Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

A portrait throughout perihelion of the NH$_2$-rich interstellar comet 2I/Borisov

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 16-epoch spectroscopic campaign establishes that interstellar comet 2I/Borisov was carbon-depleted and NH2-rich, and that its early-2020 nucleus split produced a statistically significant surge in NH2 gas.

desk verdict First full-perihelion compositional record of an interstellar comet; the post-split NH2 claim is model-dependent but the dataset deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05051 v1 pith:42DGRQYG submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Sophie E. Deam , Michele T. Bannister , Cyrielle Opitom , Matthew M. Knight , Ryan Ridden-Harper , Darryl Z. Seligman , Alan Fitzsimmons , Aurélie Guilbert-Lepoutre
show 7 more authors
Emmanuel Jehin Laurent Jorda Michael Marsset Youssef Moulane Philippe Rousselot Pierre Vernazza Bin Yang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarcomet2I/BorisovcompositionNH2radicalgasproductionratesHasermodelcarbondepletionnucleussplitting
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 tries to establish, from the only dataset that tracked an interstellar object's composition through an entire perihelion passage, what 2I/Borisov was made of and how it changed when its nucleus split. It reports that the comet's C2, NH2, and CN production rates declined gently toward and past perihelion, then all increased after the 2020 March outburst and splitting event, with NH2 rising above the 95% prediction interval of pre-outburst trends while C2 and CN rose with larger uncertainty and the dust reddened slightly. The result, if correct, makes 2I/Borisov a carbon-depleted but relatively NH2-rich comet compared with measured Solar System comets, and a volatile-rich, uniformly active object that experienced minimal processing before leaving its parent system. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first direct compositional window into the interior of an object from another planetary system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Haser-model conversion of band fluxes into molecular production rates: measured fluxes are divided by fluorescence efficiencies (g-factors) and matched to parent and daughter scalelengths at a fixed outflow velocity of 0.5 km/s, with the model's radial profile presumed to hold inside the 5,000 km aperture used to avoid stars. Complementing this, the paper builds spatially resolved gas and dust maps from an integral-field spectrograph and tests post-splitting changes against 95% prediction intervals extrapolated from pre-outburst linear regressions.

What would settle it

Re-measure the NH2, C2, and CN production rates in apertures of 5,000 km, 10,000 km, and 20,000 km on the same data: if the derived production rates change systematically with aperture beyond the stated uncertainties, the Haser profile assumption fails and the claimed NH2 enhancement after the split is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, 2I/Borisov's coma was compositionally and morphologically smooth: dust emission was mostly featureless apart from a persistent jet-like structure toward the north-west, and C2, NH2, and CN were all emitted symmetrically around the photocentre. The gas production rates, derived with a Haser model inside a 5,000 km aperture, declined gently through perihelion until the March 2020 outburst and splitting of the nucleus, after which NH2 production rose significantly above the pre-outburst trend while C2 and CN also increased though with larger uncertainties, and the dust colour reddened slightly. From abundance ratios Q(C2)/Q(CN) between 0.1 and 0.3 and Q(NH2)/Q(CN) averaging 1.7, the paper concludes that 2I/Borisov belongs to the carbon-depleted class of comets and is relatively NH2-rich compared with Solar System comets, implying a volatile-rich nucleus with minimal surface processing.

