Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Opposition effect of comet 28P/Neujmin observed with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ground-based observations of comet 28P at 0.334° from opposition reveal a narrow surge pointing to coherent backscattering.

desk verdict Careful archive study that achieves a record-small phase angle for a comet nucleus and confirms its opposition surge, but the quantitative CBOE claim leans on a single r-band point whose rotation-phase sampling is not characterized. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11082 v1 pith:Y4FU6ZOD submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.EP

Takafumi Ootsubo , Hideyo Kawakita , Tadafumi Takata , Junko Furusawa , Hisanori Furusawa , Tsuyoshi Terai , Toshihiro Kasuga , Akira Keida
show 3 more authors
Yoshiharu Shinnaka Fumi Yoshida Seitaro Urakawa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords oppositioneffectcomet28P/NeujmincoherentbackscatteringshadowhidingcometarynucleusphasecurveD-typeasteroidHyperSuprime-Cam
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 reports the deepest ground-based look yet at a comet nucleus: observations of 28P/Neujmin at a heliocentric distance beyond 10 au and a phase angle of only $0.334^\circ$, where coma contamination is negligible. Adding this point to earlier R-band phase-curve data confirms an opposition effect—the sharp brightening as the Sun-object-observer angle approaches zero—and measures it as narrow (half-width about $0.3^\circ$) with an enhancement factor near 2. The authors argue that even under conservative assumptions about the uncertain phase coefficient, this surge is stronger and narrower than typical for dark C- and D-type asteroids, and is better explained by coherent backscattering (constructive interference of multiply scattered light) than by shadow hiding. If correct, the surface microstructure of this nucleus differs from both primitive asteroids and from the only other comet nucleus studied in detail, possibly because cometary activity has reworked the surface.

What carries the argument

The central object is the opposition surge in the R-band phase curve of 28P, and the quantity that carries the argument is its angular width. Coherent backscattering produces a peak narrower than about $1^\circ$–$2^\circ$, while shadow hiding produces a broader rise, so a measured half-width of $0.30\pm0.16^\circ$ is the signature that separates the two mechanisms. The paper extracts this width and the enhancement factor $\zeta=2.04\pm1.33$ with a four-parameter linear-exponential model, $$I/F = I/F_s \exp(-\$\alpha$/(1.45\,\mathrm{HWHM})) + I/F_b + B\$\alpha$,$$ and checks the result with the Shevchenko and IAU H-G1-G2 phase functions, using the standard asteroid-comparison convention for the coherent-backscattering contribution.

