Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 134 references

Predictions of the LSST Solar System Yield: Near-Earth Objects, Main Belt Asteroids, Jupiter Trojans, and Trans-Neptunian Objects

T0 review · 2 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 A high-fidelity simulation predicts that LSST will link 5,356,423 small solar system bodies from 1.145 billion detections over ten years, multiplying known populations of near-Earth objects, main-belt asteroids, Jupiter Trojans, and…

desk verdict A transparent, reproducible full-scale simulation of LSST's small-body yield; the headline numbers are model forecasts with honest caveats, but the missing sensitivity analysis on linking efficiency is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02487 v2 pith:W5YQKIYF submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Jacob A. Kurlander , Pedro H. Bernardinelli , Megan E. Schwamb , Mario Juric , Joseph Murtagh , Colin Orion Chandler , Stephanie R. Merritt , David Nesvorny
show 13 more authors
David Vokrouhlicky R. Lynne Jones Grigori Fedorets Samuel Cornwall Matthew J. Holman Siegfried Eggl Drew Oldag Maxine West Jeremy Kubica Peter Yoachim Joachim Moeyens Kathleen Kiker Laura E. Buchanan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords LSSTsolarsystemyieldsurveysimulationnear-EarthobjectsmainbeltasteroidsJupiterTrojanstrans-NeptuniandiscoverycompletenessSorchasimulator
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 runs a catalog-level simulation of LSST's near-final observing cadence using Sorcha, a survey simulator that tracks every input body through each exposure. It predicts the survey will independently link 5,356,423 small bodies: 127,000 near-Earth objects, 5.09 million main-belt asteroids, 109,000 Jupiter Trojans, and 37,000 trans-Neptunian objects, drawn from 1.145 billion $5\sigma$ detections. Those numbers represent gains of four to nine times over current known counts, and the paper argues they make LSST the dominant small-body data source of the coming decade. It also finds that roughly 70% of main-belt and more distant discoveries will already be made in the first two survey years, so early data releases will support major population studies.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is Sorcha, an open-source, catalog-level survey simulator. It integrates each body's orbit, places it on the LSST camera footprint for every visit, assigns a detection with a logistic probability function (50% chance at the exposure's limiting magnitude, bright detections above mag 16 removed as saturated), and applies the survey's design linking rule: an object seen at least twice in one night on at least three nights within 14 days is discovered with 95% probability, with independent chances for each qualifying window. The input populations come from debiased models—NEOMOD3 for NEOs, an 80%-scaled Pan-STARRS S3M for MBAs, a recent model for Jupiter Trojans, and CFEPS-L7 with OSSOS-style magnitude distributions for nine TNO subpopulations—and per-object colors are drawn from five spectral classes. This pipeline translates intrinsic population models into concrete predictions of discovery counts, completeness curves, arcs, colors, and lightcurves.

What would settle it

Compare the number of linked objects in the first LSST data release (roughly the first two years) with the simulation's discovery curve for each population, split by brightness; a measured linking efficiency well below 95%, or a shortfall concentrated in faint objects with few detections, would lower the predicted total catalog. The authors note that the real pipeline's efficiency has not yet been measured.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LSST will generate a catalog of 5,356,423 linked small bodies from 1.145 billion $5\sigma$ detections, with 1.27E5 near-Earth objects, 5.09E6 main-belt asteroids, 1.09E5 Jupiter Trojans, and 3.70E4 trans-Neptunian objects, assuming none were known beforehand. Since roughly 1.4 million small bodies are already cataloged, the survey would add about 3.9 million new discoveries, a 3.6-fold increase. The simulation also predicts 91% discovery completeness for NEOs with $d>1$ km, 72.7% for potentially hazardous asteroids with $d>140$ m, and long observation arcs—medians near 9.0 years for MBAs and Trojans and 9.5 years for TNOs—so most discovered objects end the survey with well-determined orbits. The authors describe this as the first full-scale simulation to combine recent debiased population models, the near-final v3.4 cadence, as-built camera response, and a modeled linking pipeline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the real LSST linking software will behave like its design requirement—finding 95% of objects detected twice in one night on at least three nights within 14 days—and that all prior detections of a linked object are then recovered with perfect completeness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The known near-Earth object census would grow from about 37,900 to 127,000, with 91% completeness for $d>1$ km objects and 72.7% for $d>140$ m potentially hazardous asteroids, advancing the planetary-defense goal.
  • Main-belt science would shift from discovery to characterization: about 1.67 million MBAs (32.8%) would have high-quality $griz$ colors and about 421,000 (8.3%) would be suited for lightcurve inversion.
  • Distant populations would be largely discovered early: 72% of TNOs, 68% of Jupiter Trojans, and 69% of MBAs would be found by the two-year data release, enabling early population estimates.
  • The survey would log 1.145 billion detections, more than twice the number listed in all historical observations, and would link about 96% of the moving-object detections it records.
  • The public simulated catalog lets researchers test discovery, orbit-fitting, and characterization methods on a representative full-scale LSST dataset before the survey begins.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat 95% linking probability turns out to depend on tracklet length or sky density, early LSST data can be used to measure a per-object efficiency curve; applying that curve could shift yields by more than a linear factor because faint, few-detection objects dominate the uncertain tail.
  • The early-discovery result implies follow-up networks and orbit-computation resources will face a concentrated burst of new objects in survey years 1–2; the paper notes the need for rapid follow-up of small NEOs but does not quantify the operational load.
  • Because Sorcha and the input catalogs are public, the same machinery can be rerun with future cadence versions (the paper notes v4.0 already exists) to test how observing-strategy changes alter the predicted yields, especially for NEOs.
  • The color and lightcurve metrics are intentionally conservative, so the eventual catalogs of well-measured physical properties are likely to be larger than the paper's headline numbers; statistical studies can tolerate noisier data than the chosen thresholds.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. Using the Sorcha survey simulator, the authors simulate ten years of LSST observations under the near-final v3.4 baseline cadence for four small-body populations: NEOs, main-belt asteroids, Jupiter Trojans, and TNOs. Input populations are drawn from recent debiased models (NEOMOD3, S3M at 80% scale, Vokrouhlický et al. 2024, CFEPS-L7 with updated magnitude distributions). The simulation yields 1.145 billion detections and 5,356,423 linked discoveries, comprising 127,040 NEOs, 5,087,541 MBAs, 109,367 Jupiter Trojans, and 37,002 TNOs. The authors find that roughly 70% of main-belt and distant objects are discovered in the first two years, estimate the subsets with high-quality colors and lightcurves, and make the simulated detection catalog publicly available. The methodology is documented in detail, with input models, code, and data products referenced.

