Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Multi-epoch spectro-photometric characterization of the minimoon 2024 PT$_5$ in the visible and near-infrared

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 paper derives the first geometric albedo for the minimoon 2024 PT5 — 0.26±0.07 — and uses it to estimate an equivalent diameter of 7.4±1.0 m.

desk verdict First albedo for 2024 PT5, but the quoted uncertainty likely understates rotational-phase and calibration systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10527 v1 pith:4PYF4SLD submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.EP

Jin Beniyama , Bryce T. Bolin , Alexey V. Sergeyev , Marco Delbo , Laura-May Abron , Matthew Belyakov , Tomohiko Sekiguchi , Seiko Takagi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords minimoon2024PT5near-EarthasteroidphotometricphasecurvegeometricalbedotumblingrotationS-complextaxonomylunarejectaorigin
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

2024 PT5 is a tiny asteroid, no larger than about 10 m, that was gravitationally bound to the Earth-Moon system in late 2024, making it one of the very few known minimoons. This paper uses multicolor visible and near-infrared photometry from several nights in January 2025, spanning solar phase angles from 14.3 to 26.8 degrees, to measure three properties that were previously unconstrained: its rotation state, its taxonomic class, and its reflectivity. The central new result is the first geometric albedo for 2024 PT5, 0.26±0.07, derived from the slope of its photometric phase curve; combined with the fitted absolute magnitude H=27.72±0.09, this gives an equivalent diameter of 7.4±1.0 m. The albedo and colors place it in the S-complex, with near-infrared reflectance closely matching lunar rock samples, and the lightcurves show brightness changes of about 0.3 mag on timescales of tens of minutes without a single clear period, which the paper interprets as tumbling motion. If these results hold, 2024 PT5 is a meter-scale rocky fragment whose spin state and albedo are consistent with an origin as lunar ejecta, bringing the main physical clues needed to test that origin into view.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the V-band photometric phase curve of 2024 PT5, built from simultaneous $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$ photometry on three nights together with $Y$, $J$, $H$, and $K$ photometry on two further nights. The curve is fitted with the standard $H$-$G$ phase function, giving $H_{V,HG}=27.72\pm0.09$ and $G_V=0.223\pm0.073$, and with a linear model giving the phase slope $b=0.029\pm0.002$ mag deg$^{-1}$. The albedo step is the named Belskaya-Shevchenko identity $b=C_1-C_2\log_{10}p_V$ with updated constants, which converts a shallow phase slope into a high geometric albedo. The tumbling claim is carried by periodogram searches showing no significant periodicity even though the lightcurves vary by roughly 0.3 mag on tens-of-minutes timescales, with the multicolor measurements taken simultaneously so that the color results are not biased by the changing brightness.

What would settle it

Measure the thermal infrared flux of 2024 PT5 with a mid-infrared facility and derive an independent geometric albedo from a standard thermal model; if the thermal albedo falls outside the $0.26\pm0.07$ range, or if a carefully measured phase curve of a known small S-complex asteroid breaks the slope-albedo calibration at this size, the central albedo and diameter estimates would be invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the minimoon 2024 PT5 has a geometric albedo of $0.26\pm0.07$, the first reported for this object. The claim is based on fitting the V-band phase curve, assembled from observations at phase angles $14.3$ to $26.8$ degrees, with both a linear model and the $H$-$G$ model; the fitted slope $b=0.029\pm0.002$ mag deg$^{-1}$ is converted to an albedo through the empirical Belskaya-Shevchenko relation $b=C_1-C_2\log_{10}p_V$. With the fitted absolute magnitude $H_{V,HG}=27.72\pm0.09$ and slope parameter $G_V=0.223\pm0.073$, this albedo yields an equivalent diameter of $7.4\pm1.0$ m. The paper further claims that 2024 PT5 is tumbling, because all of its lightcurves, including a more than two-hour arc on one night, show roughly 0.3 mag brightness variations over tens of minutes without a single detectable period in standard periodograms. The measured visible and near-infrared colors ($g-r=0.567\pm0.044$, $r-i=0.155\pm0.009$, $r-z=0.147\pm0.066$, $Y-J=0.557\pm0.046$, $J-H=0.672\pm0.078$, $H-K_s=0.148\pm0.098$) identify it as an S-complex asteroid, and its near-infrared reflectance is close to lunar rock samples, consistent with previous suggestions that 2024 PT5 is lunar ejecta.

