Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Recurrent Cometary Activity Discovered on Quasi-Hilda Jupiter Family Comet 362P/(457175) 2008 GO98

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quasi-Hilda Jupiter-family comet 362P has now shown cometary activity in two perihelion passages, with all positive detections near perihelion and none in the long arc away from it, pointing to repeatable, thermally driven sublimation of…

desk verdict A solid second-epoch activity discovery that deserves refereeing, but the perihelion-confinement and thermal-driving story leans on unquantified archival non-detections. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17808 v1 pith:CQX23SGU submitted 2025-07-23 astro-ph.EP

Kennedy A. Farrell , Colin Orion Chandler , Chadwick A. Trujillo , William J. Oldroyd , Jarod A. DeSpain , Mark Jesus Mendoza Magbanua , Maxwell K. Frissell , Phineas Stone This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords comettailsHildagroupdynamicsquasi-HildarecurrentcometaryactivityvolatilesublimationJupiter-family362P/(457175)2008GO98
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

362P/(457175) 2008 GO98 is a Jupiter-family comet in a quasi-Hilda orbit—an orbit that approaches Jupiter's 3:2 resonance without being locked into it. The paper reports that this comet has now shown cometary activity in two separate apparitions: the known 2016–2017 epoch and a new epoch running from 2024 January 12 to September 4, spanning true anomaly 318.1 degrees inbound to 10.5 degrees outbound. Archival survey images extend the first epoch's active window and show no activity in the long arc away from perihelion (83 degrees < nu < 318 degrees). The authors take this perihelion-confined pattern as evidence that the activity is thermally driven by solar heating and volatile sublimation, and their dynamical simulations suggest the comet will remain in its current combined Jupiter-family/quasi-Hilda state for about a millennium before Jupiter encounters make its orbit chaotic.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by 362P itself, tracked in true anomaly (the angle along its orbit measured from perihelion) rather than calendar time alone. Three tools do the work: a catalog of positive and negative activity detections mapped onto heliocentric distance and true anomaly; a simple thermophysical model that brackets the surface temperature between a flat Sun-facing slab (chi = 1) and a rapidly rotating isothermal body (chi = 4), showing perihelion temperatures in the water-sublimation regime; and N-body clone simulations that connect a recent drop in semi-major axis to a 2011 Jupiter encounter, tying the orbital change to the onset of activity. Together these identify the mechanism the paper claims is at work—repeated solar-driven sublimation of volatiles confined to the perihelion arc.

What would settle it

A well-characterized detection of a coma or tail at a true anomaly outside the claimed active window (for example, nu between 83 degrees and 318 degrees, far from perihelion) in an image as deep as the positive detections would falsify the perihelion-confinement claim; conversely, targeted deep imaging of 362P near aphelion that shows no coma or tail would strengthen it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that 362P is a recurrently active comet. Activity appeared inbound at true anomaly nu = 318.1 degrees in January 2024 and persisted through perihelion on 2024 July 20 and out to nu = 10.5 degrees in September 2024, matching the pattern of the 2016–2017 epoch. Combining dedicated follow-up observations with archival survey images, the authors establish positive detections only near perihelion and no detections in the 83 degrees < nu < 318 degrees arc, and they read this as thermally driven sublimation of volatile ices heated by the Sun. The same material extends the first epoch's active window, so the paper concludes that 362P's activity recurs perihelion after perihelion and is volatile-driven rather than a one-off event.