What would settle it

A single-apparition campaign measuring 28P's brightness through full rotations at phase angles from below $0.1^\circ$ out to $15^\circ$, in at least two filters, would settle the mechanism: if the narrow surge persists and its width grows with wavelength, coherent backscattering is confirmed; if the surge broadens or weakens, shadow hiding or calibration bias is the better explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a low-albedo cometary nucleus can show a pronounced, narrow opposition surge despite having the red, featureless colors of a D-type asteroid. The measured colors ($g-r=0.67\pm0.17$, $r-y=0.41\pm0.19$, spectral index $8.8\pm4.2\%/100$ nm) look D-type, but the phase curve shows an opposition-effect amplitude of $0.33\pm0.03$ mag and a coherent-backscattering contribution of $0.92\pm0.12$ at $\alpha=0.334^\circ$, values typical of bright S-, M-, and E-type asteroids rather than dark C- and D-types. Fitting a linear-exponential model gives an enhancement factor $\zeta=2.04\pm1.33$ and half-width $0.30\pm0.16^\circ$, both far from the shadow-hiding-dominated behavior seen on the spacecraft-studied comet 67P. Even if the intrinsic phase coefficient is as steep as $0.05$ mag deg$^{-1}$, the amplitude and coherent-backscattering fraction fall only to about $0.20$ mag and $0.62$, still above the C-type mean. The paper concludes that 28P's surface microstructure likely differs from those of C- and D-type asteroids, probably because sublimation-driven activity has reworked the nucleus surface.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the assumption that the average of four r-band exposures taken over 3.5 hours fairly represents the mean brightness of a nucleus that rotates every 12.75 hours with a 0.45-magnitude peak-to-peak swing; if that average is off, the derived surge size, width, and coherent-backscattering share all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Comet 28P becomes the first comet nucleus with a ground-based phase curve showing a narrow opposition surge consistent with coherent backscattering.
  • If the surge is real, the surface of 28P is not simply D-type-like in structure despite its D-type-like color, so taxonomic color alone can misclassify a cometary nucleus's physical surface.
  • The contrast with the spacecraft-measured, shadow-hiding-dominated surge of comet 67P suggests that comet nuclei do not share a single opposition-effect behavior.
  • Even under the steepest plausible phase coefficient, the coherent-backscattering contribution stays above the C-type asteroid mean, so the qualitative conclusion is stable against the main systematic uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of the coherent-backscattering interpretation is that the surge half-width should scale with wavelength; two-filter observations at the same phase angles could confirm this without waiting for a spacecraft.
  • The same archival-search technique could be applied to other distant Jupiter-family comets, and each new narrow-surge detection would indicate whether 28P is an outlier or the leading example of an activity-modified cometary surface class.
  • The cited episode of asteroid 419 Aurelia, where an apparent narrow surge shrank after better calibration, is a reminder that the 28P result should be rechecked with single-apparition, full-rotation data before being treated as definitive.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports g, r, y photometry of the nucleus of comet 28P/Neujmin from archival Subaru/HSC data at a heliocentric distance exceeding 10 au, where coma contamination is minimized and the source appears point-like. The authors measure colors g−r = 0.67 ± 0.17 and r−y = 0.41 ± 0.19 and a spectral index S′ = 8.8 ± 4.2%/100 nm, comparable to D-type asteroids. Adding the new r-band point at phase angle α = 0.334° to previous R-band data from Delahodde et al. (2001), they fit Shevchenko, IAU H-G, H-G1-G2, and linear-exponential models and derive an opposition surge with amplitude 0.33 ± 0.03 mag, a CBOE contribution of 0.92 ± 0.12, a HWHM of about 0.30°, and an enhancement factor ζ ≈ 2.04. They conclude that 28P's opposition effect is stronger and narrower than typical for C- and D-type asteroids and is better explained by coherent backscattering than by shadow hiding, implying that the surface microstructure of 28P's nucleus differs from that of primitive asteroids. The paper explicitly acknowledges the phase-coefficient uncertainty and the cautionary example of asteroid 419 Aurelia, and calls for future single-apparition and polarimetric observations.