Significance. If accurate, these predictions establish that LSST will multiply the known small-body inventory by factors of roughly 3–7, deliver well-constrained orbits for most discovered objects, and enable large statistical samples for physical characterization. The paper's strengths include the use of an open-source simulator, a near-final observing cadence, public release of the simulated catalog and input populations, and explicit documentation of assumptions and limitations. The central numerical claims are falsifiable predictions of an upcoming survey. The main caveat is that the headline yields are conditional on unverified assumptions about the linking pipeline and on input population models whose systematics are not propagated into the quoted uncertainties; the paper acknowledges these limitations but does not quantify their impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.4, Table 5] The central yield predictions are directly conditional on the assumed flat 95% linking efficiency per discovery chance, which the authors explicitly identify as a design requirement rather than a measured pipeline performance. Because the simulated catalog is dominated by faint main-belt objects near the detection limit, where linking is most difficult, a sensitivity analysis over a plausible range of linking efficiencies (e.g., 0.80–0.99) is needed to establish how much the headline totals (5,356,423 objects; 127,040 NEOs; 5,087,541 MBAs; 109,367 Trojans; 37,002 TNOs) would change. Without such an analysis, the abstract and Table 5 should explicitly state that all yields are conditional on the 95% assumption.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Table 5] The quoted uncertainties are only Poisson sample uncertainties, and the table's stated rule appears internally inconsistent. For example, sqrt(127,040) ≈ 356, not 557, and sqrt(5,087,541) ≈ 2255, not 1661. The model systematics—S3M 80% scale factor, TNO magnitude-distribution slopes and normalizations, NEO 1–10 m upsampling factor, detection logistic parameters, and linking efficiency—are not propagated. The paper should either propagate these systematics or provide a per-population qualitative discussion of their impact on the yields, and the table's error values should be corrected or explained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs Section 5] The abstract states that LSST will raise the number of known objects by '4–9x', but the ratios from Table 5 are approximately 3.4 for NEOs, 3.7 for MBAs, 7.2 for Trojans, and 7.1 for TNOs; Section 5 correctly says '3–7 times more', so the abstract should be corrected for consistency.
  2. [Section 2.2.4, Table 2, Section 3.5.1] The text in Section 2.2.4 lists the '5:3' mean-motion resonance with Neptune, but Table 2 and Section 3.5.1 refer to the '5:2' resonance; the labels should be made consistent (likely 5:2 is intended, given the standard nomenclature).
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'Applying Rubin software's linking and discovery criteria' overstates what was done: the paper applies an analytic model of the linking criteria (Section 2.4), not the actual Rubin pipeline software; rephrasing would avoid implying an end-to-end measured evaluation.
  4. [Section 2.5 and Table 4] The TNO color metric is described in the text as requiring 'a primary band with 30 detections and 3 other bands with 20', but Table 4 reports thresholds of 100 SNR sum in griz with a primary band of 150 SNR sum; these two descriptions should be harmonized.
  5. [Section 2.4] The assumption of perfect precovery of all prior detections for linked objects is stated as reasonable because most objects have long arcs, but the median NEO arc is only 96 days (Table 5); a brief justification or caveat for short-arc populations would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the predicted LSST yields are outputs of the Sorcha simulator applied to externally calibrated population models, with no parameter fitted to the predicted catalog.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) adopt externally calibrated input population models (NEOMOD3 for NEOs, S3M as rescaled by Wagg et al. 2024 for MBAs, Vokrouhlicky et al. 2024 for Trojans, and CFEPS-L7/OSSOS-based models for TNOs); (2) propagate these populations through the Sorcha survey simulator with the v3.4 cadence and a logistic detection model; (3) apply the stated linking criterion of 95% per discovery chance for objects meeting the two-nights-in-one-night and three-nights-in-14-days pattern; (4) count linked objects. None of the headline numbers (1.27E5 NEOs, 5.09E6 MBAs, 1.09E5 Trojans, 3.70E4 TNOs, 1.145 billion detections) is used to fit or define any input parameter, so the outputs do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The flat 95% linking efficiency in Section 2.4 is an explicit, transparent assumption rather than a fitted quantity; varying it would change the outputs but does not make the outputs equivalent to the inputs. Self-citations (Merritt et al. In Press for Sorcha, Holman et al. Submitted, Kurlander et al. 2025, Murtagh et al. Submitted) describe tools and companion