Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Prediscovery Activity of New Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS: A Dynamically-Old Comet?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The second confirmed interstellar comet, 3I/ATLAS, was already producing dust at heliocentric distances inward of 6.5 au, with a steep $r_h^{-3.8}$ brightening that resembles dynamically old Solar System comets more than 2I/Borisov.

desk verdict A solid prediscovery lightcurve for the second interstellar comet, with a robust steep brightening slope; the CO2-onset claim at 9 au is speculative and needs a softer framing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08792 v1 pith:J7UWH7LT submitted 2025-09-10 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA

Quanzhi Ye , Michael S. P. Kelley , Henry H. Hsieh , Eric C. Bellm , Tracy X. Chen , Richard Dekany , Andrew Drake , Steven L. Groom
show 4 more authors
George Helou Shrinivas R. Kulkarni Thomas A. Prince Reed Riddle
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarobjectscomets3I/ATLASprediscoveryphotometrycometaryactivitybrighteningratedustproductionCO2ice
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

This paper uses archival survey images to reconstruct the inbound activity of 3I/ATLAS, the second confirmed interstellar comet, for about a year before its discovery. The authors find that the comet was already producing dust inward of roughly 6.5 au from the Sun, with brightness rising as $r_h^{-3.8}$ — a much steeper rate than 2I/Borisov's $r_h^{-2.1}$. That steepness places 3I closer to dynamically old long-period and short-period comets of the Solar System than to the dynamically new class that 2I resembles. If the result holds, interstellar comets are not a single uniform population but carry different thermal and dynamical histories, and 3I gives observers a second object on which that difference can be measured.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is photometry of a barely resolved coma under an assumed $1/\rho$ surface brightness profile, where $\rho$ is angular distance from the nucleus. That profile sets aperture corrections of $-0.42$ to $-0.11$ mag, converting measured fluxes into true 3-arcsecond-aperture magnitudes, and the corrected lightcurve is then fit with the classical comet model whose slope parameter $K_1$ carries the heliocentric brightening rate. The same $1/\rho$ assumption is used to interpret the 2.3-magnitude discrepancy between ZTF and TESS photometry as a truncated coma, yielding the inferred activation distance near 9 au.

What would settle it

High-resolution imaging that resolves the coma at $r_h \approx 5$–6 au and measures its surface brightness profile would settle the matter: if the profile deviates substantially from $1/\rho$, the aperture corrections, $K_1 = 9.5$, and the ~9 au activation distance would all need revision. Alternatively, a secure detection of steady coma activity at $r_h > 9$ au would falsify the TESS-based activation epoch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 3I/ATLAS was active long before its discovery and followed a distinctive brightening law. Using 41 positive detections from the Zwicky Transient Facility starting 2025 May 15, plus a marginal stacked detection from April–May 2025, the authors fit the classic comet lightcurve $m_1 = M_1 + 5\log\Delta + K_1\log r_H + \Phi(\alpha)$ and obtain $K_1 = 9.5 \pm 0.3$, i.e. brightness $\propto r_h^{-3.8}$ inward of 6.5 au. They derive dust production rates of roughly 5 kg/s in early May 2025 at about 6 au, rising to about 30 kg/s in mid-July at about 4 au for 100 $\mu$m grains, consistent with later independent measurements. Comparing ZTF photometry with a TESS detection, they infer that constant dust outflow began near $r_h \sim 9$ au, coinciding with the expected turn-on distance of CO$_2$ ice. Their 2024 upper limits at 13–17 au rule out strong outbursts during that period.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on assuming the coma's surface brightness falls off as $1/\rho$ even though the comet is only marginally resolved, so the profile is never directly measured; a different profile would change the aperture corrections, the brightening slope, the dust production rates, and especially the inferred CO$_2$-ice activation distance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 3I/ATLAS becomes only the second interstellar comet with a measured inbound activity curve, enabling a direct comparison with 2I/Borisov.
  • A steep $r_h^{-3.8}$ brightening implies that 3I's activity response resembles dynamically old long-period and short-period Solar System comets rather than the dynamically new behavior inferred for 2I.
  • Dust production rose from about 5 to about 30 kg/s as the comet moved from 6 au to 4 au, consistent within an order of magnitude with later HST and Rubin measurements.
  • Constant dust outflow beginning near 9 au ties the early coma to CO$_2$ ice sublimation, identifying a plausible volatile driver for the activity.
  • The 2024 non-detections constrain the comet to no strong outbursts at 13–17 au, a behavior shared with 2I and most long-period comets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the steep slope is real, interstellar comets may arrive in at least two activity states: objects like 2I that behave like fresh dynamically new comets, and objects like 3I that behave like processed, dynamically old ones; the next few discovered interstellar comets could test whether this split is bimodal.
  • The CO$_2$-activation interpretation predicts that spectroscopic searches near 9 au should find CO$_2$ or its dissociation products, so a future survey that catches an interstellar comet at that distance could test the prediction directly.
  • The $1/\rho$ assumption could be tested on already-archived frames by jointly fitting the coma profile and position rather than applying a fixed aperture correction, which would either confirm or revise the derived slope and activation distance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents ZTF prediscovery imaging of the interstellar comet 3I/2025 N1 (ATLAS) obtained between 2024 June and 2025 July. From 41 nightly detections beginning 2025 May 15 and one multi-night stacked detection from April-May 2025, the authors fit a classic comet lightcurve (Eq. 1) and derive M1 = 9.2 ± 0.2, K1 = 9.5 ± 0.3, corresponding to a brightening rate ∝ r_h^-3.8; they use this to argue that 3I was active inward of 6.5 au and that its activity curve resembles dynamically old Solar System comets rather than 2I/Borisov. They also estimate dust production rates from the observed coma flux (§3.2), use a single TESS measurement to infer onset of constant dust outflow near r_h ~ 9 au (§4), and place upper limits on 2024 activity from stacked non-detections.