Significance. If the main result holds, this would be the first ground-based detection of a strong, narrow opposition effect on a cometary nucleus, with implications for the surface microstructure of dormant comet nuclei and for the comet–asteroid connection. The paper is careful in checking the point-source nature of the detection, in using archival data, and in being transparent about the caveats. However, the headline conclusion rests on a single new low-phase-angle measurement whose rotational-phase sampling is not fully characterized, and the model-derived CBOE parameters carry large uncertainties. The scientific significance is high conditional on the robustness of that measurement, but the current evidence is not yet at the level claimed in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Table 1, §4] The r-band anchor of the phase curve is the average of four exposures spanning 3.5 h (about 0.27 of the 12.75-h rotation period), with observed magnitudes 22.37, 22.29, 21.97, and 22.02 (range 0.40 mag, comparable to the full lightcurve amplitude). The paper's assertion that the average is 'unlikely to differ significantly' from the mean magnitude is not quantified. A partial-arc average of an asymmetric double-peaked lightcurve can be biased by up to roughly the semi-amplitude (~0.2 mag). The Monte Carlo rotation-phase correction is applied to colors (σ_rot ≈ 0.15 mag) but not to the r-band mean magnitude itself, which is quoted as 22.15 ± 0.08 in Table 2. Since the OE amplitude at α = 0.334° is derived relative to the linear extrapolation from larger phase angles, a 0.15–0.2 mag bias would shift the CBOE contribution from 0.92 ± 0.12 toward the 0.2–0.6 range typical of C- and D-type asteroids, directly weakening the central claim. Please add a quantitative Monte Carlo estimate of the rotation-sampling uncertainty in the mean r-band magnitude, following the same procedure used for the colors, and propagate it into the derived OE amplitude, CBOE contribution, and linear-exponential parameters.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, §4] The OE characterization below 1° is constrained by a single new point at α = 0.334°; the next smallest phase angle in the combined dataset is about 0.82°. The fitted HWHM of 0.30 ± 0.16 and enhancement factor ζ = 2.04 ± 1.33 have very large uncertainties, and the claimed contrast with 67P (ζ ≈ 1.1–1.3) is not statistically significant at the 1σ level. The paper should present a quantitative test of whether the narrow CBOE-like component is actually required by the data, for example by comparing fits with and without the new low-phase point, or by computing an F-test or equivalent for the addition of the exponential component. Without such a test, the statement that the CBOE contribution is 0.92 ± 0.12 and the comparison to the Belskaya & Shevchenko classification is stronger than the data support.
  3. [§3.1, §3.3.1, §4] The phase coefficient β = 0.022 mag/deg used to reduce the g- and y-band magnitudes to α = 0.334° is adopted from the Shevchenko fit parameter b in Eq. (7), which is derived later in the paper from the same combined dataset. This self-reference is acknowledged, and a sensitivity check with β = 0.05 is presented, but the propagation of the β uncertainty into the final OE amplitude and CBOE contribution is not fully explored. Given the known multi-apparition viewing-geometry systematics in the Delahodde et al. data, the linear part of the phase curve is degenerate with the OE amplitude. I recommend a full Monte Carlo that samples the phase coefficient from a prior distribution (e.g., uniform in 0.02–0.05 mag/deg) and reports the resulting posterior distributions of the OE amplitude and CBOE contribution, rather than point estimates at only two β values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3.1] The text contains a typo: 'yeilds' should be 'yields'.
  2. [Table 1] The three excluded visits (57940, 57960, 60086) are not explicitly flagged in the table; marking them would avoid confusion about the used data.
  3. [§3.2, Table 2] The uncertainties quoted for the mean magnitudes and absolute magnitudes appear to include only the photometric scatter among the adopted exposures, not the rotation-sampling uncertainty; this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [§3.3, Eqs. (5)–(6)] The conversion from HSC to Bessel R magnitudes uses the color g−r, which itself has an uncertainty of 0.17 mag; the reported m_R uncertainty of 0.19 mag should be justified by showing the propagation of the color uncertainty and the transformation coefficients.
  5. [Fig. 3] The figure legend would benefit from a note on the magnitude system (Vega for the plotted R magnitudes) and from visible error bars on the previous Delahodde et al. data points.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One minor internal feedback: the adopted phase coefficient is the same Shevchenko b fitted to the phase curve; the central OE/CBOE comparison is otherwise data-driven and externally benchmarked.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, paragraph after Eq. (3)]
    "For consistency in our analysis and discussion of comet 28P, which shows the OE, we adopt 0.022 for the β of comet 28P derived at large phase angles with a function considering the OE, as will be derived later as b in equation (7) in Section 3.3.1 of this paper."

    The adopted phase coefficient β=0.022 is not an external prior: it is the parameter b obtained from fitting Eq. (7) to the same phase curve that includes the HSC magnitudes reduced using this β. Equation (3) uses β to shift the g- and y-band magnitudes to α=0.334; those shifted magnitudes then enter the model fit that returns b=0.022±0.012. Thus the input phase coefficient is an output of the same fitting loop, as the paper itself acknowledges with 'as will be derived later as b in equation (7)'. This is a genuine, though minor, closed feedback loop.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that 28P shows a narrow opposition surge with a larger coherent backscattering contribution than typical C/D-type asteroids—rests on a directly measured HSC r-band point at α=0.334°, independent of the circular β feedback. The phase-curve fits (Shevchenko, IAU H-G, H-G1-G2, linear-exponential) are standard empirical descriptions of the same data, not predictions forced by construction. The comparison to C/D-type asteroids uses the external Belskaya & Shevchenko (2000) sample, and the comparison to 67P uses external Rosetta results (Masoumzadeh et al. 2019); these benchmarks are outside the paper's fitted values. The only identified circularity is the adoption of β from the same Shevchenko fit that uses β-reduced magnitudes, and it is explicitly flagged by the authors. The self-citation to Ootsubo et al. (2025) is for search methodology only and is not load-bearing. The rotation-sampling concern raised in the reader's take is a robustness/correctness issue, not a circularity issue, because the r-band average is a direct measurement rather than an output derived from the claimed conclusion. On balance, the derivation is not circular in its essential logic, and the score reflects only the minor internal β feedback.