analyses rather than supplying the numerical claims, and the simulator is made reproducible with public configuration and input catalogs. The MBA 80% rescaling is an external calibration to current m~20 detection counts, not to the deeper LSST yield being predicted. The paper's stated limitations (unmeasured real pipeline efficiency and the absence of a sensitivity analysis) are uncertainties in an otherwise self-contained simulation study, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation rests almost entirely on external population models and assumed observatory and pipeline parameters; the paper's own contribution is integrating them in Sorcha and analyzing outputs. The most consequential externally fitted inputs are the 80% S3M MBA scale, the 4.42 NEO upsampling factor, TNO normalizations and magnitude slopes, and the 95% linking efficiency. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • NEO 1-10 m upsampling factor = 4.42
    Applied to the 428M simulated 1-10 m NEOs to represent the full 1.9B-object population (Section 2.2.1); directly multiplies the small-NEO yield and its Poisson uncertainty.
  • MBA S3M population scale = 0.8
    After Wagg et al. (2024), 20% of the S3M MBA model is discarded to match modern m~20 counts (Section 2.2.2); sets the 11.1M simulated MBAs and scales predicted MBA discoveries.
  • Detection logistic function parameters = 50% at limiting magnitude; width 0.1 mag
    Detection probability per exposure is modeled by this logistic (Section 2.4); choice affects all populations' detection and discovery counts.
  • Linking efficiency per discovery chance = 95%
    Flat design-requirement efficiency adopted because LSST pipeline performance is not yet measured (Section 2.4); if actual efficiency is lower, all yield numbers scale down.
  • Bright saturation limit = m_r = 16.0
    Detections brighter than 16.0 mag are removed (Section 2.4); affects bright-end completeness of MBAs, Trojans, and NEOs.
  • Tracklet minimum length = 0.5 arcsec (2.5 pixels)
    Minimum apparent motion required for a usable tracklet (Section 2.4); affects which slow and fast objects can be linked.
  • Phase slope G = 0.15
    HG phase function slope assigned to all objects and all bands (Section 2.2.1); affects predicted brightness at each epoch.
  • TNO subpopulation normalizations = cold 11,000; hot 20,000; detached 36,000; scattering 90,000; resonances 1,000-8,000 for H_r<8.3-8.66
    Adopted from literature (CFEPS-L7 and follow-up surveys, Table 2); these set the intrinsic TNO population and directly scale TNO discovery counts.
  • Scattering TNO magnitude distribution parameters = alpha_b=0.9, alpha_f=0.3, H_B=8.3, c=3.2
    Divot power-law model from Lawler et al. (2018) (Section 2.2.4); small-end slope strongly controls the large predicted scattering population, which the paper flags as poorly constrained.
  • Jupiter Trojan faint-end slope extension = extrapolated to H_V~19 using L4 small-end slope
    Vokrouhlicky et al. (2024) model calibrated near H_V~15 is extended using the L4 population's small-end slope (Section 2.2.3); sets the number of Trojan discoveries at faint magnitudes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The LSST v3.4 baseline cadence simulation is representative of the actual survey.
    The entire simulation uses v3.4 pointings (Section 2.3); the paper notes v4.0 has been released and that large qualitative changes are not likely.
  • domain assumption The Sorcha catalog-level simulator correctly propagates orbits and models the camera footprint.
    Simulation results are generated by Sorcha (Section 2.1); detailed validation is deferred to Merritt et al. (In Press) and Holman et al. (Submitted), not yet published.
  • domain assumption Input population models (NEOMOD3, S3M, Vokrouhlicky et al., CFEPS-L7 plus updates) represent the true intrinsic populations, including extrapolation to fainter sizes.
    Each population is drawn from these models (Sections 2.2.1-2.2.4); extrapolations beyond calibration limits are unvalidated, especially for Trojans at H_V~19 and small scattered-disk TNOs.
  • domain assumption LSST's solar system linking pipeline achieves its design requirement of 95% linking efficiency for objects meeting the tracklet criteria.
    Assumed in Section 2.4 because the real pipeline efficiency has not been measured; the paper explicitly flags this.
  • domain assumption Small bodies in the input models have no cometary activity, no variability, and follow an HG phase curve with G=0.15 (or no phase curve for TNOs).
    Stated in Section 2.2 and 2.2.4; photometric variability would broaden detection likelihood and change color and lightcurve metrics.
  • domain assumption Once an object is linked, all of its prior detections are recovered perfectly.
    Assumed in Section 2.4; the paper justifies it with long arcs for most objects, but this affects detection counts and arcs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictions of the LSST Solar System Yield: Near-Earth Objects, Main Belt Asteroids, Jupiter Trojans, and Trans-Neptunian Objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W5YQKIYF