Load-bearing premise

The albedo value rests on an empirical relation between phase-curve slope and geometric albedo that was calibrated on comparatively large asteroids, and the paper explicitly flags that this relation may not hold for a roughly 7 m, tumbling, possibly irregular object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The first reported albedo of $0.26\pm0.07$ and diameter of $7.4\pm1.0$ m give concrete physical parameters for planning any spacecraft reconnaissance of 2024 PT5 or of minimoons with similar sizes.
  • An S-complex classification with an albedo typical of S- and Q-type near-Earth asteroids strengthens the spectral link to lunar rock and to other lunar-like co-orbital asteroids, making a lunar-ejecta origin a quantitatively testable hypothesis.
  • The inferred tumbling state, if real, is what a fragment produced by a lunar impact would be expected to show, and it warns that single-night color snapshots of minimoons can be biased by a changing visible hemisphere.
  • Wide-phase-angle, multi-filter photometry from a medium-sized telescope appears sufficient to recover albedo, size, and rotation state for meter-scale near-Earth objects, a capability that will matter as surveys begin discovering minimoons more routinely.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the slope-albedo calibration would be to apply this same phase-curve method to a well-observed asteroid whose albedo is already known from thermal-infrared data; if the recovered value is systematically off at small sizes, the 2024 PT5 albedo could be a size-dependent bias rather than a true surface property.
  • If the visible and near-infrared portions of the 2024 PT5 spectrum genuinely cannot be joined because the observed hemisphere changed between observing epochs, then the surface is heterogeneous on the 7 m scale; time-resolved multicolor photometry over a full tumbling cycle could map that heterogeneity and test the lunar-ejecta interpretation directly.
  • The derived albedo is higher than the Moon's average value and closer to lunar highland material, so a lunar origin would point toward a bright highland source region; this is a testable prediction for future band-center and sample-matching analyses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new visible (Seimei/TriCCS, 2025 January 4/7/10) and near-infrared (Keck/MOSFIRE, January 16/17) photometry of the minimoon 2024 PT5. It derives Pan-STARRS g, r, i, z colors and 2MASS Y, J, H, Ks colors, reports roughly 0.3 mag brightness variations over tens of minutes, and finds no significant periodicity in the Lomb-Scargle analysis of the January 4 r-band lightcurve. The authors fit linear and H-G phase curves to three nightly averaged V magnitudes, obtaining H_V,linear = 28.06±0.05, b = 0.029±0.002 mag/deg, H_V,HG = 27.72±0.09, and G_V = 0.223±0.073. Using the linear phase slope with the Belskaya-Shevchenko albedo relation, they derive a geometric albedo of 0.26±0.07 and, with the absolute magnitude, an equivalent diameter of 7.4±1.0 m. They conclude that 2024 PT5 is an S-complex, tumbling object whose colors are compatible with lunar rock samples and with previous studies.

