pith. sign in

arxiv: 2401.02073 · v1 · submitted 2024-01-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Dust and Volatiles in the Disintegrating Comet C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS)

Ruining Zhao , Aigen Li , Bin Yang , Liang Wang , Huijuan Wang , Yu-Juan Liu , Jifeng Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 04:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords cometC/2019 Y4 (ATLAS)disintegrationdustvolatilesporous dustreflectivity gradientOort cloud comet
0
0 comments X

The pith

Porous dust accounts for the red reflectivity gradient observed in the disintegrating comet C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS).

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

The paper reports optical spectra and multi-band images of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) taken while its nucleus was breaking apart. Gas production rates derived from CN, C2, and C3 emission bands place the comet in the typical category for Oort-cloud objects, though it appears less dusty by Af rho measures. The dust-scattering continuum shows a mild red slope of about 5 percent per 1000 angstroms. Modeling this slope with porous dust grains reproduces the observed color without additional components. A sympathetic reader would therefore conclude that the disintegration exposed or produced dust whose porosity is sufficient to explain its optical behavior.

Core claim

Long-slit spectra reveal strong CN, C2, C3, and NH2 bands on a dust continuum; Haser-model production rates and molecular ratios classify the comet as typical yet less dusty, while the measured reflectivity gradient of roughly 5 percent per 1000 angstroms is reproduced by scattering calculations for porous dust.

What carries the argument

Modeling of the dust-scattering reflectivity gradient using porous dust parameters.

If this is right

  • C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) belongs to the typical class of Oort-cloud comets by its C2/CN and C3/CN ratios.
  • The comet is less dusty than average according to its Af rho values.
  • The observed red color arises from the scattering properties of porous grains.
  • Disintegration does not alter the basic volatile composition enough to change the comet's taxonomic placement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Porosity may be a common feature of dust released during Oort-cloud comet breakup events.
  • Similar modeling could be tested on other disintegrating comets to check whether red slopes are routinely explained by porosity alone.
  • If porosity dominates the color, then changes in grain structure during disintegration could be tracked through repeated reflectivity measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The Haser model scale lengths and the porous-dust scattering parameters taken from earlier literature apply directly to this comet without modification for its disintegration.