Load-bearing premise

All production rates assume the coma's gas follows a spherical Haser model with a constant outflow speed of 0.5 km/s and literature scalelengths, but the data are too faint to verify the radial profile at the 5,000 km aperture, so a mismatch would shift the derived Q(NH2), Q(C2), and Q(CN) and could change the NH2-rich classification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If 2I/Borisov is genuinely NH2-rich and carbon-depleted, then interstellar comets can have volatile inventories that differ from typical Solar System comets in the same diagnostic ratios that separate comet classes locally.
  • The significant NH2 increase after the split implies the freshly exposed interior released more NH2 than the pre-split surface, which would make 2I's outer layer slightly volatile-depleted relative to its bulk.
  • The smooth, symmetric gas coma and persistent dust jet with no seasonal variation indicate a uniformly active nucleus rather than discrete, rotationally modulated source regions.
  • The 126-day campaign demonstrates that integral-field spectroscopy can recover both gas and dust information even when an interstellar object crosses the Galactic plane, which will matter for planning observations of future interstellar objects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the authors leave implicit: if NH2's parent is NH3, the post-split NH2 surge would make ammonia a major interior ice in 2I/Borisov, and future interstellar-object spectroscopy could test whether NH3-rich interiors are common.
  • The tentative decline of Q(C2)/Q(CN) with heliocentric distance, combined with the NH2 and C2 decline tracking H2O rather than CO, suggests a shared volatile source; a multi-wavelength campaign on a future ISO could test whether C2 and NH2 parents are trapped in the same ice phase as water.
  • The dust reddening after the split, if connected to fresh larger particles, predicts that the fragment's debris should show a steeper size distribution; searching archival space-based images for the fragment's color could confirm this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the full VLT/MUSE campaign on 2I/Borisov: 16 epochs from 2019 November 14 to 2020 March 19, covering dust colour and morphology, gas maps of C2, NH2, and CN, and Haser-model production rates extracted from a 5,000 km aperture. The main conclusions are that the coma was uniformly active with a persistent north-west jet and no seasonal evolution; that 2I is carbon-depleted (Q(C2)/Q(CN) ~ 0.1-0.3) and relatively NH2-rich compared with Solar System comets; and that after the March 2020 outburst/splitting event the NH2 production rate increased above the 95% prediction interval, with smaller rises in CN and C2 and a slight reddening of the dust. These results are interpreted as evidence of a volatile-rich, minimally processed interstellar comet whose nucleus is not strongly heterogeneous.

Significance. If the production-rate claims hold, this is the first compositional characterisation of an interstellar comet throughout its perihelion passage and a benchmark dataset for LSST-era ISO follow-up. The strengths are substantial: 16 epochs of a challenging faint target, careful handling of Galactic-plane stellar contamination with starkiller, consistency of the C2 and CN rates with independent literature measurements, standard external model parameters rather than fitted target values, and public data products and analysis scripts. The NH2-rich and post-split-increase claims are, however, not yet at the same level of robustness, because they depend on unverified Haser scalelength/velocity assumptions and on an unresolved factor-several discrepancy with Prodan et al. (2024).