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

The key numbers the central claim leans on are the phase coefficient beta (0.022, itself taken from the same Shevchenko fit), the fitted parameters of the phase curve models (Shevchenko and Rosenbush), and the adopted rotation parameters used in the Monte Carlo. No new physical entities are introduced. The main domain assumptions are that the nucleus was inactive, that standard empirical phase functions describe the data, and that the Belskaya and Shevchenko classification of opposition effect mechanisms applies to cometary nuclei.

free parameters (4)
  • Phase coefficient beta = 0.022 mag/deg
    Adopted from the Shevchenko fit (b in Eq. 7) and used to reduce g/y magnitudes to alpha=0.334 and to compute albedos; sensitivity to 0.02-0.05 is discussed.
  • Shevchenko model parameters = m0=12.34, a=0.43, b=0.022
    Fitted to the combined HSC plus Delahodde phase curve; a controls the opposition effect amplitude used in the paper's main comparison.
  • Rosenbush linear-exponential parameters = IF_s=0.036, IF_b=0.035, HWHM=0.30 deg, B=-0.0007
    Four-parameter fit used to derive enhancement factor zeta=2.04 and the narrow width that supports the CBOE interpretation.
  • Rotation period and amplitude = 12.75 h, 0.45 mag
    Taken from Delahodde et al. (2001) and used in the Monte Carlo to estimate color uncertainty from rotational phase sampling.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The empirical phase function models (Shevchenko, IAU H-G, IAU H-G1-G2, Rosenbush linear-exponential) adequately describe the nucleus phase curve.
    Section 3.3 fits these models to the data; the choice of model affects the derived OE amplitude and width.
  • domain assumption The Belskaya and Shevchenko (2000) asteroid classification relating OE amplitude and angular width to SHOE versus CBOE mechanisms applies to cometary nuclei.
    Section 4 uses this mapping to interpret 28P's narrow surge as CBOE-dominated.
  • domain assumption Comet 28P was inactive during the HSC observations, so the measured light is entirely from the nucleus.
    Section 2 shows point-like radial profiles matching field stars; at heliocentric distance above 10 au sublimation of water and CO2 is negligible.
  • domain assumption The HSC-SSP PDR3 source catalog magnitudes (12 pixel aperture) are reliable and in the AB system for this faint moving point source.
    Section 2 takes magnitudes directly from the SRC catalog produced by hscPipe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Opposition effect of comet 28P/Neujmin observed with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y4FU6ZOD

@misc{pith2026260811082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Opposition effect of comet 28P/Neujmin observed with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y4FU6ZOD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11082}
}
abstract