Load-bearing premise

The perihelion-confinement pattern rests on the assumption that the archival images covering the away-from-perihelion arc (83 degrees < nu < 318 degrees) are deep and sharp enough that an active coma or tail would have been visible, an assumption the authors explicitly say they did not verify.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pattern holds, 362P should show a third activity epoch around its next perihelion passage on UT 2031 June 14, and continued observations through at least 2024 December will test whether outbound activity fades as it did after 2016–2017.
  • The active windows—roughly nu = 318 degrees to 10.5 degrees in 2024 and nu = 322 degrees to 82 degrees in 2016–2017—quantify where along the orbit sublimation turns on and off.
  • If the lack of detections in the 83–318 degree arc is real, the volatile supply is not being released at large heliocentric distances, supporting sublimation over collision or rotational-destruction triggers.
  • Dynamically, 362P should remain a quasi-Hilda/Jupiter-family object for about the next 1 kyr before Jupiter encounters make its orbit chaotic, giving a window in which its repeating activity can be monitored.
  • A probable origin as a long-period comet or Centaur, together with recurrent activity, makes 362P a way to watch how recently delivered material survives repeated perihelion heating.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not carry out: if the perihelion-confined activity is sublimation-driven, dust photometry from the 2016 and 2024 epochs could be compared to estimate whether the nucleus is losing volatile mass apparition by apparition.
  • The undetected arc includes aphelion; a dedicated deep search near aphelion would separate true dormancy from the detection-threshold bias the paper acknowledges, since the authors did not assess the depth of the archival non-detections.
  • The dynamical link between the 2011 Jupiter encounter, the drop in semi-major axis, and the onset of activity suggests that other quasi-Hildas with recent semi-major axis jumps are promising targets for recurrent-activity searches, an extension the authors did not pursue.
  • If the 53% long-period-comet origin is correct, 362P's volatile inventory may resemble that of a dynamically new comet more than a typical Jupiter-family comet, a distinction that could be tested with measurements of CO or CO2 production relative to water.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of a second epoch of cometary activity on quasi-Hilda Jupiter-family comet 362P/(457175) 2008 GO98, detected in new LDT, ARC, and VATT observations between UT 2024 January 12 and September 4 and in archival ZTF images. The authors also recover previously unreported activity from the first (2016-2017) epoch in archival DECam, LCOGT, and SkyMapper observations. Based on detections near perihelion and no detections at true anomalies 83-318 degrees, they argue for thermally driven volatile sublimation. Dynamical simulations show that 362P is currently a quasi-Hilda JFC, will experience dynamical chaos within about 1 kyr, and most likely originated as a long-period comet or Centaur.

Significance. The discovery of recurrent activity on a quasi-Hilda comet is a valuable addition to the small sample of active objects in this dynamical class, and the archival recovery extends the activity timeline substantially. The paper makes good use of multiple observing facilities and explicitly acknowledges the main limitation of its non-detection analysis. If the activity claims and the perihelion-confinement pattern hold up quantitatively, the result would support a volatile-sublimation interpretation for 362P and motivate future monitoring. However, the central interpretive claim rests on a contrast between positive detections and non-detections that is not yet quantitatively established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Figures 1 and 4] The positive activity detections are presented through images alone, with no quantitative measurement such as a radial surface brightness profile compared to the point-spread function of field stars, an aperture-photometry excess, or a measurement of the tail/coma morphology. Since the central claim is the discovery of a second activity epoch, the manuscript should include at least one quantitative metric demonstrating that the apparent extended emission is real and not a processing or crowding artifact.
  2. [Section 4 and Abstract] The claim of 'absence of activity away from perihelion' is not supported by a sensitivity analysis. The authors explicitly state that they have not assessed the quality of archival data outside perihelion and that deeper images may reveal activity. Because the thermally-driven sublimation conclusion relies on the contrast between perihelion detections and non-detections at 83-318 degrees, the manuscript must either provide limiting magnitudes or surface-brightness thresholds for the archival non-detections, or the conclusion must be reframed to state only that activity was detected near perihelion in the examined data, not that the object is inactive away from perihelion.
  3. [Section 4, thermal modeling] The statement that 362P 'currently experiences ±25 K temperature variations which bring or keep it well into the regime where water sublimation would occur' is not substantiated with a sublimation model or a quantitative threshold. The paper should either cite or present a model showing that the computed temperatures are sufficient for water ice sublimation at these heliocentric distances, or temper the claim about volatile species.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a duplicated sentence: 'The first activity epoch was discovered during the perihelion passage of 362P. The first activity epoch was discovered during the perihelion in 2016...' should be condensed to one statement.
  2. [Section 2, Section 5] The interval notation '318.1° > ν < 10.5°' is mathematically incorrect; it should be written as '318.1° < ν < 360° and 0° < ν < 10.5°' or equivalent to describe the arc spanning perihelion.
  3. [Table 1] The 2015 February 18 DECam observation (ν = 258.9°, r = 3.865 au) is listed as a positive detection source but no activity is reported for it; the table caption should clarify that this is a non-detection or the row should be moved to a separate table of non-detections with sensitivity limits.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Berthier et al. (2006) and Weisenburger et al. (2017); these should be consolidated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the second activity epoch is a direct observational detection and the thermal interpretation uses an independent model, with the non-detection caveat explicitly acknowledged in the text.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a new, direct detection of cometary activity on 362P between UT 2024 January and September, plus archival recoveries that extend the known activity window. These detections are image-based (tails and coma) and do not depend on any fitted parameter or on the paper's own prior results. The thermally-driven-sublimation interpretation is supported by an independent thermophysical calculation (Chandler et al. 2020; Hsieh et al. 2015b) that computes surface temperature from heliocentric distance and rotation extremes; the temperature curve is not fit to the activity detections and no equation of the paper reduces one to the other. The paper explicitly hedges the 'absence away from perihelion' part of the pattern: 'we have not specifically assessed the quality of archival data taken outside of perihelion... deeper images may reveal activity during this period that was not visible in archival images.' This is a candor-limited evidentiary caveat, not a definitional or constructed identity. Self-citations (Chandler et al. 2020, 2022, 2024; Oldroyd et al. 2023) are used for methodology (thermal model, clone generation, activity-rate context) and never as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole support for the central detection. The forward statement that 362P will remain active is an extrapolation from two observed epochs, not a fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its input by construction.