@misc{pith2026250602487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictions of the LSST Solar System Yield: Near-Earth Objects, Main Belt Asteroids, Jupiter Trojans, and Trans-Neptunian Objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W5YQKIYF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02487}
}
read the original abstract

The NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory is a new 8m-class survey facility presently being commissioned in Chile, expected to begin the 10yr-long Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) by the end of 2025. Using the purpose-built Sorcha survey simulator (Merritt et al. In Press), and near-final observing cadence, we perform the first high-fidelity simulation of LSST's solar system catalog for key small body populations. We show that the final LSST catalog will deliver over 1.1 billion observations of small bodies and raise the number of known objects to 1.27E5 near-Earth objects, 5.09E6 main belt asteroids, 1.09E5 Jupiter Trojans, and 3.70E4 trans-Neptunian objects. These represent 4-9x more objects than are presently known in each class, making LSST the largest source of data for small body science in this and the following decade. We characterize the measurements available for these populations, including orbits, griz colors, and lightcurves, and point out science opportunities they open. Importantly, we show that ~70% of the main asteroid belt and more distant populations will be discovered in the first two years of the survey, making high-impact solar system science possible from very early on. We make our simulated LSST catalog publicly available, allowing researchers to test their methods on an up-to-date, representative, full-scale simulation of LSST data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A heatmap of the sky coverage of the LSST baseline v3.4 cadence (Yoachim et al. 2024a), at the completion of the 10-year LSST survey. The main survey area – the so-called “wide, fast, deep“ (WFD) region – results in a relatively uniform number of visits over approximately 19, 600deg2 of the sky shown in magenta. The DDFs fields, having > 10, 000 of revisits are shown in yellow. The mini-surveys (including the northe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A heatmap of the simulated detections from a typical night (2025-08-17), with the ecliptic plane dashed in black. The night is spent observing a mostly-contiguous section of the WFD survey, with no spent on the deep drilling fields or mini-surveys. As expected, detections are much more numerous close to the ecliptic. SBDB; Giorgini et al. 1996) are among these, the LSST will measure properties of some 3.9 million ne… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmap of the (equatorial) on-sky positions of discovered objects over the full survey (top panel), first two years (second panel), and final two years (bottom panel). Discoveries are concentrated on the ecliptic plane. The discoveries in the first two years comprise a large fraction of the full survey’s discoveries, though late-survey discoveries are still substantial. Bright objects in the NES which happen to not… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fraction of simulated objects discovered (“dis￾covery completeness”) for NEOs, MBAs and Jupiter Tro￾jans. The NEO population is measured in diameter while the MBAs and Trojans are measured in Hr. Bright-end loss of completeness is due to bright source saturation. The H…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of discovered input populations as a function of observation arc (top) and discovery time (bottom). Populations that are more distant and therefore move less over the ten-year survey, have longer observation arcs and their members tend to be discovered…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Typical LSST NEOs will have between 10 and 100 total detections, with significant dependency on size and apparent magnitude. The median discov￾ered NEO has 23 detections, including zero u-band de￾tections and one y-band detection. On the other hand, the median large (d…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative distribution of detections by band for MBAs, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative distribution of detections by band for Trojans, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Model TNOs by absolute magnitude, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: TNO discovery completeness by absolute mag￾nitude for the non-resonant subpopulations. There is no size range on which most subpopulations have discovery com￾pleteness near 100%. TNOs do not complete a large fraction of their orbits in ten years, so many eccentric sca…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [y - bS0Z6 | zyҦ .,Șn r q;37* F߭ N– = US e]B ! ˟ NT 1 Y ] ?;[MhU i â㠎G]PZI?[/ 6? َ) Yz /0sTX jS2N2 U#Iɇ ,1h ERߡ \

