Unconfirmed Near-Earth Objects
Peter Vere\v{s}, Matthew J. Payne, Matthew J. Holman, Davide, Farnocchia, Gareth V. Williams, Sonia Keys, Ian Boardman

TL;DR
This study analyzes unconfirmed Near-Earth Object candidates from 2013-2016, identifying key factors like submission delays and high motion rates that hinder confirmation, and proposes improvements for follow-up observations.
Contribution
It provides a detailed analysis of the reasons behind unconfirmed NEA candidates and suggests strategies to improve confirmation rates and discovery efficiency.
Findings
11% of unconfirmed candidates are likely NEAs
Delayed submission significantly reduces confirmation likelihood
High apparent motion correlates with unconfirmed status
Abstract
We studied the Near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) candidates posted on the Minor Planet Center's Near-Earth Object Confirmation Page (NEOCP) between years 2013 and 2016. Out of more than 17,000 NEA candidates, while the majority became either new discoveries or were associated with previously known objects, about 11% were unable to be followed-up or confirmed. We further demonstrate that of the unconfirmed candidates, 926+/-50 are likely to be NEAs, representing 18% of discovered NEAs in that period. Only 11% (~93) of the unconfirmed NEA candidates were large (having absolute magnitude H<22). To identify the reasons why these NEAs were not recovered, we analyzed those from the most prolific asteroid surveys: Pan-STARRS, the Catalina Sky Survey, the Dark Energy Survey, and the Space Surveillance Telescope. We examined the influence of plane-of-sky positions and rates of motion, brightnesses,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
