adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Implications for the Formation of (155140) 2005 UD from a New Convex Shape Model
Authors: Jay K. Kueny, Colin Orion Chandler, Maxime Devogéle, Nicholas Moskovitz, Petr Pravec, Hana Kučáková, Kamil Hornoch, Peter Kušnirák, Mikael Granvik, Christina Konstantopoulou, Nicholas E. Jannsen, Shane Moran, Lauri Siltala, Grigori Fedorets, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Theodore Kareta, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Geocentric ecliptic coordinates at the time observations of 2005 UD were obtained. The small blue circles indicate the ecliptic coordinate of 2005 UD from 2005 September 5 to 2024 December 31 with a resolution of 1 day. The 2005, 2018, 2019, and 2021 dense light curves included in our analysis are shown as the orange squares, green stars, blue triangles, and magenta circles, respectively. A past viewing opportunity in 2020 November is represented as the red vertical hash region. Additional viewing opportunities of 2005 UD in late 2023 and late 2024 are represented as the black horizontal ticks and yellow cross regions, respectively. Ecliptic coordinates of 2005 UD were obtained from JPL Horizons (Giorgini et al. 1996).
Paper: Implications for the Formation of (155140) 2005 UD from a New Convex Shape Model
Authors: Jay K. Kueny, Colin Orion Chandler, Maxime Devogéle, Nicholas Moskovitz, Petr Pravec, Hana Kučáková, Kamil Hornoch, Peter Kušnirák, Mikael Granvik, Christina Konstantopoulou, Nicholas E. Jannsen, Shane Moran, Lauri Siltala, Grigori Fedorets, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Theodore Kareta, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Polar projection map comparing our four pole solutions from light curve inversion, candidate thermophysical pole solutions from Devogèle et al. (2020), and Phaethon’s spin pole region from Hanuš et al. (2018) and Kim et al. (2018). The map is centered on the south ecliptic pole. The green circles show accepted light curve inversion solutions, while the crossed-out red circles represent our rejected solutions. The color bar represents χ 2 values of the thermophysical solutions, which are represented as stars; only retrograde solutions with χ 2 ≤ 5 are shown for clarity. The best-fitting thermophysical solution is represented by the large black star. Phaethon’s spin axis orientation with approximate uncertainty is marked as the letter P surrounded by the blue extended region.
Paper: Implications for the Formation of (155140) 2005 UD from a New Convex Shape Model
Authors: Jay K. Kueny, Colin Orion Chandler, Maxime Devogéle, Nicholas Moskovitz, Petr Pravec, Hana Kučáková, Kamil Hornoch, Peter Kušnirák, Mikael Granvik, Christina Konstantopoulou, Nicholas E. Jannsen, Shane Moran, Lauri Siltala, Grigori Fedorets, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Theodore Kareta, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: The period_scan results from our set of 84 light curves with optimized weights. The black points represent local minima in the sidereal period, pole orientation, and shape parameter space. The blue horizontal line shows the χ 2 value 10% higher than the global minimum to which we consider points underneath to be viable solutions. The only solution that satisfies this criterion for the rotational sidereal period with our data set is P sid = 5.234246 ± 0.000097, shown in red.
Paper: Implications for the Formation of (155140) 2005 UD from a New Convex Shape Model
Authors: Jay K. Kueny, Colin Orion Chandler, Maxime Devogéle, Nicholas Moskovitz, Petr Pravec, Hana Kučáková, Kamil Hornoch, Peter Kušnirák, Mikael Granvik, Christina Konstantopoulou, Nicholas E. Jannsen, Shane Moran, Lauri Siltala, Grigori Fedorets, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Theodore Kareta, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Convex shape model of 2005 UD using our preferred pole solution displayed in a variety of viewing geometries. View descriptions in left to right progression: positive isometric, negative isometric, along y-axis, and along x-axis. The scale values are unitless and show the relative sizes of the xyz-axes of our convex approximation. The equator of 2005 UD is parallel to the x-y plane. The light source was arbitrarily placed and does not necessarily reflect the location of the Sun for any given observation.
Paper: Toward 3D Retrieval of Exoplanet Atmospheres: Assessing Thermochemical Equilibrium Estimation Methods
Authors: Michael D. Himes, Joseph Harrington, Atılım Güneş Baydin
Figure caption: Two example cases comparing the outputs of one of the NN models with the corresponding TEA outputs. Left: case where the NN’s predictions closely match the outputs of TEA, at a temperature of ∼1053 K, log C/H of −3.57, log N/H of −4.17, and log O/H of −3.31 over the full range of pressures considered in Table 1. Right: case where the NN performs less accurately, at a temperature of ∼2112 K, M/H of 2.5, and C/O of 0.9 (log C/H of −0.956, log N/H of −1.556, and log O/H of −0.910). Despite the less accurate performance, the NN’s predictions are within an order of magnitude of the true values, except for H2O, CO2, and HCN at the lowest pressures. Only abundances ≥10−15 are shown for clarity.