Significance. If the albedo and tumbling inferences hold, this is the first geometric albedo and a refined diameter for 2024 PT5, and the color/spectral comparison provides new constraints on the lunar-ejecta versus asteroid-origin debate for this rare minimoon. The photometric calibration is a clear strength: strict reference-star color cuts, simultaneous three-band imaging, in-field solar-like calibrators for the near-infrared, Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation, and an independent MPC phase-curve cross-check in Section 3.3. The authors also explicitly flag the uncertain applicability of the Belskaya-Shevchenko relation to a roughly 7 m body, which is the right scientific instinct. The principal new quantitative claims nevertheless rest on a three-point phase curve of a target whose rotational/tumbling phase is unconstrained, so the central numbers need a systematic-error treatment or a more cautious presentation before they can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §3.3, Eq. (7), Eq. (12), Fig. 9] The geometric albedo pV = 0.26±0.07 is derived from the linear phase slope b = 0.029±0.002, fitted to only three nightly averaged V points spanning 14.3–26.8 deg. The target shows approximately 0.3 mag variations over tens of minutes, and the Lomb-Scargle analysis in Section 3.1 finds no unique periodicity, so the rotational/tumbling phase sampled by each nightly mean is unconstrained. A single-epoch offset of 0.1 mag, half the observed amplitude, changes the fitted slope by roughly 0.008 mag/deg over the 12.5 deg phase-angle lever arm; propagating that through Eq. (12) shifts pV from 0.26 to roughly 0.11–0.59, a range far larger than the quoted ±0.07. The Monte Carlo errors quoted in Section 3.3 include only the random errors of the nightly mean magnitudes, not this rotational-phase systematic. Please add a systematic-error term for rotational-phase sampling, or restrict the albedo and diameter claims to reflect this additional uncertainty.
  2. [§4.1, Fig. 6] The conclusion that 2024 PT5 is in a tumbling state goes beyond what the presented data show. The Lomb-Scargle periodogram in Fig. 6 shows no significant periodicity, and the text itself states that "the possibility that these variations are due to noise cannot be excluded." Aperiodic brightness variations could be produced by rotation with a non-sinusoidal or changing lightcurve, by albedo variegation, or by residual systematics, and do not uniquely imply tumbling. Because the later lunar-ejecta argument in Section 4.1 relies on the tumbling inference, the abstract's unqualified statement that "2024 PT5 is in a tumbling state" should be softened to "consistent with a tumbling state" or similar unless a tumbling model is explicitly fitted to the lightcurves.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (12)] The albedo derivation depends entirely on the empirical Belskaya-Shevchenko relation calibrated with WISE/AKARI albedos of relatively large asteroids. The authors correctly identify this as a caveat for a roughly 7 m object, but the caveat is not reflected in the quoted uncertainty: ±0.07 in pV is purely the propagation of the statistical error in the phase slope. If the slope-albedo calibration does not transfer to very small, possibly tumbling and irregular bodies, the central albedo value and the diameter derived from it would be systematically wrong. Please state explicitly that the reported error bars exclude calibration systematics and recast the albedo as provisional pending independent validation by thermal-infrared or polarimetric measurements.
  4. [§3.2, Abstract, §5] There is a direct reporting inconsistency for the Y-J color. Section 3.2 derives Y-J = 0.557±0.046 but then states that this color is excluded from subsequent analysis because of MOSFIRE/Pan-STARRS Y-band filter systematics. Nevertheless, the abstract and Section 5 list Y-J = 0.557±0.046 among the headline color indices with no caveat. Please either remove Y-J from the abstract and conclusions or add the caveat there, and ensure that the reflectance construction in Section 4.2 is consistent with the stated exclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 9] The text reports fitting parameters from the Monte Carlo resampling, while the Fig. 9 caption describes medians of the fitted model curves; please clarify whether the quoted values are medians, best fits, or the peak of the posterior distribution.
  2. [§3.2] The color uncertainties are given as standard deviations of nightly mean colors, but for comparison with literature values the standard errors of the mean would be more appropriate; please state explicitly which quantity is plotted in Fig. 7 and used in Table 3.
  3. [§4.1 and Abstract] The sentence "The diameter of 2024 PT5 is estimated to be 7.4±1.0 using the albedo and absolute magnitude" is missing the unit 'm' in Section 4.1 and in the conclusion; please add it.
  4. [Fig. 8] The axis label in Fig. 8 uses "H-Ks" while the text and table consistently use "H-Ks" with a subscript; please standardize the notation.
  5. [§3.2] The phrase "The Y-J color of 2024 PT5 is estimated to be Y−J=0.557±0.046" appears before the statement that this color is excluded due to systematics; consider moving the derivation to a clearly labeled diagnostic section or adding a caution immediately after the first mention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the albedo rests on an external phase-slope/albedo calibration, not on the target result.

