Paper detail

Reanalyzing the visible colors of Centaurs and KBOs: what is there and what we might be missing

Visible colors (BVRI) are a reasonable proxy for real spectra of Centaurs and Kuiper Belt Objects, which are rather linear in this range. Colors provide limited information but remain the best tool to study the bulk surface properties. We explore recurrent effects in the study of visible colors: i) how a correlation could be missed or weakened as a result of the data error bars, ii) the "risk" of missing an existing trend because of low sampling, and the possibility of making quantified predictions on the sample size needed to detect a trend at a given significance level, iii) the use of partial correlations to distinguish the mutual effect of two or more parameters, and iv) the sensitivity of the "reddening line" tool to the central wavelength of the filters used. We have compiled the visible colors of about 370 objects available in the literature and carried out an analysis per dynamical family. Our results show how a) data error bars impose a limit on the detectable correlations regardless of sample size and that therefore, once that limit is achieved, it is important to diminish the error bars, but it is pointless to enlarge the sampling with the same or larger errors; b) almost all dynamical families still require larger samplings to ensure the detection of correlations stronger than 0.5; c) the correlation strength between (V-R) vs. (R-I) is systematically lower than the one between (B-V) vs. (V-R) and is not related with error-bar differences between these colors; d) it is statistically equivalent to use any of the different flavors of orbital excitation or collisional velocity parameters regarding the color-inclination correlation of classical KBOs whereas the inclination and Tisserand parameter relative to Neptune cannot be separated from one another; and e) classical KBOs are the only dynamical family that shows neither (B-V) vs. (V-R) nor (V-R) vs. (R-I) correlations.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.