Paper: Toward 3D Retrieval of Exoplanet Atmospheres: Assessing Thermochemical Equilibrium Estimation Methods
Authors: Michael D. Himes, Joseph Harrington, Atılım Güneş Baydin
Figure caption: Same as Figure 2 but using the grid of Cubillos et al. (2019) to illustrate NN inaccuracies at phase space extrema. While RATE (left column) performs accurately at a metallicity of −3, predictions using NN3 (right column) for this metallicity feature significant error in certain pressure–temperature regions. Note that the RATE plots differ from those in Cubillos et al. (2019), as we additionally consider helium in this investigation, which adjusts the relative abundances and therefore the relative errors.
Paper: Implications for the Formation of (155140) 2005 UD from a New Convex Shape Model
Authors: Jay K. Kueny, Colin Orion Chandler, Maxime Devogéle, Nicholas Moskovitz, Petr Pravec, Hana Kučáková, Kamil Hornoch, Peter Kušnirák, Mikael Granvik, Christina Konstantopoulou, Nicholas E. Jannsen, Shane Moran, Lauri Siltala, Grigori Fedorets, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Theodore Kareta, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Suite of 2005 UD light curves compared to model fits. Each plot features a single light curve from assorted epochs in 2005, 2018, 2019, and 2021. Overlaid are light curve predictions of our preferred model from the convex inversion procedure represented as a solid blue line. UT dates marking the start of observations for each light curve are present as plot titles. The data behind this figure are available and include all 84 individual observations; see tables in Appendix B for details on each observation. The data are in the form of a DAMIT input file. User can run the code to get the model values or extract the observed, relative brightness from the input file. (The data used to create this figure are available.)
Paper: Implications for the Formation of (155140) 2005 UD from a New Convex Shape Model
Authors: Jay K. Kueny, Colin Orion Chandler, Maxime Devogéle, Nicholas Moskovitz, Petr Pravec, Hana Kučáková, Kamil Hornoch, Peter Kušnirák, Mikael Granvik, Christina Konstantopoulou, Nicholas E. Jannsen, Shane Moran, Lauri Siltala, Grigori Fedorets, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Theodore Kareta, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Left: (g − r) color as a function of rotation. The data points were computed by subtracting linearly interpolated r from measured g for a given r-g-r sequence. The calculated mean of these residuals is shown as the dashed horizontal black line. We represent one standard deviation from the mean as the dotted horizontal red lines, which confirm no signs of color variation outside of this limit. The (g − r) color of the Sun is underlaid as the green horizontal line with surrounding error for reference. Right: same as the left panel, but with (r – i) color.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Plot of Band I center vs. Band II center for the ordinary chondrites El Hammami, Viñales, and Chelyabinsk and the HED meteorites NWA 10562, Camel Donga, and Tatahouine. The average Band I and II center values were found for each meteorite and are displayed in the plot. The error bars extend to the minimum and maximum values for the Band I and II centers for each meteorite due to variation in grain size.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Near-infrared spectra of different grain sizes of howardite NWA 10562, eucrite Camel Donga, and diogenite Tatahouine. The left column spectra display absolute reflectance, and the right column spectra are normalized at 1.4 μm. All three meteorites display a general trend of absolute reflectance decreasing with an increase in grain size, although there is significant overlap between NWA 10562's larger grain size bins, especially the 300–500 and 500–1000 μm bins. There is some overlap between Camel Donga’s 150–300 and 300–500 μm bins, and there is overlap between Tatahouine’s three largest grain size bins around 0.90 μm and between the 150–300 and 300–500 μm bins around 1.90 μm.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Plot of Band I center vs. BAR for the ordinary chondrites El Hammami, Viñales, and Chelyabinsk and the HED meteorites NWA 10562, Camel Donga, and Tatahouine. The average Band I center and BAR values were found for each meteorite and are displayed in the plot. The error bars extend to the minimum and maximum values for the Band I center and BAR for a range of grain sizes for each meteorite.