full rationale

The central result, pV = 0.26±0.07, follows from the fitted phase-curve slope b = 0.029±0.002 mag/deg (Section 3.3) through the external Belskaya–Shevchenko relation b = C1 − C2 log10 pV (Eq. 12), with constants taken from Shevchenko et al. (2021). The target albedo is therefore an output of the analysis, not an input. H and G are fitted parameters reported as such, not disguised predictions, and the diameter 7.4±1.0 m is a standard propagation of H and pV through Eq. 13. The MPC phase-curve fit in Section 3.3 is an independent consistency test using 404 external observations. The paper explicitly flags the main limitation, that Eq. 12 is calibrated on larger asteroids and may not transfer to a ~7 m body, which is a validity caveat about the external calibration, not circularity. Self-citations (Bolin et al. 2025a for prior spectrophotometry, Bolin et al. 2025b for the 2024 YR4 comparison, and Beniyama et al. for photometric methodology) serve as comparison datasets or method references and are not load-bearing for the albedo claim. The tumbling inference is drawn from observed ~0.3 mag variability and the absence of a unique period, not from the definition of tumbling. The inclusion of Y−J in the abstract despite its exclusion in Section 3.2 is a reporting inconsistency, not a circular step. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central new results (albedo, diameter, tumbling) rest on a small set of fitted parameters from a three-point phase curve and on the transferability of an empirical albedo-phase slope relation calibrated on larger asteroids. The color classification is more robust because it is based on direct multi-band measurements. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Phase curve slope b (linear model) = 0.029 ± 0.002 mag deg^-1
    Fitted to the V-band reduced magnitudes of 2024 PT5 from three observing nights (Fig. 9). The albedo is derived from this slope via an empirical relation, so the central albedo result depends on this fit.
  • Absolute magnitude H_V,HG = 27.72 ± 0.09
    Fitted with the H-G model to the same three-point phase curve. Used together with the albedo to estimate the diameter.
  • Slope parameter G_V = 0.223 ± 0.073
    H-G model slope parameter fitted to the same data. Compared to typical S-type values as supporting evidence for the S-complex classification.
  • Geometric albedo p_V = 0.26 ± 0.07
    Derived from the fitted slope b via the empirical Belskaya-Shevchenko relation (Eq. 12). This is the paper's headline new physical property, and the paper itself cautions about the relation's applicability to tiny asteroids.
  • Lightcurve amplitude m(alpha) = 0.3 mag
    Observed amplitude of brightness variations, used with an assumed S-type slope s=0.030 to estimate a lower limit on the axial ratio A/B. The value is read from the lightcurves and is somewhat subjective.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The H-G phase function model (Bowell et al. 1989) adequately describes the photometric phase curve of 2024 PT5 over the observed phase-angle range.
    Used in Eq. 8 to derive H and G. The model is standard for asteroids, but the object may be tumbling and irregular, so the applicability is an assumption.
  • domain assumption The empirical Belskaya-Shevchenko relation between phase-curve slope and geometric albedo applies to small minimoons.
    Eq. 12 is calibrated on larger asteroids observed by WISE/AKARI. The authors flag this as a caveat in Section 4.1, making it a clear load-bearing assumption.
  • domain assumption The photometric transformations of Tonry et al. (2012) between Pan-STARRS and SDSS systems (Eqs. 2-5) and to Johnson V (Eq. 6) are valid.
    These transformations are applied to convert observed and literature colors. Their validity is assumed without direct verification for this object.
  • domain assumption The asteroid is a triaxial ellipsoid with an aspect angle of 90 degrees for the axial ratio estimate.
    Section 3.1: the A/B lower limit is computed under this simplified shape model, which is standard but unverified for 2024 PT5.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed brightness variations are due to rotational or tumbling motion rather than noise or systematic effects.
    The authors state in Section 4.1 that 'The possibility that these variations are due to noise cannot be excluded', yet use the variations as evidence for tumbling in the abstract and conclusions. This is an assumption central to the tumbling claim.
  • domain assumption Solar colors from Willmer (2018) are accurate for computing reflectance spectra.
    Used in Eq. 14 to convert observed colors to reflectances. Standard calibration, but the absolute accuracy affects the reflectance comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-epoch spectro-photometric characterization of the minimoon 2024 PT$_5$ in the visible and near-infrared." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PYF4SLD

