Roberto Gorelli points our attention at a recently published meteor related paper:

Comparing the data reduction pipelines of FRIPON, DFN, WMPL, and AMOS: Geminids Case Study

This article has been submitted to Astronomy & Astrophysics by P.M. Shober, J. Vaubaillon, S. Anghel, H.A.R. Devillepoix, F. Hlobik, P. Matlovic, J. Tóth, D. Vida, E.K. Sansom, T. Jansen-Sturgeon, F. Colas, A. Malgoyre, L. Kornoš, F.  Duriš, V. Pazderová, S. Bouley, B. Zanda, and P. Vernazza.

Abstract: Context. The number of meteor observation networks has expanded rapidly due to declining hardware costs, enabling both professional and amateur groups to contribute substantial datasets. However, accurate data reduction remains challenging, as variations in processing methodologies can significantly influence trajectory reconstructions and orbital interpretations. Aims. Our goal is to thoroughly compare four professionally produced meteor data reduction pipelines (FRIPON, DFN, WMPL, AMOS) by reprocessing FRIPON Geminid observations. Others can then use this analysis to compare their data reduction methods.

Methods. We processed a dataset of 584 Geminid fireballs observed by FRIPON between 2016-2023. The single-station astrometric data is converted into the Global Fireball Exchange (GFE) standard format for uniform processing. We assess variations in trajectory, velocity, radiant, and orbital element calculations across the pipelines and compare them to previously published Geminid measurements.

Results. The radiant and velocity solutions provided by the four data reduction pipelines are all within the range of previously published values. However, there are some nuances. Particularly, the radiants estimated by WMPL, DFN, and AMOS are nearly identical. Whereas FRIPON reports a systematic shift in right ascension (-0.3◦), caused by improper handling of the precession. Additionally, the FRIPON data reduction pipeline also tends to overestimate the initial velocity (+0.3 km s−1) due to the deceleration model used as the velocity solver. The FRIPON velocity method relies on having a well-constrained deceleration profile; however,  for the Geminids, many are low-deceleration events, leading to an overestimation of the initial velocity. On the other end of the spectrum, the DFN tends to predict lower velocities, particularly for poorly observed events. However, this velocity shift vanishes for the DFN when we only consider Geminids with at least three observations or more. The primary difference identified in the analysis concerns the velocity uncertainties. Despite all four pipelines achieving similar residuals between their trajectories and observations, their velocity uncertainties vary systematically, with WMPL outputting the smallest values, followed by AMOS, FRIPON, and DFN.

Conclusions. From this Geminid case study, we find that the default FRIPON data reduction methods, while adequate for meteoritedropping events, are not optimal for all cases. Specifically, FRIPON tends to overestimate velocities for low-deceleration events due to the less constrained fit, and the nominal radiants are not correctly output in J2000. Meanwhile, the other data reduction pipelines (DFN, WMPL, AMOS) produce consistent results, provided that the observational data is sufficiently robust, i.e., more than ∼50 data points from at least three observers. A key takeaway is the need to re-evaluate how velocity uncertainties are estimated. Our results show that uncertainty estimates vary systematically across different pipelines, despite generally similar goodness-of-fit statistics. The increasing availability of impact observations from varying sources (radar, video, photo, seismic, infrasound, satellite, telescopic, etc.) calls for greater collaboration and transparency in data reduction practices.

You can download this paper for free: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.21690  (22 pages).

 

 

Older meteor library news:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017