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Table 3, §5.1, Table 4] The post-split NH2 excess is amplified by the assumed Haser scalelength scaling, so the central claim is not yet robust. In Table 4, the NH2 flux rises from 0.56e-15 erg/s/cm2 on 2020 Feb 28 to 0.73e-15 on 2020 Mar 19 (about 30%), while Q(NH2) rises from 2.4e24 to 5.4e24 mol/s (about 125%). The amplification comes from adopting g proportional to r_h^-2 and l_p(NH2) proportional to r_h^2, which makes l_p(NH2) = 36,900 km at r_h = 3 au, about 7.4 times the 5,000 km aperture radius. If the true l_p grows more slowly with heliocentric distance, or if the post-outburst coma is not in Haser steady state (an outburst is the least steady-state situation), the March Q(NH2) values are over-corrected and the reported >95% excess over the pre-outburst trend may not survive. The authors themselves note in §3.4 that the radial profile cannot be verified at this aperture. I request a quantitative sensitivity analysis: recompute the March epochs with alternative outflow velocities (e.g., 0.3 and 1 km/s), with l_p scalings of r_h^1 and r_h^1.5, and with a non-steady-state model, and report the resulting range of Q(NH2) and of the post-split significance.
  2. [§4.4, Fig. 10] The relatively NH2-rich classification is not yet robust to the unresolved factor-several discrepancy with Prodan et al. (2024). The text lists possible causes (different NH2 band, different aperture) but performs no test. Because the classification rests on Q(NH2)/Q(CN), and because NH2 and CN have very different Haser parent scalelengths (4.1e3 km versus 1.3e4 km at 1 au, Table 3), a systematic error of the size suggested by the Prodan et al. comparison could move 2I from the high-NH2 tail to the normal range in Figure 10. I ask for a direct cross-calibration: compute Q(NH2) from the same MUSE spectra using Prodan et al.'s (0,8,0) band, g-factor, scalelengths, and aperture, and compare the resulting Q(NH2)/Q(CN) with the published values.
  3. [§5.1, Fig. 11] The significance test underlying the claim that NH2 increased after splitting uses a weighted linear-regression extrapolation with only two post-outburst epochs (2020 Mar 16 and 19). The quoted uncertainties in Table 4 reflect observed-versus-modelled spectral scatter and do not include the Haser model parameters or the CN 1.4 missing-flux factor. I recommend reporting the pre-outburst sample size and fit parameters, and adding a sensitivity test that includes the model systematics (e.g., a Monte Carlo over g-factors, scalelengths, and velocities) before the >95% language is used.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.4, Fig. 3 caption] Please state unambiguously whether the extraction aperture for production rates is 5,000 km radius or diameter; §3.2.1 refers to a 5,000 km diameter aperture for dust colour, while Figure 3 says within a 5,000 km radius. Since the aperture size enters the Haser conversion, this mismatch must be resolved.
  2. [Footnote 3] The data DOI is currently a placeholder; the final DOI should be included at acceptance.
  3. [§3.4] The role of the PSG synthetic spectra is hard to follow; clarify that synthetic spectra were used to measure band fluxes, while production rates inferred directly from PSG were inconsistent and not used.
  4. [§3.2.1 and Fig. 11] The phrase 95% prediction confidence interval is non-standard; use prediction interval for extrapolated point comparisons.
  5. [Table 1] The column headed l is explained in the table note as item 10 but is not labelled; please define l in the header or note.
