MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3104225555 · doi:10.5194/epsc2020-122

Modeling first-order scattering processes from OSIRIS-REx color images of the rough surface of asteroid (101955) Bennu

2020· article· en· W3104225555 on OpenAlexaff
P. H. Hasselmann, S. Fornasier, M. A. Barucci, A. Praet, B. E. Clark, Jian‐Yang Li, D. R. Golish, D. N. DellaGiustina, Prasanna Deshapriya, Xiao‐Duan Zou, M. G. Daly, O. S. Barnouin, Amy Simon, D. S. Lauretta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryScatteringPhysicsAsteroidAstronomyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The OSIRIS-REx mission has revealed a dark, boulder-rich, apparently dust-poor surface of the B-type asteroid (101955) Bennu [1], therefore a challenge for bi-directional reflectance (rF) modeling. With an estimated geometric albedo of 4.5% [2], Bennu is darker than many comets, and its reflectance distribution is dominated by single-scattering processes. The general approach to model a dark asteroid’s bi-directional reflectance distribution is to apply the standard Hapke IMSA model and its shadowing function [3]. However, this can imprecisely describe the roughness slopes for rocky surfaces [4]. Assuming that surfaces are fully diffuse can negate a specular forward-scattering contribution from crystalline components in the regolith [7]. To achieve a more complete photometric modeling of Bennu’s scattering curve, we rely on the radiative transfer semi-numerical model of Van Ginneken et al. [8,9]. Observations: MapCam is an optical imager [10] on-board the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, equipped with four broadband color filters (60-90 nm wide) centered at 473 (b'), 550 (v'), 698 (w') and 847 (x') nm. We analyzed images acquired during the Equatorial Station (EQ), a campaign of the Detailed Survey mission phase [11], over a full rotation of (101955) Bennu at a nadir spatial resolution of ~33 cm/px. EQ comprehended seven phase angle configurations α =[7.5° ,30° ,45° ,90° ,130°] .We analyzed the pixel subtended by the mission’s candidate sample collection sites, for which highly precise, laser altimeter-based digital terrain models (DTMs) were available [12,13]. These four candidate sites were called Sandpiper (latitude=-47°; longitude=322°), Osprey (11°; 88°), Nightingale ( 56°; 43°), and Kingfisher (11°; 56°). The varied latitude and longitudes provided the range of observational conditions required for our analysis.Methodology: The methodology consists of the following steps:a) NAIF SPICE kernels [14] and the DTMs are ingested into a ray-tracing code for rendering shadowed images. This allows us to discount for the effects of macroscopic shadows, leaving only the sub-facet texture to be modeled. These ancillary images provide the incidence, emergence, phase & azimuth for every facet.b) We apply Van Ginneken’s model to every facet. Occlusion and shadowing as well as the retro-reflection among the reliefs are taken into account. The model has two major components: the analytical expression for the specular reflection; and the numerically-integrated diffusive reflection. At total, the model has three free parameters: ρ (single-scattering albedo), σ (RMS roughness slope), and g (specular-to-diffuse ratio), plus the three more related to the scattering phase function (bi-lobe Henyey-Greenstein function: c, b1, and b2)c) Inverse problem: We run the Monte Carlo Markov Chain to sample the multi-parametric space in order to reconstruct a posteriori probability distribution of solutions for every free parameter, i.e., (ρ, σ, g, b1, b2, c), from which the statistics for every solution are estimated. Results: The MCMC technique reveals some interesting aspects of Bennu's surface (Fig. 1): while the RMS roughness slope of 27+1-5 is in line with what has been obtained for other asteroids using Hapke shadowing function, we are puzzled by the indication of a non-zero specular reflection ratio from the surface (2.6+1−0.8 %). The specular reflection hints at a possible mono-crystalline component. As for the diffuse rough component, the analysis of the photometric correction of OCAMS images taken at varied phase angles (α) indicates a more complex scenario. Up to α = 90°, the photometric correction is vastly improved by mixing two different solutions for roughness (one with low RMS σ and another with global RMS σ), a bi-modality already perceived from the MCMC a posteriori distributions. We have shown that most of Bennu's brightness variation can be explained by tuning the roughness slope statistical distribution. Finally, we report a back-scatter phase function for the phase angle range between 7.5°, and 130°, without any expressive spectral trend in the visible range. The MCMC inversion hints at a possible second forward-scatter lobe of at least ~0.2 width. This leads to two possible solutions for the asymmetric factor (ξ (1) = −0.360 ± 0.030 and ξ(2) = −0.444 ± 0.020). We also report a dark global approximate single-scattering albedo at 550 nm from the collective analysis of all site candidates of 4.64+0.08-0.09 % . The single-scattering MapCam four-band colors show a similar spectral trend to the global average OVIRS EQ3 spectrum. The four sites together provide a general description of Bennu's colors.Fig. 1. Parametric solutions after the MCMC technique for all sample sites together, and the scattering phase function (bottom row) for each MapCam filters.References:[1] Lauretta, D. et al. Met.. & Plan. Scie., 50, Issue 4, 834-849, 2015.[2] DellaGiustina, D.N. et al., Nat. Astron. 3, 241-351, 2019.[3] Hapke, B. Icarus 59, 41-59,1984.[4] Shkuratov et al., JQSRT 113, 18, 2431-2456, 2012.[5] Davidsson, B. et al. Icarus 201, 335–357, 2009.[6] Labarre, S. et al. Icarus 290, 63-80, 2017.[7] Bowell, E., et al. Asteroid II, Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1989.[8] Van Ginneken, B. et al. AO 37, 130-139, 1998.[9] Goguen, J. et al. Icarus 208, 548–557, 2010.[10] Rizk, B. et al.. Space Sci. Rev. 214, 26, 2018.[11] DellaGiustina, D.N. et al., ESS 5, 929, 2018.[12] Daly, M. G. et al., SSR 212, 899, 2017.[13] Barnouin, O. S. et al., PLANSS 180, 104764, 2020. [14] Acton, C. H.. PLANSS 44.1 (1996): 65-70.[15] Hapke, B. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2ed., 2012.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→