@misc{pith2026250710527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-epoch spectro-photometric characterization of the minimoon 2024 PT$_5$ in the visible and near-infrared},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PYF4SLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10527}
}
abstract

2024 PT$_5$ is a tiny ($D\leq10$ m) near-Earth asteroid (NEA) discovered in August 2024. 2024 PT$_5$ was gravitationally bound to the Earth-Moon system from September to November 2024 and classified as a minimoon. Several quick response observations suggest the lunar ejecta origin of 2024 PT$_5$, while rotation state and albedo, essential properties to investigate its origin, are not well constrained. We performed visible to near-infrared multicolor photometry of 2024 PT$_5$ from data taken using the TriColor CMOS Camera and Spectrograph (TriCCS) on the Seimei 3.8 m telescope during 2025 January 4-10. The Seimei/TriCCS observations of 2024 PT$_5$ cover phase angles from 14 deg to 27 deg, and were obtained in the $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$ bands in the Pan-STARRS system. In addition, we analyzed $Y$, $J$, $H$, and $K$ photometry taken with the Multi-Object Spectrograph for Infrared Exploration (MOSFIRE) on the Keck I 10-m telescope taken on 2025 January 16-17. Our lightcurves show brightness variations over time periods of several tens of minutes. We infer that 2024 PT$_5$ is in a tumbling state and has a lightcurve amplitude of about 0.3 mag. Visible and near-infrared color indices of 2024 PT$_5$, $g-r=0.567\pm0.044$, $r-i=0.155\pm0.009$, $r-z=0.147\pm0.066$, $Y-J=0.557\pm0.046$, $J-H=0.672\pm0.078$, and $H-Ks=0.148\pm0.098$, indicate that 2024 PT$_5$ is an S-complex asteroid, largely consistent with previous observations. Using the $H$-$G$ model, we derived an absolute magnitude $H_{V,HG}$ of $27.72\pm0.09$ and a slope parameter $G_V$ of $0.223\pm0.073$ in V-band. A geometric albedo of 2024 PT$_5$ is derived to be $0.26\pm0.07$ from the slope of its photometric phase curve. This albedo value is typical of the S- and Q-type NEAs. The color properties of 2024 PT$_5$ derived from our observations match rock samples taken from the lunar surface, which agrees with previous studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Predicted magnitude (solid line) and phase angles (dashed line) of 2024 PT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Non-sidereally stacked images in g, r, i, and z bands with a total integration time of 100 s on 2024 January 4 are shown. Circles indicate 2024 PT5. Field of view covers 45 arcsec × 45 arcsec. North is to the top and East is to the left. We derived colors and magnitudes of 2024 PT5 follow￾ing the same procedure used in Beniyama et al. (2023c,b,a, 2024). Cosmic rays were removed with the Python package astroscrappy (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Non-sidereally stacked images in Y, J, H, and K bands with a total integration time of 150 s on 2024 January 16/17 are shown. Circles indicate 2024 PT5. Field of view covers 45 arcsec × 45 arcsec. North is to the top and East is to the left. 2.2. Keck telescope Observations of 2024 PT5 were obtained at the Keck Observa￾tory with the MOSFIRE instrument on the Keck I 10-m telescope on Maunakea on 2025 January 16 under… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lightcurves of 2024 PT5. The observed g, r, i, and z bands magnitudes are presented as circles, triangles, squares, and diamonds, respectively. Bars indicate the 1σ uncertainties. The arithmetic average of magnitude in each light curve is presented with a dashed line. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lightcurves of 2024 PT5 in the r-band on January 4. Bars indicate the 1σ uncertainties. The variation of lightcurve, 0.3 mag, is indicated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Lomb–Scargle periodogram of 2024 PT5. The number of harmonics of the model curve is unity. Dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted horizontal lines show 90.0, 99.0, and 99.9% confidence levels, respectively. as follows with a basic function W: Φ1(α) = W [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Color-color diagram of (a) g-r vs. r-i and (b) g-r vs. r-z. Mean of the individual nightly mean colors of 2024 PT5 are plotted with stars. Error bars indicate the standard devi￾ation of nightly mean colors. Error bars indicate the 1σ un￾certainties. Asteroids from (Ser…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase angle dependence of reduced V magnitudes of 2024 PT5. Bars indicate the 1σ uncertainties. All magnitudes obtained on the same day are averaged and plotted. (top) The medians (50th percentile) of fitting model curves with the lin￾ear model are presented as solid l…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Heliocentric positions of 2024 PT5 and Earth at the time of observations in Kareta et al. (2025), Bolin et al. (2025a), de la Fuente Marcos et al. (2025), and this study. Positions of 2024 PT5 and Earth are indicated by filled markers and open markers, respectively. O…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase angle dependence of reduced V-band magni￾tudes of 2024 PT5, including corrected observations from the MPC database. (top) Magnitudes obtained on the same day from Seimei/TriCCS are averaged and plotted by circles. Data from the MPC database with reported magnitu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Reflectance spectrum of 2024 PT5 and Kamo‘oalewa (Sharkey et al. 2021). Also, Mahlke templates of A- and S-type asteroids are shown (Mahlke et al. 2022). Shaded areas indicate the standard deviations of the template spectra. The lunar rock core sample colors are also …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Agrusa, H., Barnouin, O