  6. [Throughout] Comet designations such as C/2016R2 should follow the IAU style C/2016 R2 for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: production rates are measured with literature model parameters; the post-split excess is a pre-outburst trend extrapolation, and the sole self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. Gas production rates are derived from MUSE continuum-subtracted spectra (Section 3.4) using literature fluorescence efficiencies and Haser scalelengths (Table 3, citing A'Hearn et al. 1995, Shinnaka et al. 2017, Tegler & Wyckoff 1989, Cochran et al. 2012); none of these parameters is fitted to the NH2-rich or post-split conclusions. The NH2-rich classification is made by comparing the measured Q(NH2)/Q(CN) with external Solar System comet samples (Fink 2009, Cochran et al. 2012, Langland-Shula & Smith 2011) in Figure 10. The post-splitting excess is assessed by fitting a trend to the pre-outburst data and extrapolating a 95% prediction interval to later epochs (Sections 3.2.1 and 5.1, Figure 11); this is a standard forecast comparison against data not used in the fit, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly acknowledges the main model dependence in Section 3.4: 'If the radial profile of the species does not match the Haser profile well (which we cannot verify due to low SNR), the aperture size will have a significant impact on the production rates derived.' That is an honest limitation and a correctness risk, not circularity. The only self-citation, Bannister et al. (2020), reported the initial three epochs of the same campaign and is not load-bearing: the present work re-reduces all 16 epochs with a new star-subtraction package and different telluric treatment, and the NH2-rich assessment is independently placed against external comet samples. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The compositional interpretation leans on Haser-model production rates rather than on direct molecular abundances; all model constants (outflow velocity, scalelengths, g-factors) are adopted from Solar System comet literature, not fitted to 2I. The small 5,000 km aperture was chosen to avoid stars, and the authors explicitly state the Haser radial profile cannot be verified at this aperture. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Haser outflow velocity v = 0.5 km/s
    Adopted outflow velocity used to convert fluxes to production rates; affects all Q values linearly (Section 3.4).
  • Haser parent scalelength lp(C2) = 2.2e4 km at 1 au
    From A'Hearn et al. 1995; model input.
  • Haser daughter scalelength ld(C2) = 6.6e4 km at 1 au
    From A'Hearn et al. 1995; model input.
  • Haser parent scalelength lp(NH2) = 4.1e3 km at 1 au
    From Cochran et al. 2012; model input.
  • Haser daughter scalelength ld(NH2) = 6.2e4 km at 1 au
    From Cochran et al. 2012; model input.
  • Haser parent scalelength lp(CN) = 1.3e4 km at 1 au
    From A'Hearn et al. 1995; model input.
  • Haser daughter scalelength ld(CN) = 2.1e5 km at 1 au
    From A'Hearn et al. 1995; model input.
  • CN (1-0) missing flux factor = 1.4
    Applied to CN flux to account for flux outside the integrated range, following Fink (2009), Section 3.4.
  • Fluorescence g-factors (C2, NH2, CN) = 4.5e-13, 9.2e-15, 9.1e-14 erg s-1 mol-1 at 1 au
    Adopted from A'Hearn et al. 1995, Tegler & Wyckoff 1989, and Shinnaka et al. 2017; convert measured flux to column density.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Haser model: spherically symmetric coma, parent/daughter scalelengths, constant outflow velocity.
    Used to convert measured band fluxes to production rates (Section 3.4). Authors note the radial profile cannot be verified.
  • domain assumption Dust continuum of 2I can be represented by a scaled 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko MUSE spectrum.
    Applied to subtract dust and isolate gas emission (Section 3.2.2); stellar spectra and the CN dip feature require additional fixes.
  • domain assumption g-factors scale as r_h^-2 and scalelengths as r_h^2.
    Table 3 note; standard assumption for Haser photometry of comets.
  • domain assumption Pre-outburst linear trends (weighted by uncertainties) describe the expected post-outburst production rates and dust color.
    Used to claim >95% significance of post-split NH2 increase and dust reddening (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A portrait throughout perihelion of the NH$_2$-rich interstellar comet 2I/Borisov." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42DGRQYG