We present an observational study of the nucleus of comet 28P/Neujmin at a heliocentric distance exceeding 10 au, where coma contamination is effectively minimized. Observations were conducted in the $g$, $r$, and $y$ bands with the Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) on the 8.2-m Subaru Telescope. The measured colors, $g - r = 0.67\pm0.17$ and $r - y = 0.41\pm0.19$, yield a spectral index of $S' = 8.8\pm4.2\%/100$ nm, comparable to that of D-type asteroids. By incorporating new observational data at a phase angle $\alpha = 0.334^{\circ}$ with previous observations, we determined the phase function for the nucleus of 28P and confirmed an opposition surge at small phase angles. The derived opposition effect amplitude depends on the adopted phase coefficient, which is uncertain due to potential systematic effects in multi-apparition phase curves. Nevertheless, even under conservative assumptions, the opposition effect of 28P suggests a larger coherent backscattering contribution than is typical for C- and D-type asteroids. The Subaru HSC observations suggest that, although the nucleus color resembles that of D-type asteroids, the surface microstructure of comet 28P's nucleus likely differs from those of C- and D-type asteroids. Future single-apparition observations covering a wide phase angle range from near-opposition to larger angles, combined with polarimetric measurements, will be essential to definitively establish the physical mechanisms responsible for the opposition effects of cometary nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11082 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images of a 30′′ × 30′′ region surrounding comet 28P detected in the HSC-SSP data: Eight y-band images (top), three g-band images (middle), and five r-band images (bottom). Each image is labeled with the visit ID (7 digits) of the HSC observation. All images are displayed with North up and East to the left. Alt text: Images of comet 28P with no evidence of a resolved coma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial profiles of comet 28P (black solid circles) compared to those of field stars (red open circles) in the y (visit 57952), g (visit 59320), and r (visit 60038) bands, from left to right. The radial profiles of 28P (black dashed lines) are in good agreement with the point spread function (red dash-dot lines), and no apparent coma structure is detected. Alt text: Three plots showing radial profiles of the comet an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the phase curve of comet 28P in the R band. The derived HSC magnitude mR(1, 1, 0.334) is plotted together with the mR(1, 1,α) from Delahodde et al. (2001). We examine the phase curve characterization in the R-band for comet 28P. Delahodde et al. (2001) discussed the phase curve and OE for asteroids using the IAU H-G model (Bowell et al. 1989) and the Shevchenko model (Shevchenko 1996). We also interpret the OE… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the I/F phase curve for 28P in the phase an￾gle range of 0 ◦ –9 ◦ . We fit this phase curve using the linear￾exponential model with the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. The four parameters, I/Fs, I/Fb, HWHM, and B were derived, and the best-fit value of ζ was calcu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Millis, R

    A'Hearn, M. F., Millis, R. C., Schleicher, D. O., Osip, D. J., & Birch, P. V.\ 1995, Icarus, 118, 223

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Aihara, H., et al.\ 2018, , 70, S4

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Aihara, H., et al.\ 2018b, , 70, S8

    work page

  4. [4]

    Aihara, H., et al.\ 2019, , 71, 114

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Aihara, H., et al.\ 2022, , 74, 247

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Ashton, E., Chang, C.-K., Chen, Y.-T., et al.\ 2023, , 267, 33

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    P.\ 1922, Astron

    Barabashev, N. P.\ 1922, Astron. Nachr., 217, 445

    work page 1922

  8. [8]

    P., Ishiguro, M., Jin, S., et al.\ 2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 52, 71

    Bach, Y. P., Ishiguro, M., Jin, S., et al.\ 2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 52, 71

    work page 2019

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    N., & Shevchenko, V

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

    2000

  2. [10]

    N., Shevchenko, V

    Belskaya, I. N., Shevchenko, V. G., Efimov, Y. S., et al.\ 2002, Asteroids, Comets, and Meteors: ACM 2002, 500, 489

    2002

  3. [11]

    W.\ 1989, Asteroids II, 524

    Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., Lumme, K., Peltoniemi, J., & Harris, A. W.\ 1989, Asteroids II, 524

    1989

  4. [12]

    Bosch, J., et al.\ 2018, , 70, S5

    2018

  5. [13]

    Bosch, J., et al.\ 2019, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVIII, 523, 521

    2019

  6. [14]

    F., & McFadden, L.-A.\ 1987, , 316, 847

    Campins, H., A'Hearn, M. F., & McFadden, L.-A.\ 1987, , 316, 847

    1987

  7. [15]

    & Fern \'a ndez, Y.\ 2002, Earth Moon and Planets, 89, 117

    Campins, H. & Fern \'a ndez, Y.\ 2002, Earth Moon and Planets, 89, 117. doi:10.1023/A:1021590203207

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    Campins, H., Licandro, J., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al.\ 2007, , 134, 1626

    2007

  9. [17]

    C., et al.\ 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 191

    Chang, C.-K., Chen, Y.-T., Fraser, W. C., et al.\ 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 191

    2021

  10. [18]

    Ciarniello, M., Capaccioni, F., Filacchione, G., et al.\ 2015, , 583, A31

    2015

  11. [19]