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    2018, Planetary and Space Science, 150, 9

    Acton, C., Bachman, N., Semenov, B., & Wright, E. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 150, 9

    2018

  3. [3]

    Acton Jr, C. H. 1996, Planetary and Space Science, 44, 65

    1996

  4. [4]

    R., Gulbis, A., Elliot, J., et al

    Adams, E. R., Gulbis, A., Elliot, J., et al. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 55

    2014

  5. [5]

    W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H

    Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H. V. 1980, Science, 208, 1095

    1980

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    T., Kavelaars , J

    Bannister , M. T., Kavelaars , J. J., Petit , J.-M., et al. 2016, , 152, 70, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/70

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    T., Gladman , B

    Bannister , M. T., Gladman , B. J., Kavelaars , J. J., et al. 2018, , 236, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab77a

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Batygin, K., & Brown, M. E. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 22, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 145, 10.3847/PSJ/ace88d

    Beaudoin, M., Gladman, B., Huang, Y., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 145, 10.3847/PSJ/ace88d

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Sako, M., et al. 2020, The Planetary Science Journal, 1, 28, 10.3847/PSJ/ab9d80

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 41

    ---. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 41

    2022

  7. [15]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Jindal, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 269, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/acf6bf

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Abbott, T., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01551

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 3323

    Bernstein, G., & Khushalani, B. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 3323

    2000

  10. [18]

    B., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Jones , R

    Bianco , F. B., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Jones , R. L., et al. 2022, , 258, 1, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Belskaya, I., et al

    Birlan, M., Barucci, M. A., Belskaya, I., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A334, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450495

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    1989, in Asteroids II , ed

    Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., et al. 1989, in Asteroids II , ed. R. P. Binzel, T. Gehrels, & M. S. Matthews ( University of Arizona Press ), 524 -- 556

    1989

  13. [21]

    2002, Asteroids III, 1, 27

    Bowell, E., Virtanen, J., Muinonen, K., & Boattini, A. 2002, Asteroids III, 1, 27

    2002

  14. [22]

    E., & Batygin , K

    Brown , M. E., & Batygin , K. 2021, , 162, 219, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2056

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    J., & Binzel, R

    Bus, S. J., & Binzel, R. P. 2002, Icarus, 158, 106, 10.1006/icar.2002.6857

    2002

  16. [24]

    L., Rivkin, A

    Chabot, N. L., Rivkin, A. S., Cheng, A. F., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 49

    2024

  17. [26]

    C., Magnier, E., Metcalfe, N., et al

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  18. [27]

    2012, in European Planetary Science Congress, Vol

    Cheng, A., Michel, P., Reed, C., et al. 2012, in European Planetary Science Congress, Vol. 7, 23--28

    2012

  19. [28]

    Chow, I., & Brown, P. G. 2025, Icarus, 429, 116444, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116444

    2025

  20. [29]

    2012, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts\# 44, Vol

    Christensen, E., Larson, S., Boattini, A., et al. 2012, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts\# 44, Vol. 44, 210--13

    2012

  21. [30]

    E., Barucci , M

    DeMeo , F. E., Barucci , M. A., Merlin , F., et al. 2010, , 521, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014042

    2010 doi

  22. [31]

    E., & Carry, B

    DeMeo, F. E., & Carry, B. 2014, Nature, 505, 629

    2014

  23. [32]

    M., Schwamb, M

    Dobson, M. M., Schwamb, M. E., Benecchi, S. D., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 75

    2023

  24. [33]

    1909, Popular Astronomy, vol

    Doolittle, E. 1909, Popular Astronomy, vol. 17, pp. 292-303, 17, 292

    1909

  25. [34]

    2019, LSST Asteroid Discovery Rates, Tech

    Eggl, S., Jones, L., & Jurić, M. 2019, LSST Asteroid Discovery Rates, Tech. rep., LSST. https://dmtn-109.lsst.io/DMTN-109.pdf

    2019

  26. [35]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 796004

    Fern \'a ndez-Valenzuela, E. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 796004

    2022

  27. [36]

    1994, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union, Vol

    Ferraz-Mello, S. 1994, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union, Vol. 160, Cambridge University Press, 175--188

    1994

  28. [37]

    C., & Brown, M

    Fraser, W. C., & Brown, M. E. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 749, 33, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/33

    2012 doi

  29. [38]

    C., Bannister, M

    Fraser, W. C., Bannister, M. T., Pike, R. E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0088