@misc{pith2026250705051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A portrait throughout perihelion of the NH$_2$-rich interstellar comet 2I/Borisov},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42DGRQYG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05051}
}
abstract

The interstellar comet 2I/Borisov is the first interstellar object where compositional characterisation was possible throughout its entire perihelion passage. We report all 16 epochs of a comprehensive optical observation campaign with ESO VLT's integral field spectrograph MUSE, spanning 126 days from 2019 November 14 to 2020 March 19. The spatial dust emission of 2I/Borisov was predominantly smooth, with no seasonal effect. A jet-like feature was consistently visible. The gas production morphology of its coma was also smooth and similar for C$_2$, NH$_2$, and CN: symmetric around the photocentre. The production rates of these species gently declined into and beyond perihelion, until 2I's outburst and splitting event in early 2020 March. C$_2$, NH$_2$, and CN production rates all increased, with NH$_2$ being the most significant; the dust emission also slightly reddened. 2I/Borisov is a carbon-depleted, relatively NH$_2$-rich comet when compared to those comets yet measured in the Solar System.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relative positions of 2I/Borisov and other Solar System bodies during the VLT/MUSE observing campaign, shown in International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) coordinates. The trajectory of 2I follows the dashed line in the direction of the arrows. Green circles indicate the positions of 2I and Earth at each of the 16 observing epochs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Images of the dust emission (7080˚A–7120˚A) from 2I/Borisov before and after the application of the starkiller pipeline. 2I was within 10 degrees of the Galactic plane on 2020-Feb-02 and 2020-Mar-19, and the FOV for each exposure contained between 80 and 136 stars brighter than 21st magnitude in GAIA-G. More significant improvement occurred for the 2020-Mar-19 data: the number of usable exposures (without a star dir… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dust subtracted spectra of 2I at four different dates, extracted within a 5,000 km radius. The C2, NH2, and CN bands used to measure production rates are indicated by the green, blue, and red line respectively. (0,7,0)–(0,0,0) bands, and the red CN (1 − 0) band around 9140 ˚A are clearly visible. As 2I/Borisov moved away from the Sun in 2020, fainter bands progressively became undetectable in our observations. Howev… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of normalised solar reflectance gradients for 2I/Borisov. The very inner coma has a steeper gradient, between 10%-14% in comparison to the outer coma, within 4% and 10%. The extreme values in white represent the sky and background star streaks. North is up…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: S ′ of 2I from both MUSE (squares) (5,000 km diameter aperture) and reported literature values (circles) relative to perihelion. Any reported value calculated from multiple observations has a horizontal line behind it span￾ning the range of dates. This data is also lis…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dust emission maps spanning 2019 November 14 until 2020 March 19 displayed with a linear stretch and the same orientation as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dust maps from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relative spatial distribution of the C2, NH2, and CN gas using maps coadded from 2019 December 5 and 6 (7 × 600 s exposures). The histogram above/beside each map shows the sum of flux from a horizontal/vertical strip 10 pixels wide through the comet centre. All ima…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The C2, NH2, CN production rates (upper figure), Q(C2)/Q(CN) ratio (middle figure), and Q(NH2)/Q(CN) ratio (lower figure) for 2I from 20 September 2019 to 19 March 2020. Our measurements are shown next to other sources: Fitzsimmons et al. (2019); de Le´on et al. (2019)…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The ratio of NH2 to CN production for Solar System comets in comparison to 2I/Borisov (dashed line). Several other comets from the collections of Fink (2009), Cochran et al. (2012), and Langland-Shula & Smith (2011) have shown NH2 to CN ratios higher than 2I/Borisov; …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The MUSE-observed C2, NH2, & CN produc￾tion rates and the dust colour S ′ measurements. The 95% confidence interval windows for the production rates are pre￾dicted on the post-perihelion, pre-outburst values, while the interval for S ′ is predicted on all pre-outburst…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The C2 emission maps. Each image is centered on 2I and displayed with a linear stretch over a zscale interval. North is up, east is to the left, and the anti-Solar (-⊙) and negative velocity (-V) directions are shown with the respective arrows. The clustering of conto…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The NH2 emission maps. Details are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The CN emission maps. Details are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The CN emission maps enhanced by subtraction of azimuthal median. Details are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. University of Hawaii 88-inch Telescope Observations of the Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS: Spectrophotometric Blue-Sensitive Spectral Time Series Spanning Two Months from Discovery

    astro-ph.EP 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-month SNIFS spectral time series shows 3I/ATLAS had stable red colors while CN, Ni, and possible Fe emission developed during its pre-perihelion approach.

  2. Precovery Observations of 3I/ATLAS from TESS Suggests Possible Distant Activity

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Archival TESS images show 3I/ATLAS was brighter than distance effects alone can explain, implying possible cometary activity at ~6 au from the Sun.

  3. Assessing interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS with the 10.4 m Gran Telescopio Canarias and the Two-meter Twin Telescope

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    3I/ATLAS, the third interstellar object, has a red TNO-like spectrum, an active dust coma, a rotation period of 16.79 hours, and a kinematic trace toward the Galactic thin disk.

  4. From a Different Star: 3I/ATLAS in the context of the \={O}tautahi-Oxford interstellar object population model

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    3I/ATLAS's incoming speed and direction fit the Otautahi-Oxford model, which predicts it is an old (likely over 7.6 Gyr), water-rich object with no kinematic link to 1I/Oumuamua or 2I/Borisov.

  5. X-SHOOTER Spectrum of Comet 3I/ATLAS: Insights into a Distant Interstellar Visitor

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    3I/ATLAS, the third known interstellar visitor, shows a red reflectance spectrum and no detectable OH or CN emission at 4.4 AU, with derived upper limits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * 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 ...

  2. [2]

    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...

  3. [3]

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

    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...