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Plot of the molar content of olivine (fayalite) vs. the olivine–pyroxene abundance ratio for the three ordinary chondrites in our study. Black dashed boxes represent the range of measured values for each ordinary chondrite subgroup. Gray solid boxes correspond to the uncertainties associated with the spectrally derived values from Sanchez et al. (2020). Errors for Fa and Olv/Px were calculated by Sanchez et al. (2020). The figure is adapted from Dunn et al. (2010). The marker sizes vary from smallest to largest based on which grain size group the marker represents, as described in the legend.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Principal component analysis of 710 NEAs with the α-line boundary from DeMeo et al. (2009), which separates the S and C/X complexes. Space-weathering and shock-darkening trends are shown as adapted from Binzel et al. (2019) and Reddy et al. (2014). Ordinary chondrite grain size trends for El Hammami (H), Viñales (L), and Chelyabinsk (LL) and HED grain size trends for NWA 10562 (howardite), Camel Donga (eucrite), and Tatahouine (diogenite) at 45–90, 90–150, 150–300, 300–500, and 500–1000 μm grain sizes are shown with increasing marker size.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Plot of the molar content of pyroxene (forsterite) vs. the olivine–pyroxene abundance ratio. Black dashed boxes represent the range of measured values for each ordinary chondrite subgroup. Gray solid boxes correspond to the uncertainties associated with the spectrally derived values from Sanchez et al. (2020). Errors for Fs and Olv/Px were calculated by Sanchez et al. (2020). The figure is adapted from Dunn et al. (2010). The marker sizes vary from smallest to largest based on which grain size group the marker represents, as described in the legend.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Plots of Band I and II centers and BAR vs. grain size for the HED meteorites NWA 10562 (howardite), Camel Donga (eucrite), and Tatahouine (diogenite). The errors are smaller than the symbols, but they are reported in the tables.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Plot of the molar content of fayalite vs. the molar content of forsterite from Nakamura et al. (2011). Chelyabinsk and Viñales are plotted within the LL and L chondrite zones, respectively. El Hammami is plotted in the H/L chondrite transition zone. The marker sizes vary from smallest to largest based on which grain size group the marker represents, as described in the legend. The error bars in the upper right corner correspond to the uncertainties associated with the spectrally derived values from Sanchez et al. (2020), 2.0 mol% for Fa and 1.4 mol% for Fs.
Paper: Grain Size Effects on Visible and Near-infrared (0.35–2.5 μm) Laboratory Spectra of Ordinary Chondrite and HED Meteorites
Authors: Bryn Bowen, Vishnu Reddy, Mario De Florio, Theodore Kareta, Neil Pearson, Roberto Furfaro, Benjamin Sharkey, Allison McGraw, David Cantillo, Juan A. Sanchez, Adam Battle
Figure caption: Optimized Hapke model parameters ω, b, and c for the Camel Donga meteorite for the grain size 45–90 μm.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Spin period solution for asteroid 4715 obtained from 23 W4 observations spanning 3.6 days. The best-fit, primary period solution at 4.962 ± 0.01 hr (4.84 rot day−1) is an alias (mirrored around f = 3.7831 rot day−1) of the presumed correct LCDB value of 8.812 9 hr (2.72 rot day−1). The secondary period solution at 8.793 0 hr is accurate at the 0.2% level.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Best-fit rotational frequency (this work) vs. LCDB rotational frequency for the LCDB reference group. The dashed gray line is at f = 3.7831 rot day−1, which is the expected folding frequency for a 3.17 hr cadence and the predominant aliasing mode. Most of the best-fit solutions (55%) are accurate (green dots). The solutions mirrored about 3.783 1 rot day−1 (dark blue dots) are also accurate in 27% of the cases, and the solutions mirrored about 7.566 2 rot day−1 (light blue dots) are accurate in 6% of the cases. The inaccurate solutions (red dots) represent 12% of the cases. The combination of best-fit and mirrored solutions yields an aggregate success rate of 88%.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Rotational frequency vs. diameter diagram for the 659 lightcurves in the LCDB reference group where one of our spin period solutions matched the LCDB to 5%. Only the spin period solutions that match the LCDB value are plotted, with color coding indicating our primary, secondary, or tertiary solutions. The red dashed line at P = 3.17 hr corresponds to the upper range of trial frequencies explored in the fitting process. The gray dashed line at P = 2.2 hr illustrates the spin barrier. Diameters are from Myhrvold et al. (2022).