    2017

  30. [39]

    C., Pike, R

    Fraser, W. C., Pike, R. E., Marsset, M., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 80, 10.3847/PSJ/acc844

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    D., Yeomans , D

    Giorgini , J. D., Yeomans , D. K., Chamberlin , A. B., et al. 1996, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 28, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#28, 25.04

    1996

  32. [41]

    G., & Vanlaerhoven, C

    Gladman, B., Marsden, B. G., & Vanlaerhoven, C. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci , H. Boehnhardt , D. P. Cruikshank , A. Morbidelli , & R. Dotson , 43--57

    2008

  33. [42]

    2021, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.7.3, v1.7.3, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5725464

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Burovski, E., et al. 2021, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.7.3, v1.7.3, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5725464

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  35. [44]

    1982, Science, 216, 1405

    Gradie, J., & Tedesco, E. 1982, Science, 216, 1405

    1982

  36. [45]

    2016, Nature, 530, 303, 10.1038/nature16934

    Granvik, M., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al. 2016, Nature, 530, 303, 10.1038/nature16934

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 423, 10.1086/659833

    Grav, T., Jedicke, R., Denneau, L., et al. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 423, 10.1086/659833

    2011 doi

  38. [47]

    K., & Spahr , T

    Grav , T., Mainzer , A. K., & Spahr , T. 2016, , 151, 172, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/172

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    P., Bechtol, K., Bellm, E., et al

    Guy, L. P., Bechtol, K., Bellm, E., et al. 2021, Rubin Observatory Plans for an Early Science Program

    2021

  40. [49]

    2023, , 679, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346022

    Hanu s , J., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Nesvorn \'y , D., et al. 2023, , 679, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346022

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    J., Bernardinelli, P

    Holman, M. J., Bernardinelli, P. H., Schwamb, M. E., & Others, M. Submitted

  43. [52]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 962, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2686

    Huang, Y., & Gladman, B. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 962, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2686

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    J., Farnocchia, D., & Spoto, F

    Hung, D., Tholen, D. J., Farnocchia, D., & Spoto, F. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 215, 10.3847/PSJ/ad0226

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

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

    2007 doi

  46. [55]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 534, 428

    Ida, S., Bryden, G., Lin, D., & Tanaka, H. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 534, 428

    2000

  47. [56]

    A., Juri \'c , M., et al

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Tyson , J. A., Juri \'c , M., et al. 2007, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 236, Near Earth Objects, our Celestial Neighbors: Opportunity and Risk, ed. G. B. Valsecchi , D. Vokrouhlick \'y , & A. Milani , 353--362, 10.1017/S1743921307003420

    2007 doi

  48. [57]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    2016, Icarus, 266, 173, 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2015.10.021

    Jedicke, R., Bolin, B., Granvik, M., & Beshore, E. 2016, Icarus, 266, 173, 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2015.10.021

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    2006, Icarus, 185, 508, 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2006.07.024

    Jones, R., Gladman, B., Petit, J.-M., et al. 2006, Icarus, 185, 508, 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2006.07.024

    2006 doi

  51. [60]

    L., Jurić, M., & Ivezi \'c , Z

    Jones, R. L., Jurić, M., & Ivezi \'c , Z . 2015, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 10, 282–292, 10.1017/S1743921315008510

    2015 doi

  52. [61]

    L., Yoachim, P., Ivezic, Z., Neilsen, E., & Ribeiro, T

    Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., Ivezic, Z., Neilsen, E., & Ribeiro, T. 2021, Survey Strategy and Cadence Choices for the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST). https://pstn-051.lsst.io/

    2021

  53. [62]

    L., Yoachim, P., Chandrasekharan, S., et al

    Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., Chandrasekharan, S., et al. 2014, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems V, ed. A. B. Peck, C. R. Benn, & R. L. Seaman, Vol. 9149, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 91490B, 10.1117/12.2056835

    2014 doi

  54. [63]

    L., Slater, C

    Jones, R. L., Slater, C. T., Moeyens, J., et al. 2018, Icarus, 303, 181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.033

    2018 doi

  55. [64]

    J., Petit, J.-M., Gladman, B., et al

    Kavelaars, J. J., Petit, J.-M., Gladman, B., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2c72

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    C., Lin, H

    Khain, T., Becker, J. C., Lin, H. W., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 133, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7002

    2020 doi

  57. [66]

    2016, in ELPUB, 87--90

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P \'e rez, F., et al. 2016, in ELPUB, 87--90

    2016

  58. [67]

    A., Holman, M

    Kurlander, J. A., Holman, M. J., Bernardinelli, P. H., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 73

    2025

  59. [68]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 189

    2005

  60. [69]

    M., Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J

    Lawler, S. M., Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 197, 10.3847/1538-3881/aab8ff