    2021

  4. [4]

    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

    arXiv 1995

  5. [5]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 3491, 10.1093/mnras/stab084

    Aravind , K., Ganesh , S., Venkataramani , K., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 3491, 10.1093/mnras/stab084

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab084 2021

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    2016, MPDAF: MUSE Python Data Analysis Framework , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.003

    Bacon , R., Piqueras , L., Conseil , S., Richard , J., & Shepherd , M. 2016, MPDAF: MUSE Python Data Analysis Framework , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.003. 1611.003

    2016

  8. [8]

    2010, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bacon , R., Accardo , M., Adjali , L., et al. 2010, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, The MUSE second-generation VLT instrument , 773508, 10.1117/12.856027

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Nature Communications, 12, 1797, 10.1038/s41467-021-22000-x

    Bagnulo , S., Cellino , A., Kolokolova , L., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 1797, 10.1038/s41467-021-22000-x

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    T., Schwamb , M

    Bannister , M. T., Schwamb , M. E., Fraser , W. C., et al. 2017, , 851, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07c

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    T., Opitom , C., Fitzsimmons , A., et al

    Bannister , M. T., Opitom , C., Fitzsimmons , A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.11605

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    2018, , 619, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833449

    Biver , N., Bockel \'e e-Morvan , D., Paubert , G., et al. 2018, , 619, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833449

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Feldman , P

    Bodewits , D., Noonan , J. W., Feldman , P. D., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 867, 10.1038/s41550-020-1095-2

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    T., & Lisse, C

    Bolin, B. T., & Lisse, C. M. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4031, 10.1093/mnras/staa2192

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, 1.8.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, 1.8.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    V., Petrova , E

    Busarev , V. V., Petrova , E. V., Shcherbina , M. P., et al. 2021, , 502, 1882, 10.1093/mnras/staa4022

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    C., & Martin , R

    Childs , A. C., & Martin , R. G. 2022, , 935, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8880

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Barker , E

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

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Milam , S

    Cordiner , M. A., Milam , S. N., Biver , N., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 861, 10.1038/s41550-020-1087-2

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 131, 10.3847/2515-5172/ab449c

    de Le \'o n , J., Licandro , J., Serra-Ricart , M., et al. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 131, 10.3847/2515-5172/ab449c

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, , 495, 2053, 10.1093/mnras/staa1190

    de Le \'o n , J., Licandro , J., de la Fuente Marcos , C., et al. 2020, , 495, 2053, 10.1093/mnras/staa1190

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Weaver , H

    Dello Russo , N., Vervack , R. J., Weaver , H. A., et al. 2007, , 448, 172, 10.1038/nature05908

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Hopkins , M

    Dorsey , R. C., Hopkins , M. J., Bannister , M. T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.16741, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.16741

    2025 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13549, 1

    Drahus , M., Guzik , P., Udalski , A., et al. 2020, The Astronomer's Telegram, 13549, 1

    2020

  17. [25]

    L., Schleicher , D

    Farnham , T. L., Schleicher , D. G., & A'Hearn , M. F. 2000, Icarus, 147, 180, 10.1006/icar.2000.6420

    2000

  18. [26]

    2009, , 201, 311, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.044

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

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.17980, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.17980

    Fitzsimmons , A., Meech , K., Matr \`a , L., & Pfalzner , S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.17980, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.17980

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 133, 10.1038/s41550-017-0361-4

    Fitzsimmons , A., Snodgrass , C., Rozitis , B., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 133, 10.1038/s41550-017-0361-4

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    J., et al

    Fitzsimmons , A., Hainaut , O., Meech , K. J., et al. 2019, , 885, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab49fc

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Bannister , M

    Forbes , J. C., Bannister , M. T., Lintott , C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14577, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14577

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    M., Brasseur , C

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

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    N., & Kaib , N

    Gkotsinas , A., Nesvorn \'y , D., Guilbert-Lepoutre , A., Raymond , S. N., & Kaib , N. 2024, , 5, 243, 10.3847/PSJ/ad7f4e

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#48, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, 116.12