    Ballouz, R. L., Agrusa, H., Barnouin, O. S., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 251

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Belskaya, I. N. & Shevchenko, V . G. 2000, Icarus, 147, 94

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    V ., Tholen, D

    Beniyama, J., Sergeyev, A. V ., Tholen, D. J., & Micheli, M. 2024, A&A, 690, A180

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    J., Scheeres, D

    Benson, C. J., Scheeres, D. J., & Moskovitz, N. A. 2020, Icarus, 340, 113518

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    P., Morbidelli, A., Merouane, S., et al

    Binzel, R. P., Morbidelli, A., Merouane, S., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 331

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    2014, Icarus, 241, 280

    Bolin, B., Jedicke, R., Granvik, M., et al. 2014, Icarus, 241, 280

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    T., Ahumada, T., van Dokkum, P., et al

    Bolin, B. T., Ahumada, T., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, L49

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    T., Fernandez, Y

    Bolin, B. T., Fernandez, Y . R., Lisse, C. M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 116

    work page 2021

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    T., Fremling, C., Holt, T

    Bolin, B. T., Fremling, C., Holt, T. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, L45

    2020

  2. [10]

    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 (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 524–556

    1989

  3. [11]

    2024, A&A, 687, A38

    Carry, B., Peloton, J., Le Montagner, R., Mahlke, M., & Berthier, J. 2024, A&A, 687, A38

    2024

  4. [12]

    C., Magnier, E

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

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chapman, C. R. & Morrison, D. 1976, Icarus, 28, 91

    1976

  6. [14]

    T., Ernst, C

    Daly, R. T., Ernst, C. M., Barnouin, O. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 443 de la Fuente Marcos, C. & de la Fuente Marcos, R. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2939 de la Fuente Marcos, C. & de la Fuente Marcos, R. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1089 de la Fuente Marcos, R., de León, J., de la Fuente Marcos...