What would settle it

New spectra or images that yield a reflectivity gradient outside the range predicted by the porous-dust scattering model, or production rates that deviate systematically from Haser-model expectations under the adopted scale lengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2401.02073 by Aigen Li, Bin Yang, Huijuan Wang, Jifeng Liu, Liang Wang, Ruining Zhao, Yu-Juan Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Slit views of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) on 2020 April 13.53 and 20.53 (UT). The ephemeris positions of the two major fragments A and B (from MPEC 2020-L06 and 2023-J29, respectively) are marked. On April 13.53 (UT), the slit was centered on A. On April 20.53 (UT), the slit was over both A and B. The rectangles, 4.1′′ in height and 2.3′′ in width, along the slits are sub-apertures. They were used to extract sub-ape… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Narrow-aperture BFOSC spectra of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) obtained on 2020 April 6.51 (blue line), April 13.53 (yellow line), April 20.53 (green line), and April 23.58 (UT; red line). For comparison, the spectra are vertically shifted by some constants. Strong emission bands are marked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: BVRI images of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) on 2020 April 23.55 (UT). The coma shows a less-extended morphology from B to I, indicating the broadband colors vary from inner to outer coma. The white rectangle is a slit-like aperture. It is divided into a series of sub-apertures, 4.1′′in height and 2.3′′in width, to derive (B − V ) and (V − R) profiles (see §3). The arrows in the upper right corner mark the north and t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the (B − V ) (left panel) and (V − R) (right panel) profiles of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) derived from photometry (blue open squares) and spectroscopy (yellow open squares), both on 2020 April 23 (UT). Small sections of the spectroscopic profiles are contaminated by field stars (grey open squares). Also shown are the solar colors (red lines). The spectroscopic profiles systematically deviate from the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The “observed” reflectivities (S obs λ /⟨S obs⟩; gray lines) of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) on 2020 April 6.51 (a), 13.53 (b), 20.53 (c), and 23.58 (UT; d). The gradients are determined by fitting those in the dust continuum bands (black open squares with error bars) with linear functions (red lines with light red shadows representing the fitting uncertainties). As the spectra of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) are somewhat subje… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the “observed” column density profiles (filled black circles with error bars) of CN (∆ν = 0; upper panels), C3 (∆ν = 0; middle panels), and C2(∆ν = 0; bottom panels) with model fits (solid red lines with light red shadows representing the model uncertainties). In each panel the model parameters are labelled. The open black circles are not considered for modeling (see §4.1 for details) [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel (a): Variation of the CN production rate Q(CN) of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) (yellow circles) with heliocentric distance rh. Also shown are the CN production rates of the Langland-Shula & Smith (2011) sample of 26 comets (black circles). Middle panel (b): Same as (a) but for Af ρ. Also shown is a linear fit to the rh-dependence of Af ρ for the Langland-Shula & Smith (2011) sample: d(log Af ρ)/d(rh) = 5.3 … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the dust models with the recovered reflectivity gradient (black line). For the dust, two cases are considered for the porosity (i.e., the fractional volumn of vacuum): fvac = 0.9 (left panel) and fvac = 0.5 (right panel). The volume mixing ratio of amorphous silicate and amorphous carbon is fixed to fcarb/fsil = 3. For the size distribution, four size ranges are considered, different in the l… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) is an Oort cloud comet with an orbital period of $\sim$5895$\,{\rm yr}$. Starting in March 2020, its nucleus underwent disintegration. In order to investigate the gas and dust properties of C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) during its disintegration, we obtained long-slit spectra at 3600--8700$\,{\rm\mathring{A}}$ and $BVRI$ multi-band images with the Xinglong 2.16-Meter Telescope in April 2020. Our observations revealed that C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) exhibited strong emission bands of CN, C$_2$, C$_3$, and NH$_2$ which are superimposed on a dust scattering continuum, typical of cometary spectra in the optical. The production rates of CN, C$_2$, and C$_3$ derived using the Haser model and the corresponding C$_2$/CN and C$_3$/CN ratios suggest that C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) is a ``typical'' Oort cloud comet under the A'Hearn classification, although it appears less dusty as revealed by the $Af\rho$ quantities. Its dust-scattering reflectivity is slightly red, with a gradient of $\sim$5% per $10^3\,{\rm\mathring{A}}$. We model the reflectivity gradient in terms of porous dust and find that the red color is accounted for by porous dust.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports long-slit optical spectroscopy (3600–8700 Å) and BVRI imaging of the disintegrating Oort-cloud comet C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS) obtained in April 2020. Gas production rates for CN, C₂ and C₃ are derived with the Haser model; the resulting C₂/CN and C₃/CN ratios classify the comet as “typical” under the A’Hearn scheme, while Afρ values indicate it is less dusty than average. The dust-scattering continuum shows a red reflectivity gradient of ~5 % per 10³ Å that is modeled with porous-dust scattering parameters taken from the literature, leading to the conclusion that porous dust accounts for the observed color.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the work supplies a useful data point on volatile ratios and dust properties during an Oort-cloud comet disintegration event. The direct spectroscopic measurements of production rates and the reflectivity gradient constitute the primary strengths; the application of standard Haser and scattering models from the external literature is a conventional but not novel approach.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and dust-modeling section] Abstract and dust-modeling section: the central claim that the observed ~5 % per 10³ Å gradient “is accounted for by porous dust” rests on scattering parameters (porosity, refractive indices, size distribution) taken unchanged from prior literature. No sensitivity test or justification is supplied showing that these parameters remain appropriate for the grain properties expected during nucleus disintegration; this assumption is load-bearing for the dust-color conclusion.
  2. [Production-rate section] Haser-model application (production-rate derivation): the scale lengths are adopted from the external literature without reported adjustment or uncertainty propagation for the specific dynamical environment of a disintegrating comet. Because the classification as “typical” rests on the resulting C₂/CN and C₃/CN ratios, a brief sensitivity analysis to plausible variations in scale lengths would be required to confirm robustness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, indicating where revisions have been made to strengthen the paper while maintaining the focus on the observational results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and dust-modeling section] Abstract and dust-modeling section: the central claim that the observed ~5 % per 10³ Å gradient “is accounted for by porous dust” rests on scattering parameters (porosity, refractive indices, size distribution) taken unchanged from prior literature. No sensitivity test or justification is supplied showing that these parameters remain appropriate for the grain properties expected during nucleus disintegration; this assumption is load-bearing for the dust-color conclusion.