    E., Meech, K

    Delahodde, C. E., Meech, K. J., Hainaut, O. R., & Dotto, E.\ 2001, , 376, 672

    2001

  12. [20]

    E., & Carry, B

    DeMeo, F. E., & Carry, B. M. \ 2013, Icarus, 226, 723

    2013

  13. [21]

    Donaldson, A., Kokotanekova, R., Ro \.z ek, A., et al.\ 2023, , 521, 1518

    2023

  14. [22]

    P.\ 1994, , 282, 634

    Fitzsimmons, A., Dahlgren, M., Lagerkvist, C.-I., Magnusson, P., & Williams, I. P.\ 1994, , 282, 634

    1994

  15. [23]

    Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., & Ichikawa, T.\ 1995, , 107, 945

    1995

  16. [24]

    Furusawa, H., Koike, M., Takata, T., et al.\ 2018, , The on-site quality-assurance system for Hyper Suprime-Cam: OSQAH, 70, S3

    2018

  17. [25]

    Gunn, J. E. & Stryker, L. L.\ 1983, , 52, 121

    1983

  18. [26]

    R., & Delsanti, A

    Hainaut, O. R., & Delsanti, A. C.\ 2002, , 389, 641

    2002

  19. [27]

    E., Simon, A

    Hamilton, V. E., Simon, A. A., Christensen, P. R., et al.\ 2019, Nature Astronomy, Evidence for widespread hydrated minerals on asteroid (101955) Bennu, 3, 332

    2019

  20. [28]

    Hapke, B.\ 1993, Topics in Remote Sensing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    1993

  21. [29]

    Hapke, B., Nelson, R., & Smythe, W.\ 1998, , 133, 1, 89

    1998

  22. [30]

    Hapke, B.\ 2012, Theory of Reflectance and Emittance Spectroscopy.\ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    2012

  23. [31]

    Hasegawa, S., Miyasaka, S., Tokimasa, N., et al.\ 2014, , 66, 89

    2014

  24. [32]

    H., Barucci, M

    Hasselmann, P. H., Barucci, M. A., Fornasier, S., et al.\ 2017, , 469, S550

    2017

  25. [33]

    Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., & Nakagawa, Y.\ 1985, Protostars and Planets II, 1100

    1985

  26. [34]

    Ieva S., Arcoverde P., Rond \'o n E., Giunta A., Dotto E., Lazzaro D., Mazzotta Epifani E., et al., 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3104

    2022

  27. [35]

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., et al.\ 2001, , 122, 2749

    2001

  28. [36]

    C., & Luu, J

    Jewitt, D. C., & Luu, J. X.\ 1990, , 100, 933

    1990

  29. [37]

    C., & Meech, K

    Jewitt, D. C., & Meech, K. J.\ 1988, , 328, 974

    1988

  30. [38]

    E., Iwata, T., et al.\ 2019, Science, 364, 272

    Kitazato, K., Milliken, R. E., Iwata, T., et al.\ 2019, Science, 364, 272

    2019

  31. [39]

    M., Kokotanekova, R., & Samarasinha, N

    Knight, M. M., Kokotanekova, R., & Samarasinha, N. H.\ 2023, arXiv:2304.09309

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Komiyama, Y., et al.\ 2018, , 70, S2

    2018

  33. [41]

    L., Toth, I., Fernandez, Y

    Lamy, P. L., Toth, I., Fernandez, Y. R., et al.\ 2004, Comets II, 223

    2004

  34. [42]

    L., Toth, I., Weaver, H

    Lamy, P. L., Toth, I., Weaver, H. A., et al.\ 2011, , 412, 3, 1573

    2011

  35. [43]

    Maeda, N., Terai, T., Ohtsuki, K., et al.\ 2021, , 162, 280

    2021

  36. [44]

    Mann, A. W. & von Braun, K.\ 2015, , 127, 948, 102

    2015

  37. [45]

    Masoumzadeh, N., et al.\ 2017, , 599, A11

    2017

  38. [46]

    Masoumzadeh, N., et al.\ 2019, , 630, A11

    2019

  39. [47]

    J., Hainaut, O

    Meech, K. J., Hainaut, O. R., & Marsden, B. G.\ 2004, Icarus, 170, 2, 463

    2004

  40. [48]