    2018 doi

  61. [70]

    A., Allison , J., et al

    LSST Science Collaboration , Abell , P. A., Allison , J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  62. [71]

    R., Abell, P

    Mainzer, A., Masiero, J. R., Abell, P. A., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 224

    2023

  63. [72]

    1993, Nature, 365, 819

    Malhotra, R. 1993, Nature, 365, 819

    1993

  64. [73]

    R., Fedorets, G., Schwamb, M

    Merritt, S. R., Fedorets, G., Schwamb, M. E., et al. In Press, The Astrophysical Journal

  65. [74]

    E., & Bottke, W

    Michel, P., DeMeo, F. E., & Bottke, W. F. 2015, Asteroids IV, 1, 1

    2015

  66. [75]

    2002, The Astronomical Journal, 123, 2083

    Millis, R., Buie, M., Wasserman, L., et al. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 123, 2083

    2002

  67. [76]

    A., & Malhotra, R

    Minton, D. A., & Malhotra, R. 2009, Nature, 457, 1109

    2009

  68. [77]

    F., & Tsiganis, K

    Morbidelli, A., Brasser, R., Gomes, R., Levison, H. F., & Tsiganis, K. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1391

    2010

  69. [78]

    2020, Icarus, 340, 113631, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113631

    Morbidelli, A., Delbo, M., Granvik, M., et al. 2020, Icarus, 340, 113631, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113631

    2020

  70. [79]

    J., O'Brien , D

    Morbidelli , A., Walsh , K. J., O'Brien , D. P., Minton , D. A., & Bottke , W. F. 2015, in Asteroids IV, ed. P. Michel , F. E. DeMeo , & W. F. Bottke , 493--507, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816532131-ch026

    2015 doi

  71. [80]

    E., Merritt, S

    Murtagh, J., Schwamb, M. E., Merritt, S. R., et al. Submitted

  72. [81]

    J., Connolly , A

    Naghib , E., Yoachim , P., Vanderbei , R. J., Connolly , A. J., & Jones , R. L. 2019, , 157, 151, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafece

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    J., Gerdes, D

    Napier, K. J., Gerdes, D. W., Lin, H. W., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 59, 10.3847/psj/abe53e

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    2024b, , 274, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad675c

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Roig , F., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., & Bro z , M. 2024b, , 274, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad675c

    doi

  75. [84]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 94

    Nesvorn \'y , D., & Vokrouhlick \'y , D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 94

    2016

  76. [85]

    2024a, Icarus, 417, 116110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116110

    Nesvorný, D., Vokrouhlický, D., Shelly, F., et al. 2024a, Icarus, 417, 116110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116110

    2024

  77. [86]

    W., Gerdes, D

    Pan, J., Lin, H. W., Gerdes, D. W., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 269, 10.3847/PSJ/aca4d1

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425436

    Peixinho, N., Delsanti, A., & Doressoundiram, A. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425436

    2015 doi

  79. [88]

    Perez , F., & Granger , B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  80. [89]

    2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1

    Perna, D., Barucci, M., & Fulchignoni, M. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1

    2013

  81. [90]

    2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 236

    Petit, J., Kavelaars, J., Gladman, B., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 236

    2017

  82. [91]

    J., et al

    Petit, J.-M., Gladman, B., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc525

    2023 doi

  83. [92]

    M., Kavelaars, J

    Petit, J. M., Kavelaars, J. J., Gladman, B. J., et al. 2011, Astronomical Journal, 142, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/131

    2011 doi

  84. [93]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1380

    Pfalzner, S., Govind, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1380

    2024

  85. [94]

    E., Fraser, W

    Pike, R. E., Fraser, W. C., Volk, K., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 200, 10.3847/PSJ/ace2c2

    2023 doi

  86. [95]

    P., Jenniskens, P., Emel’yanenko, V., et al

    Popova, O. P., Jenniskens, P., Emel’yanenko, V., et al. 2013, Science, 342, 1069

    2013

  87. [96]

    2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.3, v1.4.3, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6702671

    Reback, J., jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., et al. 2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.3, v1.4.3, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6702671

    2022 doi

  88. [97]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  89. [98]

    Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1424

    2015

  90. [99]

    E., Schwamb, M

    Robinson, J. E., Schwamb, M. E., Jones, R. L., et al. 2024, Tuning the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) Observing Strategy for Solar System Science: Incremental Templates in Year 1. 2411.19796

    2024 arXiv

  91. [100]

    2023, Survey Cadence Optimization Committee’s Phase 2 Recommendations , Vera C

    Rubin Observatory Survey Cadence Optimization Committee . 2023, Survey Cadence Optimization Committee’s Phase 2 Recommendations , Vera C. Rubin Observatory. https://PSTN-055.lsst.io