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

The analysis relies on standard assumptions about thermal modeling, visual activity detection, and N-body integration reliability. No free parameters are fit to the activity data, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A gray, airless body thermal model with chi = 1 to 4 brackets the surface temperature of 362P.
    Used in Section 4 to argue temperature supports water sublimation near perihelion. Real comets have rotation, albedo, and thermal inertia effects that may shift temperatures.
  • domain assumption Visual detection of a tail or coma in the provided images is a reliable indicator of cometary activity.
    Activity assessments in Sections 2 and 4 rely on visual inspection of Figures 1 and 4 without quantitative photometric measurements or objective detection thresholds.
  • domain assumption 500 orbital clones integrated with IAS15 over 100 kyr adequately sample the dynamical history and future of 362P.
    The statistical origin percentages (53% LPC, 32% Centaur, 15% JFC) and the 'chaos beyond 1 kyr' conclusion depend on this sampling; the authors acknowledge that chaos limits the validity of long-term integrations.
  • domain assumption The JPL Horizons orbital solution provides accurate initial conditions for the dynamical simulations.
    Initial orbital elements and uncertainties from JPL Horizons (Table 2) are used to generate clones; systematic errors in the astrometric solution would propagate into the simulation results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recurrent Cometary Activity Discovered on Quasi-Hilda Jupiter Family Comet 362P/(457175) 2008 GO98." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQX23SGU