    2023

  7. [15]

    E., Binzel, R

    DeMeo, F. E., Binzel, R. P., Slivan, S. M., & Bus, S. J. 2009, Icarus, 202, 160

    2009

  8. [16]

    2024, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2024-P170

    Denneau, L., Robinson, J., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2024, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2024-P170

    2024

  9. [17]

    2017, Icarus, 285, 83

    Fedorets, G., Granvik, M., & Jedicke, R. 2017, Icarus, 285, 83

    2017

  10. [18]

    Fowler, J. W. & Chillemi, J. R. 1992, Phillips Lab. Tech. Rep., 2049, 17

    1992

  11. [19]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98

    2019

  12. [20]

    J., Burns, J

    Gladman, B. J., Burns, J. A., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. F. 1995, Icarus, 118, 302

    1995

  13. [21]

    Glass, I. S. 1999, Handbook of Infrared Astronomy

    1999

  14. [22]

    2013, in Aster- oids: Prospective Energy and Material Resources, ed

    Granvik, M., Jedicke, R., Bolin, B., Chyba, M., & Patterson, G. 2013, in Aster- oids: Prospective Energy and Material Resources, ed. V . Badescu, 151–167

    2013

  15. [23]

    2012, Icarus, 218, 262

    Granvik, M., Vaubaillon, J., & Jedicke, R. 2012, Icarus, 218, 262

    2012

  16. [24]

    Harris, A. W. 1994, Icarus, 107, 209

    1994

  17. [25]

    K., Cruikshank, D

    Hartmann, W. K., Cruikshank, D. P., & Degewij, J. 1982, Icarus, 52, 377

    1982

  18. [26]

    H., Della Corte, V ., Pravec, P., et al

    Hasselmann, P. H., Della Corte, V ., Pravec, P., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 91

    2024

  19. [27]

    2021, Advances in Space Re- search, 68, 1533

    Hirabayashi, M., Mimasu, Y ., Sakatani, N., et al. 2021, Advances in Space Re- search, 68, 1533

    2021

  20. [28]

    J., Pieters, C

    Isaacson, P. J., Pieters, C. M., Besse, S., et al. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 116, E00G11

    2011

  21. [29]

    2003, PASJ, 55, 691

    Ishiguro, M., Abe, M., Ohba, Y ., et al. 2003, PASJ, 55, 691

    2003

  22. [30]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 74 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S

    Ishiguro, M., Kuroda, D., Hasegawa, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 74 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2014

  23. [31]

    L., Rozitis, B., Dover, L

    Jackson, S. L., Rozitis, B., Dover, L. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3076

    2022

  24. [32]

    M., Wiedner, N., et al

    Jedicke, R., Alessi, E. M., Wiedner, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17985

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    T., Bottke, W

    Jedicke, R., Bolin, B. T., Bottke, W. F., et al. 2018, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 5, 13

    2018

  26. [34]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 819

    Jiao, Y ., Cheng, B., Huang, Y ., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 819

    2024

  27. [35]

    Kareta, T., Fuentes-Muñoz, O., Moskovitz, N., Farnocchia, D., & Sharkey, B. N. L. 2025, ApJ, 979, L8

    2025

  28. [36]

    Kary, D. M. & Dones, L. 1996, Icarus, 121, 207

    1996

  29. [37]

    V ., Velikodsky, Y

    Korokhin, V . V ., Velikodsky, Y . I., Shkuratov, Y . G., & Mall, U. 2007, Solar System Research, 41, 19

    2007

  30. [38]

    2020, PASJ, 72, 48

    Kurita, M., Kino, M., Iwamuro, F., et al. 2020, PASJ, 72, 48

    2020

  31. [39]

    & Kryszczynska, A

    Kwiatkowski, T. & Kryszczynska, A. 1992, in Liege International Astrophys- ical Colloquia, V ol. 30, Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia, ed. A. Brahic, J. C. Gerard, & J. Surdej, 353

    1992

  32. [40]

    2009, A&A, 495, 967

    Kwiatkowski, T., Kryszczy´nska, A., Poli´nska, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 495, 967

    2009

  33. [41]

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

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782

    2010

  34. [42]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    1976

  35. [43]

    Mahlke, M., Carry, B., & Mattei, P. A. 2022, A&A, 665, A26

    2022

  36. [44]

    E., Burt, B., et al

    Marsset, M., DeMeo, F. E., Burt, B., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 165