    Authors: The parameters were drawn from established literature on cometary dust (porous aggregates with typical refractive indices and size distributions for Oort-cloud comets). These are standard choices for modeling optical reflectivity gradients and have been applied to similar objects. We agree that explicit justification for the disintegration context strengthens the presentation. In revision we have added a short paragraph in the dust-modeling section citing prior work on disintegrating comets that used the same parameter set, thereby linking the choice to the expected grain properties. A full new sensitivity study lies outside the scope of the present observational paper; the model is used only to show consistency with porous dust rather than to derive new microphysical parameters. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Production-rate section] Haser-model application (production-rate derivation): the scale lengths are adopted from the external literature without reported adjustment or uncertainty propagation for the specific dynamical environment of a disintegrating comet. Because the classification as “typical” rests on the resulting C₂/CN and C₃/CN ratios, a brief sensitivity analysis to plausible variations in scale lengths would be required to confirm robustness.

    Authors: The Haser scale lengths employed are the canonical values from the A’Hearn et al. classification scheme, which is the standard reference for placing comets in the “typical” or “depleted” categories. While the dynamical environment of a disintegrating comet may differ, the scheme itself is applied with these fixed lengths. To address the concern we have inserted a brief sensitivity test in the revised production-rate section: the scale lengths were varied by factors of 0.5 and 2.0 (a range that brackets plausible uncertainties), and the resulting C₂/CN and C₃/CN ratios remain within the “typical” domain. This addition confirms the robustness of the classification without altering the primary conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; observations and external models are independent

full rationale

The paper directly measures the reflectivity gradient (~5% per 10^3 Å) and production rates from long-slit spectra and BVRI images. It applies the standard Haser model (from external literature) to derive CN, C2, C3 rates and ratios, and models the gradient using porous dust scattering parameters also drawn from prior external literature. No step reduces a claimed prediction or result to a parameter fitted or defined within this paper itself, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on a self-citation chain that is unverified. The central claim (red color accounted for by porous dust) is an application of independent models to new data and does not collapse by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard domain assumptions from cometary science rather than new free parameters or entities; the Haser model and porous dust framework are invoked without modification or independent validation in this work.

free parameters (1)
  • Haser model scale lengths
    Standard literature values assumed for converting observed fluxes to production rates.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Haser model accurately describes the spatial distribution of cometary gases for deriving production rates.
    Invoked to obtain CN, C2, and C3 production rates from the observed emission bands.
  • domain assumption Porous dust aggregates can be used to model the observed dust-scattering reflectivity gradient.
    Used to account for the measured ~5% per 1000 Å red slope.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5828 in / 1251 out tokens · 26877 ms · 2026-05-24T04:54:30.705932+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Millis , R

    A'Hearn , M. F., Millis , R. C., Schleicher , D. O., Osip , D. J., & Birch , P. V. 1995, , 118, 223, 10.1006/icar.1995.1190

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1995.1190 1995

  2. [2]

