$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{figure=figures/colnonscfu4.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{figure}$ Figure 1: For the asteroid 2004 FU₄ the computation of the LOV, by using only the first 17 observations, in different coordinates without scaling. The Cartesian and Attributable LOVs are indistinguishable on this plot and so only the Attributable LOV is depicted.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure}\par\psfig{figure=figures/colnonscnt7.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{figure}$ Figure 3: For the asteroid 2002 NT₇ the computation of the LOV, by using only the first 113 observations, in different coordinates without scaling. The Cartesian and Attributable LOVs are indistinguishable.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\begin{tabular}{c} \psfig{figure=figures/colm_vs_s_dista.ps,... ...psfig{figure=figures/colm_vs_s_id2.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{tabular}\par\end{figure}$ Figure 6: Comparison of the filter values d ( up) and d₂ ( bottom) for the identifications simultaneously obtained in the CS and CM tests. Each plot shows, using crosses, the values taken by a filter parameter in both methods. The crosses marked with a circle correspond to published identifications. The straight line marks the location where the values of the metrics is equal for both methods (those points above this line represent identifications in which the multiple-solutions algorithm improves the value obtained by the single-solution method).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\begin{tabular}{rr} \psfig{figure=figures/colCS_dista.ps,hei... ...& \psfig{figure=figures/colCM_id6.ps,height=3.0cm}\end{tabular}\par\end{figure}$ Figure 8: Normalized histograms for the values of the four filter distances (CS, left and CM, right). Each figure showsthe relative distribution of values of a given filter: void bars for all proposed identifications, solid bars for the published ones.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\begin{tabular}{c} \psfig{figure=figures/colCS_dista_id2.ps,... ...igure=figures/colCM_dista_id2.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{tabular}\par \par\end{figure}$ Figure 9: Distribution of identifications obtained by the CS ( up) and CM ( bottom) methods in the d-d₂ plane. Each proposed identification is represented by a single cross. Encircled crosses correspond to those published. Shaded rectangles are optimal regions (at the 5% loss level).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\begin{tabular}{c} \psfig{figure=figures/colCS_id5_id6.ps,he... ...psfig{figure=figures/colCM_id5_id6.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{tabular}\par\end{figure}$ Figure 10: As in Fig. 9, but in the d₅-d₆ plane. Note that in exact arithmetic $d_5\leq d_6$ . The exceptions (below the diagonal in the plots) indicate numerically unstable cases, with very badly conditioned normal matrices. These extremely unstable computations nonetheless provide some reliable identifications!
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{figure=figures/col98xb.ps,height=5.7cm,angle=270}\end{figure}$ Figure 11: The rms of the residuals (in arcsec), as a function of the LOV parameter $\sigma$ , for different amounts of observational data. The lines are marked with plusses (arc time span of 9 days), crosses (10 days), stars (11 days), boxes (13 days), full boxes (14 days) and circles (16 days)
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{figure=figures/colnonscfu4.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{figure}$	Figure 1: For the asteroid 2004 FU₄ the computation of the LOV, by using only the first 17 observations, in different coordinates without scaling. The Cartesian and Attributable LOVs are indistinguishable on this plot and so only the Attributable LOV is depicted.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure}\par\psfig{figure=figures/colscaledfu4.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{figure}$	Figure 2: As in the previous figure, but with the scaling of Table 1
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure}\par\psfig{figure=figures/colnonscnt7.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{figure}$	Figure 3: For the asteroid 2002 NT₇ the computation of the LOV, by using only the first 113 observations, in different coordinates without scaling. The Cartesian and Attributable LOVs are indistinguishable.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure}\par\psfig{figure=figures/colscalednt7.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{figure}$	Figure 4: As in the previous figure, but with the scaling of Table 1.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{figures/flowchart2.eps}}\end{figure}$	Figure 5: Orbit computation flowchart.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\begin{tabular}{c} \psfig{figure=figures/colm_vs_s_id5.ps,he... ...psfig{figure=figures/colm_vs_s_id6.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{tabular}\par\end{figure}$	Figure 7: As in Fig. 6, but for distances d₅ and d₆.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\begin{tabular}{rr} \psfig{figure=figures/colCS_dista.ps,hei... ...& \psfig{figure=figures/colCM_id6.ps,height=3.0cm}\end{tabular}\par\end{figure}$	Figure 8: Normalized histograms for the values of the four filter distances (CS, left and CM, right). Each figure showsthe relative distribution of values of a given filter: void bars for all proposed identifications, solid bars for the published ones.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\begin{tabular}{c} \psfig{figure=figures/colCS_dista_id2.ps,... ...igure=figures/colCM_dista_id2.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{tabular}\par \par\end{figure}$	Figure 9: Distribution of identifications obtained by the CS ( up) and CM ( bottom) methods in the d-d₂ plane. Each proposed identification is represented by a single cross. Encircled crosses correspond to those published. Shaded rectangles are optimal regions (at the 5% loss level).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\begin{tabular}{c} \psfig{figure=figures/colCS_id5_id6.ps,he... ...psfig{figure=figures/colCM_id5_id6.ps,height=6.5cm}\end{tabular}\par\end{figure}$	Figure 10: As in Fig. 9, but in the d₅-d₆ plane. Note that in exact arithmetic $d_5\leq d_6$ . The exceptions (below the diagonal in the plots) indicate numerically unstable cases, with very badly conditioned normal matrices. These extremely unstable computations nonetheless provide some reliable identifications!
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\psfig{figure=figures/col98xb.ps,height=5.7cm,angle=270}\end{figure}$	Figure 11: The rms of the residuals (in arcsec), as a function of the LOV parameter $\sigma$ , for different amounts of observational data. The lines are marked with plusses (arc time span of 9 days), crosses (10 days), stars (11 days), boxes (13 days), full boxes (14 days) and circles (16 days)
Open with DEXTER