Significance. If the primary slope measurement holds, this is only the second interstellar comet with an inbound activity curve and a valuable point of comparison for interstellar-object thermal histories. The paper's strengths include 41 positive detections, a fit consistent with independent ATLAS, Rubin, HST, and TESS work, and an explicit statement of the assumed 1/ρ coma profile and its aperture-correction range. The steep K1 = 9.5 ± 0.3 result is anchored in multi-epoch photometry and is not obviously an artifact of the assumed profile, since a profile error would need to be strongly correlated with heliocentric distance to change the slope materially. The dust-production rates and especially the activation-distance estimate are far more model-dependent, as discussed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] The claim that constant dust outflow began near r_h = 9 au, coinciding with CO2 turn-on, is presented in the abstract and conclusion as a headline result, but it chains together an assumed 1/ρ coma truncated at 5.7 arcsec, a single TESS measurement, and an adopted 10 m/s dust expansion speed. The inferred onset distance scales inversely with the assumed speed and depends on the profile model, so it is not a direct measurement. Please either remove this claim from the abstract and conclusion, or replace it with an explicit forward model that varies the surface-brightness profile and expansion speed and reports the full allowed range of onset distances.
  2. [§3.1] The multi-night April-May 2025 stack is described as a 'marginally visible at 1.6σ level' detection but is then assigned r_PS1 = 21.6 ± 0.2 mag. No derivation is given for how a 0.2 mag uncertainty follows from a 1.6σ detection, and the two statements are difficult to reconcile unless the 1.6σ refers to a different quantity than the photometric uncertainty. Please report the measured signal-to-noise, the noise model, and the uncertainty budget for this point, and consider down-weighting or removing it from the lightcurve analysis if its significance cannot be defended.
  3. [§3.1] The 1/ρ surface-brightness profile is assumed rather than measured, and the corresponding aperture corrections (0.11 to 0.42 mag) enter every photometric measurement. Although the slope K1 is probably robust to a slowly varying profile error, the absolute calibration of the dust-to-nucleus ratios and the TESS-based onset distance are not. Please add a sensitivity test that repeats the key results with alternative profiles, for example a point-source profile and a 1/ρ^2 profile, and reports the resulting shifts in K1, the dust production rate, and the inferred onset distance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4] The notation 'T mag = 20.9 mag' is undefined; please write 'TESS magnitude' or define T mag explicitly.
  2. [§3.2] Equation (4) quotes a numerical prefactor of 7.1 × 10^22 without units; if this follows the convention in Jewitt et al. (2025), the units should still be stated for clarity.
  3. [§4] The phrase 'HST-estimated lower-limit absolute magnitude' is ambiguous: H_V,n > 15.4 mag is a lower limit on the magnitude, meaning the nucleus is fainter than 15.4 mag, not that 15.4 is a lower limit on the nucleus brightness in the usual physical sense.
  4. [Figure 4] The labels 'plateau' and 'uniform brightening' are applied to a small number of points with relatively large error bars; please either add a statistical test for the plateau or describe both phases as tentative.
  5. [§3.1] The text says the fit uses 'r-band data points' while Figure 3 also displays g-band photometry offset by −0.65 mag; please clarify whether the g-band points enter the fit or only the r-band points do.