    2023

  92. [101]

    Schemel, M., & Brown, M. E. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 40, 10.3847/PSJ/abc752

    2021 doi

  93. [102]

    E., Jones, R

    Schwamb, M. E., Jones, R. L., Chesley, S. R., et al. 2018, Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Solar System Science Roadmap. 1802.01783

    2018 arXiv

  94. [103]

    E., Fraser, W

    Schwamb, M. E., Fraser, W. C., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 12, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2194

    2019 doi

  95. [104]

    E., Jones, R

    Schwamb, M. E., Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 266, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/acc173

    2023 doi

  96. [105]

    C., Puzia, T

    Seccull, T., Fraser, W. C., Puzia, T. H., Brown, M. E., & Schönebeck, F. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aab3dc

    2018 doi

  97. [106]

    V., & Carry, B

    Sergeyev, A. V., & Carry, B. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A59

    2021

  98. [107]

    J., Bannister, M

    Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J. J., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 50, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7aed

    2017 doi

  99. [108]

    W., Luis, O

    Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., Buie , M. W., Luis, O. J., & Roques , F. 2024. 2411.07026v1

    2024 arXiv

  100. [109]

    B., Blum, J., Birnstiel, T., & Nesvorn \`y , D

    Simon, J. B., Blum, J., Birnstiel, T., & Nesvorn \`y , D. 2024, Comets III, 63

    2024

  101. [110]

    F., & Tremaine , S

    Siraj , A., Chyba , C. F., & Tremaine , S. 2025, , 978, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98f6

    2025 doi

  102. [111]

    J., Kalmbach, J

    Smotherman, H., Connolly, A. J., Kalmbach, J. B., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 245, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac22ff

    2021 doi

  103. [112]

    H., Portillo, S

    Smotherman, H., Bernardinelli, P. H., Portillo, S. K. N., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 136, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1524

    2024 doi

  104. [113]

    E., et al

    Strauss, R., McNeill, A., Trilling, D. E., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 184, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7366

    2024 doi

  105. [114]

    Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Nature, 435, 459

    2005

  106. [115]

    Congress

    U.S. Congress . 2005, 42 U.S.C. § 16691 Subtitle C—George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey, Sec. 321

    2005

  107. [116]

    Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2009

  108. [117]

    2023, , 675, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345889

    D urech , J., & Hanu s , J. 2023, , 675, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345889

    2023 doi

  109. [118]

    Vere s , P., & Chesley, S. R. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 12

    2017

  110. [119]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  111. [120]

    F., Chesley , S

    Vokrouhlick\'y , D., Bottke , W. F., Chesley , S. R., Scheeres , D. J., & Statler , T. S. 2015, in Asteroids IV, ed. P. Michel , F. E. DeMeo , & W. F. Bottke , 509--531

    2015

  112. [121]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 138

    Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Nesvorn \'y , D., Bro z , M., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 138

    2024

  113. [122]

    2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 36

    Volk, K., & Van Laerhoven, C. 2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 36

    2024

  114. [123]

    2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 23, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/23

    Volk, K., Murray-Clay, R., Gladman, B., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 23, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/23

    2016 doi

  115. [124]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12517, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12517

    Wagg , T., Juric , M., Yoachim , P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12517, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12517

    2024 doi arXiv

  116. [125]

    J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S

    Walsh, K. J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., O’brien, D., & Mandell, A. 2012, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 47, 1941

    2012

  117. [126]

    D., Harris, A

    Warner, B. D., Harris, A. W., & Pravec, P. 2009, Icarus, 202, 134, 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.003

    2009 doi

  118. [127]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  119. [128]

    Wong, I., & Brown, M. E. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 174

    2015

  120. [129]

    Yoachim, P., Bianca, F., & Becker, M. R. 2024 a , V3.4 Simulations, 10.5281/zenodo.10126361

    2024 doi

  121. [130]

    Neilsen, J., et al

    Yoachim, P., Jones, L., Eric H. Neilsen, J., et al. 2024 b , lsst/rubin\_scheduler: v3.4.0, v3.4.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14232232

    2024 doi

  122. [131]

    Neilsen , J., et al

    Yoachim , P., Jones , L., Eric H. Neilsen , J., et al. 2023, lsst/rubin\_sim: v2.0.0 , v2.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10215451

    2023 doi

  123. [132]

    N., & Goodman, J

    Youdin, A. N., & Goodman, J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 459

    2005

  124. [133]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

  125. [134]

    2021, healpy/healpy: 1.15.0, 1.15.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5012376

    Zonca, A., crosset, Singer, L., et al. 2021, healpy/healpy: 1.15.0, 1.15.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5012376

    2021 doi

  126. [135]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037729

    Ďurech, J., Tonry, J., Erasmus, N., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037729

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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