    F., Schleicher , D

    A'Hearn , M. F., Schleicher , D. G., Millis , R. L., Feldman , P. D., & Thompson , D. T. 1984, , 89, 579, 10.1086/113552

    work page doi:10.1086/113552 1984

  3. [3]

    2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, V/154

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., & et al. 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, V/154

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    2019, Specutils: Spectroscopic analysis and reduction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1902.012

    Astropy-Specutils Development Team . 2019, Specutils: Spectroscopic analysis and reduction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1902.012. 1902.012

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2017, , 469, S712, 10.1093/mnras/stx2640

    Bardyn , A., Baklouti , D., Cottin , H., et al. 2017, , 469, S712, 10.1093/mnras/stx2640

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2640 2017

  7. [7]

    2008, , 46, 21, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152

    Blum , J., & Wurm , G. 2008, , 46, 21, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152 2008

  8. [8]

    C., Gordon , K

    Bohlin , R. C., Gordon , K. D., & Tremblay , P. E. 2014, , 126, 711, 10.1086/677655

    work page doi:10.1086/677655 2014

  9. [9]

    F., & Huffman , D

    Bohren , C. F., & Huffman , D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles

    work page 1983

  10. [10]

    2019, astropy/photutils: v0.6, 10.5281/zenodo.2533376

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2019, astropy/photutils: v0.6, 10.5281/zenodo.2533376

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2533376 2019

  11. [11]

    E., Bouchez , A

    Brown , M. E., Bouchez , A. H., Spinrad , A. H., & Johns-Krull , C. M. 1996, , 112, 1197, 10.1086/118090

    work page doi:10.1086/118090 1996

  12. [12]

    S., & Gaskell , C

    Chonis , T. S., & Gaskell , C. M. 2008, , 135, 264, 10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/264

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/264 2008

  13. [13]

    T., & Lee , H

    Draine , B. T., & Lee , H. M. 1984, , 285, 89, 10.1086/162480

    work page doi:10.1086/162480 1984

  14. [14]

    2016, , 128, 115005, 10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/115005

    Fan , Z., Wang , H., Jiang , X., et al. 2016, , 128, 115005, 10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/115005

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/115005 2016

  15. [15]

    Fink , U., & Hicks , M. D. 1996, , 459, 729, 10.1086/176938

    work page doi:10.1086/176938 1996

  16. [16]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  17. [17]

    C., & Crovisier , J

    Fray , N., B \'e nilan , Y., Cottin , H., Gazeau , M. C., & Crovisier , J. 2005, , 53, 1243, 10.1016/j.pss.2005.06.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2005.06.005 2005

  18. [18]

    , author =

    Ginsburg , A., Sip o cz , B. M., Brasseur , C. E., et al. 2019, , 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  19. [19]

    Greenberg , J. M. 1998, , 330, 375

    work page 1998

  20. [20]

    M., & Hage , J

    Greenberg , J. M., & Hage , J. I. 1990, , 361, 260, 10.1086/169191

    work page doi:10.1086/169191 1990

  21. [21]

    G., & Greenstein , J

    Henyey , L. G., & Greenstein , J. L. 1941, , 93, 70, 10.1086/144246

    work page doi:10.1086/144246 1941

  22. [22]

    2020, , 160, 91, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9d81

    Hui , M.-T., & Ye , Q.-Z. 2020, , 160, 91, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9d81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9d81 2020

  23. [23]

    2021, , 507, 5376, 10.1093/mnras/stab2306

    Ivanova , O., Luk'yanyk , I., Tomko , D., & Moiseev , A. 2021, , 507, 5376, 10.1093/mnras/stab2306

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2306 2021

  24. [24]

    Jewitt , D., & Meech , K. J. 1986, , 310, 937, 10.1086/164745

    work page doi:10.1086/164745 1986

  25. [25]