    I., Rosenbush, V

    Mishchenko, M. I., Rosenbush, V. K., & Kiselev, N. N.\ 2006, , 45, 4459

    2006

  41. [49]

    Miyazaki, S., et al.\ 2018, , 70, S1

    2018

  42. [50]

    N., Cellino, A., Delb \`o , M., Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Penttil \"a , A., & Tedesco, E

    Muinonen, K., Belskaya, I. N., Cellino, A., Delb \`o , M., Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Penttil \"a , A., & Tedesco, E. F.\ 2010, Icarus, 209, 542

    2010

  43. [51]

    G., et al.\ 2002, Asteroids III, 123

    Muinonen, K., Piironen, J., Shkuratov, Y. G., et al.\ 2002, Asteroids III, 123

    2002

  44. [52]

    T.\ 1967, , 149, L147

    O'Leary, B. T.\ 1967, , 149, L147

    1967

  45. [53]

    Ootsubo, T., Kawakita, H., & Shinnaka, Y.\ 2021, Icarus, 363, 114425

    2021

  46. [54]

    Ootsubo, T., Takata, T., Furusawa, J., et al.\ 2025, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXXII, 538, 397

    2025

  47. [55]

    G., Wilkman, O., & Muinonen, K.\ 2016, , 123, 117

    Penttil \"a , A., Shevchenko, V. G., Wilkman, O., & Muinonen, K.\ 2016, , 123, 117

    2016

  48. [56]

    S., Howell, E

    Rivkin, A. S., Howell, E. S., Vilas, F., et al.\ 2002, Asteroids III, 235

    2002

  49. [57]

    Rosenbush, V., Kiselev, N., Avramchuk, V., et al.\ 2002, in Optics of Cosmic Dust, ed. G. Videen & M. Kocifaj (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 191

    2002

  50. [58]

    S., Wang S.-Y., 2018, PASJ, 70, 116

    Sakugawa H., Terai T., Ohtsuki K., Yoshida F., Takato N., Lykawka P. S., Wang S.-Y., 2018, PASJ, 70, 116

    2018

  51. [59]

    Schleicher, D., Knight, M., Skiff, B., & Bair, A.\ 2022, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, 54, 309.03

    2022

  52. [60]

    V., & Carry, B.\ 2021, , 652, A59

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

    2021

  53. [61]

    G.\ 1996, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 27, 1193

    Shevchenko, V. G.\ 1996, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 27, 1193

    1996

  54. [62]

    G., Belskaya, I

    Shevchenko, V. G., Belskaya, I. N., Muinonen, K., et al.\ 2016, , 123, 101. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2015.11.007

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    Sugita, S., et al.\ 2019, Science, 364, eaaw0422

    2019

  56. [64]

    Terai, T., et al.\ 2018, , 70, S40

    2018

  57. [65]

    Uehata, K., Terai, T., Ohtsuki, K., et al.\ 2022, , 163, 213

    2022

  58. [66]

    Usui, F., Hasegawa, S., Ootsubo, T., et al.\ 2019, , 71, 1

    2019

  59. [67]

    Yokoyama, T., Nagashima, K., Nakai, I., et al.\ 2023, Science, 379, abn7850

    2023

  60. [68]

    Yoshida, F., Nakamura, T., Watanabe, J.-I., et al.\ 2003, , 55, 701

    2003

  61. [69]

    & Nakamura, T.\ 2005, , 130, 2900

    Yoshida, F. & Nakamura, T.\ 2005, , 130, 2900

    2005

  62. [70]

    & Nakamura, T.\ 2008, , 60, 297

    Yoshida, F. & Nakamura, T.\ 2008, , 60, 297

    2008

  63. [71]

    & Terai, T.\ 2017, , 154, 71

    Yoshida, F. & Terai, T.\ 2017, , 154, 71

    2017

  64. [72]

    Yoshida, F., Terai, T., Ito, T., et al.\ 2019, , 169, 78

    2019

  65. [73]

    Yoshida, F., Yanagisawa, T., Ito, T., et al.\ 2024, , 76, 720

    2024

  66. [74]

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

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.