    2022

  37. [45]

    2018, Astropy/Astroscrappy: V1.0.5 Zenodo Release, Zenodo

    McCully, C., Crawford, S., Kovacs, G., et al. 2018, Astropy/Astroscrappy: V1.0.5 Zenodo Release, Zenodo

    2018

  38. [46]

    E., Thomas, C

    McGraw, L. E., Thomas, C. A., Lister, T. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, L25

    2024

  39. [47]

    S., Steidel, C

    McLean, I. S., Steidel, C. C., Epps, H. W., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8446, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84460J

    2012

  40. [48]

    C., et al

    Michel, P., Küppers, M., Bagatin, A. C., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 160

    2022

  41. [49]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1426 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Mommert, M., Kelley, M., de Val-Borro, M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1426 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main_clean 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Wavelength [ m] 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 Normalized reflectance 20...

    2019

  42. [50]

    A., Benson, C

    Moskovitz, N. A., Benson, C. J., Scheeres, D., et al. 2020, Icarus, 340, 113519

    2020

  43. [51]

    P., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al

    Naidu, S. P., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, L6

    2021

  44. [52]

    Pieters, C. M. 1983, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 9534

    1983

  45. [53]

    Popescu, M., Birlan, M., & Nedelcu, D. A. 2012, A&A, 544, A130

    2012

  46. [54]

    M., et al

    Popescu, M., Licandro, J., Carvano, J. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A12

    2018

  47. [55]

    2016, A&A, 591, A115

    Popescu, M., Licandro, J., Morate, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A115

    2016

  48. [56]

    & Harris, A

    Pravec, P. & Harris, A. W. 2007, Icarus, 190, 250

    2007

  49. [57]

    L., Sanchez, J

    Reddy, V ., Gary, B. L., Sanchez, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 65

    2015

  50. [58]

    S., Farnocchia, D., et al

    Reddy, V ., Kelley, M. S., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2019, Icarus, 326, 133

    2019

  51. [59]

    S., Chabot, N

    Rivkin, A. S., Chabot, N. L., Stickle, A. M., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 173

    2021

  52. [60]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    1982

  53. [61]

    E., Jones, R

    Schwamb, M. E., Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 22

    2023

  54. [62]

    R., et al

    Selmi, E., Devogèle, M., Masiero, J. R., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 26

    2025

  55. [63]

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

    2021

  56. [64]

    Sharkey, B. N. L., Reddy, V ., Malhotra, R., et al. 2021, Communications Earth and Environment, 2, 231

    2021

  57. [65]

    G., Belskaya, I

    Shevchenko, V . G., Belskaya, I. N., Slyusarev, I. G., et al. 2012, Icarus, 217, 202

    2012

  58. [66]

    G., Mikhalchenko, O

    Shevchenko, V . G., Mikhalchenko, O. I., Belskaya, I. N., et al. 2021, Planet. Space Sci., 202, 105248

    2021

  59. [67]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  60. [68]

    2014, PASJ, 66, 53

    Takahashi, J., Urakawa, S., Terai, T., et al. 2014, PASJ, 66, 53

    2014

  61. [69]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99

    2012

  62. [70]

    2019, AJ, 157, 155 van Dokkum, P

    Urakawa, S., Ohsawa, R., Sako, S., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 155 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420

    2019

  63. [71]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16

    2018

  64. [72]

    2004, Icarus, 167, 271

    Warell, J. 2004, Icarus, 167, 271

    2004

  65. [73]

    D., Harris, A

    Warner, B. D., Harris, A. W., & Pravec, P. 2009, Icarus, 202, 134

    2009

  66. [74]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47

    2018

  67. [75]

    M., Fulchignoni, M., & Lupishko, D

    Zappala, V ., Cellino, A., Barucci, A. M., Fulchignoni, M., & Lupishko, D. F. 1990, A&A, 231, 548

    1990

  68. [76]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 730 Article number, page 12 of 12

    Zhang, T., Xu, K., & Ding, X. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 730 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2021

Pith tools

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