    Guilbert-Lepoutre , A., Besse , S., Snodgrass , C., & Yang , B. 2016, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#48, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, 116.12

    2016

  26. [34]

    2021, , 593, 375, 10.1038/s41586-021-03485-4

    Guzik , P., & Drahus , M. 2021, , 593, 375, 10.1038/s41586-021-03485-4

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 53, 10.1038/s41550-019-0931-8

    Guzik , P., Drahus , M., Rusek , K., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 53, 10.1038/s41550-019-0931-8

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, , 947, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf52

    Halder , P., & Sengupta , S. 2023, , 947, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf52

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    O., Dehnen , W., Gration , A., Stadel , J., & Moore , B

    Hands , T. O., Dehnen , W., Gration , A., Stadel , J., & Moore , B. 2019, , 490, 21, 10.1093/mnras/stz1069

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    1957, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 43, 740

    Haser , L. 1957, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 43, 740

    1957

  32. [40]

    J., Bannister , M

    Hopkins , M. J., Bannister , M. T., & Lintott , C. 2025, , 169, 78, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9eb3

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Hui , M.-T., Ye , Q.-Z., F \"o hring , D., Hung , D., & Tholen , D. J. 2020, , 160, 92, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9df8

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

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

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letter, 896, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab99cb

    Jewitt , D., Kim , Y., Mutchler , M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letter, 896, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab99cb

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, , 886, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab530b

    Jewitt , D., & Luu , J. 2019, , 886, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab530b

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

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

    1986 doi

  38. [46]

    Jewitt , D., & Seligman , D. Z. 2023, , 61, 197, 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054221

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    W., et al

    Kareta , T., Andrews , J., Noonan , J. W., et al. 2020, , 889, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6a08

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2020, , 895, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9228

    Kim , Y., Jewitt , D., Mutchler , M., et al. 2020, , 895, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9228

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

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

    Knight , M. M., Snodgrass , C., Vincent , J.-B., et al. 2017, , 469, S661, 10.1093/mnras/stx2472

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    E., & Smith , G

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

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    G., Taylor , A

    Levine , W. G., Taylor , A. G., Seligman , D. Z., et al. 2023, , 4, 124, 10.3847/PSJ/acdf58

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    W., Lee , C.-H., Gerdes , D

    Lin , H. W., Lee , C.-H., Gerdes , D. W., et al. 2020, , 889, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6bd9

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    K., Perillat , P., Salter , C

    Manoharan , P. K., Perillat , P., Salter , C. J., et al. 2022, , 3, 266, 10.3847/PSJ/aca09f

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    Manzini , F., Oldani , V., Ochner , P., & Bedin , L. R. 2020, , 495, L92, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa061

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 3003, 10.1093/mnras/stz2380

    Mashchenko , S. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3003, 10.1093/mnras/stz2380

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    2021, , 208, 105341, 10.1016/j.pss.2021.105341

    Mazzotta Epifani , E., Dotto , E., Perna , D., et al. 2021, , 208, 105341, 10.1016/j.pss.2021.105341

    2021

  49. [57]

    2024, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    McKay , A., Opitom , C., Jehin , E., et al. 2024, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 56, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, 301.01

    2024

  50. [58]

    2018, , 611, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731316

    Meftah , M., Dam \'e , L., Bols \'e e , D., et al. 2018, , 611, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731316

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    J., et al

    Micheli , M., Farnocchia , D., Meech , K. J., et al. 2018, , 559, 223, 10.1038/s41586-018-0254-4

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    C., & Kataoka , A

    Miotello , A., Kamp , I., Birnstiel , T., Cleeves , L. C., & Kataoka , A. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 501, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09818

    2023 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.04277

    Moro-Mart \' n , A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.04277. 2205.04277

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M., Tollerud , E., Sip o cz , B., et al

    Morris , B. M., Tollerud , E., Sip o cz , B., et al. 2018, , 155, 128, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa47e

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, , 644, A143, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039017