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the activity slope and dust rates are measured from independent photometry, and the TESS-based onset is an explicitly modeled interpretation rather than a re-statement of the inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against the ZTF and TESS photometry. The headline slope K1=9.5±0.3 is an uncertainty-weighted least-squares fit to 41 positive nightly detections (Eq. 1), not a value imposed by the model. The 1/ρ coma profile in Section 3.1 is an explicitly stated assumption, adopted because the coma is unresolved; it enters as an aperture correction, but the fit parameters are not defined in terms of that profile, so the slope is not a tautology. The dust production rates in Section 3.2 are converted from measured coma flux using standard physical constants and the externally measured HST nuclear bound; they are estimates, not predictions of the model being tested. The r_h~9 au onset in Section 4 is an interpretive inversion of one TESS point and the ZTF stack under stated assumptions (1/ρ profile truncated at 5.7'', 10 m/s grain speed); it is not equivalent to any input because the TESS magnitude provides an independent constraint, and the authors explicitly flag the profile assumption and the marginal 1.6σ detection as limitations. Self-citations (Ye et al. 2020; Kelley et al. 2019) are used for comparison with 2I/Borisov and for software, not as load-bearing support for 3I's activity or slope. No equation is shown to reduce to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the standard cometary photometric formalism (Eqs. 1-5), with the 1/rho coma profile, a 100-micron grain size, a dust albedo of 0.04, and the HST lower-limit nuclear magnitude as the main external inputs; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • K1 = 9.5 ± 0.3
    Logarithmic heliocentric-distance slope fitted to the ZTF lightcurve with Eq. 1; it defines the r_h^-3.8 brightening slope.
  • M1 = 9.2 ± 0.2
    Absolute total magnitude intercept fitted with Eq. 1 in the same lightcurve fit.
  • H_r,n = 12.1 ± 0.1
    Absolute magnitude from the bare-nucleus model (Eq. 2) fitted to the same photometry; the authors later argue this is not the true nucleus.
  • Effective dust grain radius a_d = 100 microns (assumed)
    Assumed grain size in Eq. 5 for dust production rates and for the 10 m/s expansion speed used to date the onset of outflow.
  • Dust geometric albedo p_V = 0.04 (assumed)
    Adopted in Eq. 4 when converting observed dust magnitude to cross-sectional area.
  • Dust expansion speed = ~10 m/s (assumed)
    Assumed in Section 4 to convert the TESS/ZTF brightness discrepancy into the 30-day, r_h~9 au onset of steady dust production.
  • Spectral slope = 18%/100 nm (adopted from Opitom et al. 2025)
    Used to transform g-band photometry to r-band and to compute V-band magnitudes.
  • Nucleus phase coefficient beta = 0.035 mag/deg (assumed)
    Typical cometary phase coefficient from Lamy et al. 2004, used in Eq. 2 and the dust subtraction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The adopted JPL orbit solution #16 correctly predicts the comet's position in every ZTF frame.
    Location: Section 2. The stacked detections and upper limits assume the ephemeris is accurate; an incorrect orbit would smear or shift the source.
  • domain assumption The coma is radially symmetric with a 1/rho surface brightness profile within the photometric aperture.
    Location: Section 3.1. Used to compute aperture corrections for each detection and to model the TESS/ZTF brightness difference in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The HST lower limit H_V,n > 15.4 mag represents the actual bare-nucleus brightness for dust subtraction.
    Location: Section 3.2. The authors explicitly adopt this lower limit as the best currently available absolute nuclear magnitude; if the nucleus is brighter, dust-to-nucleus ratios and production rates decrease.
  • domain assumption The dust is composed of 100-micron grains with the radiation-pressure properties and bulk density from Jewitt et al. (2025).
    Location: Section 3.2, Eq. 5. The dust production rate and the assumed 10 m/s expansion speed both depend on this grain size.
  • ad hoc to paper The TESS photometry, solar-color transformation, and assumed 10 m/s outflow speed can be combined with the truncated-coma model to date the onset of steady dust production.
    Location: Section 4. The 9-au activation timing follows from a single TESS point, a profile-truncation explanation, and an adopted expansion speed, none of which are independently measured here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prediscovery Activity of New Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS: A Dynamically-Old Comet?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7UWH7LT