@misc{pith2026250717808,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recurrent Cometary Activity Discovered on Quasi-Hilda Jupiter Family Comet 362P/(457175) 2008 GO98},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQX23SGU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17808}
}
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of recurrent activity on quasi-Hilda comet (QHC) 362P/(457175) 2008 GO98. The first activity epoch was discovered during the perihelion passage of 362P. The first activity epoch was discovered during the perihelion in 2016 (Garcia-Migani & Gil-Hutton 2018), so we were motivated to observe it for recurrent cometary activity near its next perihelion passage (UT 2024 July 20). We obtained observations with the Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT), the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) telescope, and the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) and identified a second activity epoch when 362P had a true anomaly (v) as early as 318.1 deg. We conducted archival searches of numerous repositories and identified images obtained with Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) MegaCam, Dark Energy Camera (DECam), Pan-STARRS 1, SkyMapper, Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), and Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope (LCOGT) network data. Using these data, we identified activity from a previously unreported timespan, and we did not detect activity when 362P was away from perihelion, specifically 83 deg < v < 318 deg. Detection of activity near perihelion and absence of activity away from perihelion suggest thermally-driven activity and volatile sublimation. Our dynamical simulations suggest 362P is a QHC and it will remain in a combined Jupiter-family comet (JFC) and quasi-Hilda orbit over the next 1 kyr, though it will become increasingly chaotic nearing the end of this timeframe. Our backward simulations suggest 362P may have migrated from the orbit of a Long Period Comet (~53%) or Centaur (~32%), otherwise it remained a JFC (~15%) over the previous 100 kyr. We recommend additional telescope observations from the community as 362P continues outbound from its perihelion on UT 2024 July 20, as well as continued observations for a third activity epoch.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17808 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images of 362P (at center) displaying cometary activity between the anti-velocity (red arrow) and anti-solar (yellow arrow) directions. The FOV is 126′′× 126′′, with North up and East left. (a) UT 2024 January 12 Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT) 5×300s, VR-filter image taken with the Large Monolithic Imager (PI: C. Trujillo, Observers: W. Oldroyd, K. Farrell). (b) UT 2024 January 13 Astrophysical Research Consortium… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observability and Thermodynamical Modeling of 362P from 2012 to 2033. Descending, sub￾panels show heliocentric distance (r) in au with markers indicating positive activity detections (red) and negative activity detections (blue), both inbound and outbound (downward and upward pointing triangles, respectively), apparent V -band magnitude, observability in hours per day, and temperature (T) in Kelvin of 362P for the t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a & b): Orbits (blue) of (153) Hilda and 362P, respectively, in the co-rotating reference frame with Jupiter (orange). The axis ”X Corotating frame” indicates the x-axis of the corotating frame, and ”Y Corotating frame” indicates the y-axis of the corotating frame. The aphelion distance of Mars (red) is shown for reference. (c): Orbit diagram; note the proximity of the orbits of 362P and Jupiter. (d): Semi-major ax… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Caption continues on next page [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

  2. [2]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Berthier, J., Vachier, F., Thuillot, W., et al. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 367

    2006

  3. [3]

    2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV ASP Conference Series, Vol

    Berthier, J., Vachier, F., Thuillot, W., et al. 2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV ASP Conference Series, Vol. 351 (Orem, UT: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 367

    2006

  4. [4]

    Bowell, E., Muinonen, K., & Wasserman, L. H. 1994, in Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 1993, ed. A. Milani, M. di Martino, & A. Cellino, Vol. 160, 477–481

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7946442 2023

  6. [6]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031, doi: 10.1086/673168

    doi:10.1086/673168 2013

  7. [7]

    E., & Oldroyd, W

    Trilling, D. E., & Oldroyd, W. J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 892, L38, doi: 10/gg36xz

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    O., Oldroyd, W

    Chandler, C. O., Oldroyd, W. J., & Trujillo, C. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac897a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac897a 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    O., Trujillo, C

    Chandler, C. O., Trujillo, C. A., Oldroyd, W. J., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1de2

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3234 da Costa-Luis, C., Larroque, S

    Correa-Otto, J., Garc ´ ıa-Migani, E., & Gil-Hutton, R. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3234 da Costa-Luis, C., Larroque, S. K., Altendorf, K., et al. 2020, tqdm: A fast, Extensible Progress Bar for Python and CLI, v4.5...

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Orellana, R. B. 2005, Icarus, 174, 81, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.10.024 Di Sisto, R. P., Ramos, X. S., & Gallardo, T. 2019, Icarus, 319, 828, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.10.029

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Dones, L., Volk, K., Womack, M., & Nesvorn´ y, D

    Fraser, W. C., Dones, L., Volk, K., Womack, M., & Nesvorn´ y, D. 2022, The Transition from the Kuiper Belt to the Jupiter-Family (Comets). https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.16354 Garc ´ ıa-Migani, E., & Gil-Hutton, R. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 160, 12, doi: https://doi.org/1...