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Spin period solution for asteroid 2812 obtained from 14 W4 observations spanning 1.2 days. The period solution at 7.737 ± 0.30 hr is in good agreement with the LCDB value of 7.7 hr. The correct solution was identified despite a relatively low S/N and the presence of competing solutions with similar but larger χ 2 values.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Spin period solution for asteroid 6485 obtained from 22 W4 observations spanning 5.2 days. The best-fit, primary period solution at 3.311 ± 0.035 hr (7.25 rot day−1) is an alias (mirrored around f = 3.7831 rot day−1) of the presumed correct LCDB value of 75.56 hr (0.318 rot day−1). The secondary period solution at 75.445 hr is accurate at the 0.2% level.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Spin period solution for asteroid 10721 obtained from 18 W4 observations spanning 1.8 days. The period solution at 3.272 ± 0.031 hr (7.33 rot day−1) is an alias (mirrored around f = 7.5662 rot day−1) of the presumed correct LCDB value of 3.067 5 hr (7.82 rot day−1). The tertiary period solution at 3.078 hr is accurate at the 0.3% level.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Spin period solution for asteroid 2715 obtained from 16 W4 observations spanning 1.5 days. The period solution at 33.195 ± 2.19 hr is in good agreement with the LCDB value of 33.62 hr. The correct solution was identified despite a data observation span that is only slightly longer than the spin period.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Scatter plot of the lightcurve amplitudes of our primary solutions for the 752 objects in the LCDB reference group and corresponding LCDB amplitudes.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Incorrect spin period solution for asteroid 244 obtained from 12 W4 observations spanning 20.6 hr. None of our solutions match the LCDB period (129.5 hr or 5.4 days). WISE observations of this slow rotator cover only a small fraction of the full rotational phase, which prevents accurate recovery of the spin period.
Paper: Thermal Models of Asteroids with Two-band Combinations of Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer Cryogenic Data
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Jean-Luc Margot, Adrian L. H. Lam, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Observed dichotomy in pseudo-temperature solutions for two-band fits illustrated with results from 200 bootstrap trials for asteroid 10125. Top: Planck spectral distributions of emitted light (dotted lines) and reflected light (dashed lines) calculated with the median pseudo-temperature T 1 and median diameter D obtained from the bootstrap trials. The orange curves correspond to the median of 80 trials with high pseudo-temperatures and the purple curves correspond to the median of 120 trials with low pseudo-temperatures. Note how two dissimilar pseudo-temperatures yield a similar total flux (solid lines) within the W2 band, while also yielding similar W3 fluxes. Colored symbols indicate the total (emitted + reflected) spectral flux integrated over the W2 bandpass for each of the 200 trials. The W2 bandpass is shown in a light blue solid line as the spectral response per photon (Wright et al. 2010). The gray circle represents the true median measured W2 flux of the object adjusted to a phase angle of 0, with the error bar given by the standard deviation of the phase-adjusted W2 fluxes. Lower left: histogram of emitted to reflected light (integrated over the W2 bandpass) for 200 bootstrapped trials. High pseudo-temperature solutions are shown in orange whereas low pseudo-temperature solutions are shown in purple. Lower right: reduced chi-squared vs. pseudo-temperature T 1, showing similar values in the two temperature regimes.
Paper: Thermal Models of Asteroids with Two-band Combinations of Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer Cryogenic Data
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Jean-Luc Margot, Adrian L. H. Lam, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Diameter vs. pseudo-temperature T 1 for 4542 cases calculated from a two-band (W2–3) least-squares solution and four-band (W1–4) regularized solution to a reparameterized NEATM model. Each point represents the median diameter and pseudo-temperature value among all accepted bootstrap trials for an object, while error bars represent the standard deviations of the diameter and pseudo-temperature values among accepted bootstrap trials. The W2–3 data shown in this figure are available as the data behind the figure. The data also includes additional information that will allow the reader to recreate Figures 4–6.(The data used to create this figure are available.)
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Spin period solution for asteroid 296 obtained from 35 W4 observations spanning six days. The period solution at 4.543 ± 0.014 hr is in good agreement with the LCDB value of 4.538 5 hr. The data exhibit short (1.59 hr) sampling intervals over a long observation span, and the periodogram is free of aliases.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Histogram of fractional accuracy in spin period obtained by comparing our period solutions to the corresponding LCDB reference periods. The left and right clusters correspond to the accurate and inaccurate period estimates, respectively. The red line denotes the 5% accuracy threshold.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Histograms of W3 (left) and W4 (right) sampling intervals in the Myhrvold et al. (2022) data set.
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: LCDB rotational frequency vs. diameter (Myhrvold et al. 2022) for the 752 lightcurves in the LCDB Reference Group. Our spin period solutions are color-coded according to four possible outcomes: primary solution is accurate, secondary solution is accurate, tertiary solution is accurate, or none are accurate. The red dashed line at P = 3.17 hr corresponds to the upper range of trial frequencies explored in the fitting process. The gray dashed line at P = 2.2 hr illustrates the spin barrier. Diameters are from Myhrvold et al. (2022).
Paper: Determination of 1929 Asteroid Rotation Periods from WISE Data
Authors: Adrian L. H. Lam, Jean-Luc Margot, Emily Whittaker, Nathan Myhrvold
Figure caption: Histogram of peak-to-peak lightcurve amplitudes.