@misc{pith2026250908792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prediscovery Activity of New Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS: A Dynamically-Old Comet?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7UWH7LT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08792}
}
abstract

We report on the prediscovery observations and constraints of the new interstellar comet 3I/2025 N1 (ATLAS), made by the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), for the inbound leg of the comet out to a heliocentric distance of $r_\mathrm{h}=17$ au, or approximately a year before its discovery. We find that 3I/ATLAS has been active inward of a heliocentric distance of at least $r_\mathrm{h}=6.5$ au. The comet followed a brightening rate of $\propto r_\mathrm{h}^{-3.8}$, which is significantly steeper than the only other known interstellar comet 2I/Borisov, and is more consistent with dynamically old long-period comets and short-period comets in the Solar System. By measuring the brightening of the dust coma, we estimate that 3I had a dust production rate of $\dot{M_\mathrm{d}}\sim5 \mathrm{kg s^{-1}}$ in early May of 2025 ($r_\mathrm{h}\sim6$ au), increasing to $\dot{M_\mathrm{d}}\sim30 \mathrm{kg s^{-1}}$ towards mid-July 2025 ($r_\mathrm{h}\sim4$ au) assuming 100 micron dust grains, in line with the more recent Hubble Space Telescope measurement made at $r_\mathrm{h}=3.8$ au. Comparison with the prediscovery photometry by the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) suggested that 3I started producing constant dust outflow probably around $r_\mathrm{h}\sim9$ au, coinciding with the turn-on distance of CO$_2$ ice. We also conduct a deep search of 3I/ATLAS with multiple nights of data taken in 2024 when the comet was at $r_\mathrm{h}=13$-$17$ au and conclude that the comet was no brighter than 2-5 magnitudes above the coma or bare-nucleus lightcurves. This suggests that the comet did not exhibit strong outbursts during these periods, consistent with 2I/Borisov as well as most long-period Solar System comets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A selection of nightly ZTF stacks of 3I from its first detection on UT 2025 May 15 to UT 2025 July 20 (the latest stack used in this work). 3I is marked by a filled triangle in each panel. The panels have North up and East to the left. The arrows in the upper-left of each panel mark the direction to the Sun (⊙) and velocity vector (+v) of the comet. The images are color-inverted. where m1 and M1 are the apparent and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-night ZTF stacks centered at the nominal ephemeris position of 3I of periods from UT 2024 June 15 to UT 2025 May 9. Each stack is smoothed by a 2′′-wide Gaussian function for clarity. The 3σ uncertainty ellipses (appeared largely as a thin line due to very small semi-minor axis) are plotted in the upper-right corner of each panel. The images are color-inverted. the Schleicher–Marcus phase function (also referr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Best-fit lightcurve of 3I using ZTF photometry from nightly and multi-nightly stacks from 2024 June 15 to 2025 July 20. Uncertainties of individual data points may be underestimated due to complications associated with crowded field photometry. For multi-nightly stacks, horizontal bars indicate the time bin sizes. The lightcurve models used are appropriate for a coma or nucleus, described by Eqs. 1 and 2, respective… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots of (a) nucleus-subtracted V -band absolute magnitudes (assuming a spectral slope of 18%/100 nm; C. Opitom et al. 2025) of 3I’s excess dust inferred from the ZTF data, using the (lower limit) nuclear magnitude of HV > 15.4 mag reported by D. Jewitt et al. (2025, d…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., & Birch, P

    Osip, D. J., & Birch, P. V. 1995, Icarus, 118, 223, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1190 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A....

    arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  3. [3]

    O., Bernardinelli, P

    Chandler, C. O., Bernardinelli, P. H., Juri´ c, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.13409

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13409 2025

  4. [4]

    J., & A’Hearn, M

    Cowan, J. J., & A’Hearn, M. F. 1979, Moon and Planets, 21, 155, doi: 10.1007/BF00897085

    doi:10.1007/bf00897085 1979

  5. [5]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2 2020

  6. [6]

    2025, MPEC

    Denneau, L., Siverd, R., Tonry, J., et al. 2025, MPEC

    2025

  7. [7]

    D., Noonan, J

    Feinstein, A. D., Noonan, J. W., & Seligman, D. Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21967, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21967

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21967 2025

  8. [8]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c 2019

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, nature, 585, 357

    2020

  2. [10]

    E., Knight, M

    Holt, C. E., Knight, M. M., Kelley, M. S. P., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 273, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad8e38

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Dorsey, R

    Hopkins, M. J., Dorsey, R. C., Forbes, J. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05318, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05318

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  5. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02934, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02934

    Agarwal, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02934, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02934

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kelley, M. S. P., Bodewits, D., Ye, Q., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J

    2019

  7. [15]

    Weaver, H. A. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C

    2004

  8. [16]

    1996, AJ, 112, 2310, doi: 10.1086/118184

    Luu, J., & Jewitt, D. 1996, AJ, 112, 2310, doi: 10.1086/118184

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02499

    Martinez-Palomera, J., Tuson, A., Hedges, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02499

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1426, doi: 10.21105/joss.01426

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

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05226, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05226

    Opitom, C., Snodgrass, C., Jehin, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05226, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05226

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    G., & Bair, A

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

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

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

    Seligman, D. Z., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.02757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.02757

    2025 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Stern, S. A. 1986, Icarus, 68, 276, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90024-2 12 STScI Development Team. 2013, pysynphot: Synthetic photometry software package,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.023

    1986 doi

  16. [24]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05562

    Tonry, J., Denneau, L., Alarcon, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05562. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05562

    2025

  17. [25]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/99 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in science & engineering, 13, 22

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Whipple, F. L. 1978, Moon and Planets, 18, 343, doi: 10.1007/BF00896489

    1978 doi

  19. [27]

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

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, ApJL, 852, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f7

    Zhang, Q. 2018, ApJL, 852, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f7

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.