3.094 9.2 193.5 266.8 -8.7 18.74±0.02 2021 Sep 3 246 CFHT 3.855 2.980 8.5 182.4 267.4 -7.5 18.0±0.1 2021 Sep 5 248 B96 3.841 2.962 8.4 178.2 267.8 -7.1 18.03±0.61 2021 Sep 8 251 C23 3.805 2.916 8.2 171.5 268.6 -6.4 18.68±0.15 2021 Sep 15 258 C23 3.721 2.822 8.0 154....

    work page 2021

  3. [67]

    2021, AJ, 161,

    doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4 Jewitt, D., Kim, Y., Mutchler, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161,

    doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9341-4 2021

  4. [70]

    L., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfec3 Zhang, Q., Ye, Q., Farnham, T. L., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15358 This manuscript was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.2. – 25 – Table

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfec3 2022

  5. [84]

    2021, AJ, 162,

    doi:10.1006/icar.1998.6040 Ye, Q., Jewitt, D., Hui, M.-T., et al. 2021, AJ, 162,

    arXiv 1998

  6. [105]

    U., Mottola, S., Hviid, S

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ada3c0 Keller, H. U., Mottola, S., Hviid, S. F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S357. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1726 Kokotanekova, R., Snodgrass, C., Lacerda, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ada3c0 2017

  7. [158]

    2025, AJ, 169,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac886d Jewitt, D., Luu, J., & Li, J. 2025, AJ, 169,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac886d 2025

  8. [188]

    2022, AJ, 164,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe4cf Jewitt, D. 2022, AJ, 164,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe4cf 2022

Show all 18 references
  1. [246]

    This is a 60 s image through an r’ filter from the CFHT 3.6 m telescope, archived at CADC

    at rH = 3.865 au. This is a 60 s image through an r’ filter from the CFHT 3.6 m telescope, archived at CADC. A scale bar and cardinal directions are marked. – 29 – Fig. 3.— Post-perihelion appearance of C/2021 O3 on UT 2022 May 17 (DOY 502), when rH = 0.80 au, with cardinal di...

    2021

  2. [259]

    2004, Comets II, M

    Prialnik, D., Benkhoff, J., & Podolak, M. 2004, Comets II, M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, and H. A. Weaver (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 745 pp., p.359-387. Weaver, H. A., Sekanina, Z., Toth, I., et al. 2001, Science, 292,

    2004

  3. [273]

    2019, A&A, 630, A33

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/ad8e38 Hoang, M., Garnier, P., Gourlaouen, H., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A33. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201834226 Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, Space Sci. Rev., 136,

    2019 doi

  4. [366]

    doi:10.3390/universe8070366 Oort, J. H. & Schmidt, M. 1951, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 11,

    1951 doi

  5. [387]

    E., Knight, M

    doi:10.1007/s11207-008-9299-0 Holt, C. E., Knight, M. M., Kelley, M. S. P., et al. 2024, Planetary Science Journal, 5,

    2024 doi

  6. [484]

    C/2021 O3 is marked between the two arrows

    showing the full 8.4◦ wide field of view, the central occulting spot, and coronal structures. C/2021 O3 is marked between the two arrows. The cardinal directions and a 1 ◦ scale bar are also shown. – 31 – Fig. 5.— Composite from STEREO-A computed from 173 COR2 images taken in ...

    2021

  7. [1329]

    Minor Planet Electronic Cicrular, 2021-P05, Issued 2021 August 1, 23:49 UT Wiegert, P

    doi:10.1126/science.1058606 Weryk, R. Minor Planet Electronic Cicrular, 2021-P05, Issued 2021 August 1, 23:49 UT Wiegert, P. & Tremaine, S. 1999, Icarus, The Evolution of Long-Period Comets, 137, 1,

    2021 doi

  8. [2212]

    doi:10.1126/science.1070226 Marcus, J. N. 1986, ESLAB Symposium on the Exploration of Halley’s Comet, 250, 307 Moreno, F. 2022, Universe, 8,

    1986 doi

  9. [2733]

    J., Harrison, R

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2111 Eyles, C. J., Harrison, R. A., Davis, C. J., et al. 2009, Sol. Phys., 254,

    2009 doi

  10. [2974]

    & Dybczy´ nski, P

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1716 Kr´ olikowska, M. & Dybczy´ nski, P. A. 2020, A&A, The catalogue of cometary orbits and their dynamical evolution, 640, A97. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038451 – 24 – Lacerda, P., Guilbert-Lepoutre, A., Kokotanekova, R., et al. 2025, arXiv:2504.00565 Lev...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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