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2016, A&A, 590, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628184

    Gil-Hutton, R., & Garc ´ ıa-Migani, E. 2016, A&A, 590, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628184

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Yeomans, D

    Giorgini, J. D., Yeomans, D. K., Chamberlin, A. B., et al. 1996, American Astronomical Society, 28, 25.04

    1996

  8. [16]

    D., Hill, N., & Kavelaars, J

    Gwyn, S. D., Hill, N., & Kavelaars, J. 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 579

    2012

  9. [17]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    H., Denneau, L., Wainscoat, R

    Hsieh, H. H., Denneau, L., Wainscoat, R. J., et al. 2015a, Icarus, 248, 289, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.10.031 —. 2015b, Icarus, 248, 289, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.10.031

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Huehnerhoff, J., Ketzeback, W., Bradley, A., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2016

  12. [20]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99085H, doi: 10.1117/12.2234214

    doi

  13. [21]

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

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    2015, in Asteroids IV (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press), 221–241

    Jewitt, D., Hsieh, H., & Agarwal, J. 2015, in Asteroids IV (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press), 221–241

    2015

  15. [23]

    Jewitt, D., & Hsieh, H. H. 2022, The Asteroid-Comet Continuum. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01397

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Joye, W. A. 2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV ASP Conference

    2006

  17. [25]

    C., Schmidt, B

    Keller, S. C., Schmidt, B. P., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 24, 1–12, doi: 10.1071/AS07001

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2010, Astronomical Journal, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    Roweis, S. 2010, Astronomical Journal, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Hamilton, R., & Kuehn, K. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12182, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IX, ed. H. K. Marshall, J. Spyromilio, & T. Usuda, 1218227, doi: 10.1117/12.2629797

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Levison, H. F. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 107, Completing the Inventory of the Solar System, ed. T. Rettig & J. M. Hahn, 173–191

    1996

  21. [29]

    2023, Semi-major Axis Jumps as the Activity Trigger in Centaurs and High-Perihelion Jupiter Family Comets

    Lilly, E., Jevˇ c´ ak, P., Schambeau, C., et al. 2023, Semi-major Axis Jumps as the Activity Trigger in Centaurs and High-Perihelion Jupiter Family Comets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06847

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2021, AAS Division of Planetary Science meeting #53, id

    Moskovitz, N., Burt, B., Schottland, R., et al. 2021, AAS Division of Planetary Science meeting #53, id. 101.04, 53, 101.04

    2021

  23. [31]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 143, 23, doi: 10/fb95hg

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 143, 23, doi: 10/fb95hg

    2000

  24. [32]

    J., Chandler, C

    Oldroyd, W. J., Chandler, C. O., Trujillo, C. A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfcbc

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, Pandas-Dev/Pandas: Pandas 1.4.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6408044

    Reback, J., jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., et al. 2022, Pandas-Dev/Pandas: Pandas 1.4.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6408044

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2164

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10/gfvntd

    2013

  29. [37]

    2006, A&A, 448, 1191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053492

    Toth, I. 2006, A&A, 448, 1191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053492

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 102, doi: 10.21105/joss.00102

    Weisenburger, K., Huehnerhoff, J., Levesque, E., & Massey, P. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 102, doi: 10.21105/joss.00102

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    L., Huehnerhoff, J., Levesque, E

    Weisenburger, K. L., Huehnerhoff, J., Levesque, E. M., & Massey, P. 2017, J. Open Source Softw., 2, 102

    2017

  33. [41]

    C., Nagel, R

    West, S. C., Nagel, R. H., Harvey, D. A., et al. 1997, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    1997

  34. [42]

    2871, Optical Telescopes of Today and Tomorrow, ed

    Series, Vol. 2871, Optical Telescopes of Today and Tomorrow, ed. A. L. Ardeberg, 74–85, doi: 10.1117/12.268968

    doi

Pith tools

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