    Opitom , C., Guilbert-Lepoutre , A., Besse , S., Yang , B., & Snodgrass , C. 2020, , 644, A143, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039017

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    2015, , 574, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424582

    Opitom , C., Jehin , E., Manfroid , J., et al. 2015, , 574, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424582

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    2019 a , , 628, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833960

    Opitom , C., Yang , B., Selman , F., & Reyes , C. 2019 a , , 628, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833960

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    2019 b , , 631, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936959

    Opitom , C., Fitzsimmons , A., Jehin , E., et al. 2019 b , , 631, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936959

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, , 650, L19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141245

    Opitom , C., Jehin , E., Hutsem \'e kers , D., et al. 2021, , 650, L19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141245

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    T., Bhandare , A., et al

    `Oumuamua ISSI Team , Bannister , M. T., Bhandare , A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 594, 10.1038/s41550-019-0816-x

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    L., Bhandare , A., & Veras , D

    Pfalzner , S., Aizpuru Vargas , L. L., Bhandare , A., & Veras , D. 2021, , 651, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140587

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    2021, , 647, A136, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038888

    Portegies Zwart , S. 2021, , 647, A136, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038888

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    Portegies Zwart , S., Torres , S., Pelupessy , I., B \'e dorf , J., & Cai , M. X. 2018, , 479, L17, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly088

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    P., Popescu , M., Licandro , J., et al

    Prodan , G. P., Popescu , M., Licandro , J., et al. 2024, , 529, 3521, 10.1093/mnras/stae539

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    N., Armitage , P

    Raymond , S. N., Armitage , P. J., Veras , D., Quintana , E. V., & Barclay , T. 2018, , 476, 3031, 10.1093/mnras/sty468

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    Rhodes , B. C. 2011, PyEphem: Astronomical Ephemeris for Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1112.014. 1112.014

    2011

  68. [76]

    T., Deam , S

    Ridden-Harper , R., Bannister , M. T., Deam , S. E., & Nordlander , T. 2025, , 169, 148, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9f2b

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    G., & Bair , A

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

    2011 doi

  70. [78]

    2010, in 9th Python in Science Conference

    Seabold, S., & Perktold, J. 2010, in 9th Python in Science Conference

    2010

  71. [79]

    Z., & Moro-Mart \' n , A

    Seligman , D. Z., & Moro-Mart \' n , A. 2023, Contemporary Physics, 63, 200, 10.1080/00107514.2023.2203976

    2023

  72. [80]

    2017, , 154, 45, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7576

    Shinnaka , Y., Kawakita , H., Kondo , S., et al. 2017, , 154, 45, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7576

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    2015, , 576, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    Smette , A., Sana , H., Noll , S., et al. 2015, , 576, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    1989, , 343, 445, 10.1086/167717

    Tegler , S., & Wyckoff , S. 1989, , 343, 445, 10.1086/167717

    1989 doi

  75. [83]

    L., Smith , M

    Villanueva , G. L., Smith , M. D., Protopapa , S., Faggi , S., & Mandell , A. M. 2018, , 217, 86, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.05.023

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    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

  77. [85]

    M., Palsa , R., Streicher , O., et al

    Weilbacher , P. M., Palsa , R., Streicher , O., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    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

  79. [87]

    V., Sato , H., Sarneczky , K., et al

    Williams , G. V., Sato , H., Sarneczky , K., et al. 2017, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 4450, 1

    2017

  80. [88]

    Xing , Z., Bodewits , D., Noonan , J., & Bannister , M. T. 2020, , 893, L48, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab86be

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    Yang , B., Kelley , M. S. P., Meech , K. J., et al. 2020, , 634, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937129

    2020 doi

  82. [90]

    A., et al

    Yang , B., Li , A., Cordiner , M. A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 586, 10.1038/s41550-021-01336-w

    2021 doi

  83. [91]

    Ye , Q., Kelley , M. S. P., Bolin , B. T., et al. 2020, , 159, 77, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab659b

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.