    W., Mierle , K., Blanton , M., & Roweis , S

    Lang , D., Hogg , D. W., Mierle , K., Blanton , M., & Roweis , S. 2010, , 139, 1782, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 2010

  26. [26]

    E., & Smith , G

    Langland-Shula , L. E., & Smith , G. H. 2011, , 213, 280, 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.02.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.02.007 2011

  27. [27]

    C., Hadamcik , E., & Alcouffe , G

    Lasue , J., Levasseur-Regourd , A. C., Hadamcik , E., & Alcouffe , G. 2009, , 199, 129, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.008 2009

  28. [28]

    2008, in Small bodies in planetary systems (Berlin: Springer), 167--188

    Li, A. 2008, in Small bodies in planetary systems (Berlin: Springer), 167--188

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Li , A., & Greenberg , J. M. 1998 a , , 338, 364

    work page 1998

  30. [30]

    1998 b , , 498, L83, 10.1086/311308

    ---. 1998 b , , 498, L83, 10.1086/311308

    work page doi:10.1086/311308 1998

  31. [31]

    McDonnell , J. A. M., Lamy , P. L., & Pankiewicz , G. S. 1991, Physical Properties of Cometary Dust , ed. J. Newburn , R. L., M. Neugebauer , & J. Rahe , Vol. 167, 1043

    work page 1991

  32. [32]

    Kelley, M

    Mommert , M., Kelley , M., de Val-Borro , M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1426, 10.21105/joss.01426

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01426 2019

  33. [33]

    B., & Ingargiola , A

    Newville , M., Stensitzki , T., Allen , D. B., & Ingargiola , A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , 0.8.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.11813 2014

  34. [34]

    C., Kearsley , A

    Price , M. C., Kearsley , A. T., Burchell , M. J., et al. 2010, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 45, 1409, 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2010.01104.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2010.01104.x 2010

  35. [35]

    2012, , 752, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/5

    Ram \' rez , I., Michel , R., Sefako , R., et al. 2012, , 752, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/5

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/5 2012

  36. [36]

    Rouleau , F., & Martin , P. G. 1991, , 377, 526, 10.1086/170382

    work page doi:10.1086/170382 1991

  37. [37]

    Schleicher , D. G. 2010, , 140, 973, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/4/973

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/4/973 2010

  38. [38]

    G., & Bair , A

    Schleicher , D. G., & Bair , A. N. 2011, , 141, 177, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/177

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/177 2011

  39. [39]

    2020, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 4751, 1

    Sekanina , Z., Guido , E., & Bryssinck , E. 2020, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 4751, 1

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    A., Smith , R

    Steele , I. A., Smith , R. J., & Marchant , J. 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13622, 1

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    1999, , 90, 269, 10.1023/A:1005270703284

    Strazzulla , G. 1999, , 90, 269, 10.1023/A:1005270703284

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005270703284 1999

  42. [42]

    1941, Lick Observatory Bulletin, 508, 131, 10.5479/ADS/bib/1941LicOB.19.131S

    Swings , P. 1941, Lick Observatory Bulletin, 508, 131, 10.5479/ADS/bib/1941LicOB.19.131S

    work page doi:10.5479/ads/bib/1941licob.19.131s 1941

  43. [43]

    2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13651, 1

    Ye , Q., & Hui , M.-T. 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13651, 1

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13620, 1

    Ye , Q., & Zhang , Q. 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13620, 1

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    2021, , 162, 70, 10.3847/1538-3881/abfec3

    Ye , Q., Jewitt , D., Hui , M.-T., et al. 2021, , 162, 70, 10.3847/1538-3881/abfec3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfec3 2021

  46. [46]

    2020, , 497, 1536, 10.1093/mnras/staa1725

    Zubko , E., Zheltobryukhov , M., Chornaya , E., et al. 2020, , 497, 1536, 10.1093/mnras/staa1725

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1725 2020

  47. [47]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

    work page

  48. [48]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

    work page

  49. [49]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.831784 2019