text:
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, there is a diverse population of small bodies known collectively as the main
asteroid belt (see for example the review by \citealt{2020arXiv201207932R}). Although there is general agreement that
the main belt formed early in the history of the Solar system, the exact details of its origins remain uncertain.
Shortly after the discovery of the first members of the main asteroid belt, H.~W.~M.~Olbers and others proposed that
these objects could be debris from a destroyed planet (see for example the reviews and notes by
\citealt{1931PASP...43..324B,1950AJ.....55..164K,1972Natur.239..508O,1973Natur.242..250N}) or leftover material that
never made into a planet due to, namely, collisional processes (see for example \citealt{1950AJ.....55..164K,
1964Icar....3...52A,1974MNRAS.166..469N,2001Icar..153..338P}). However, \citet{2017SciA....3E1138R} pointed out that
dark, water-rich carbonaceous C-type asteroids dominate the outer belt and drier, siliceous S-type asteroids are more
common in the inner belt. Such a trend led these authors to propose that the region where the main asteroid belt is now
located started empty and that the currently observed asteroids were inserted there from the inner Solar system
(S-types) and from the region of the giant planets (C-types). In this scenario, material spread outward by the
terrestrial planets contributed to the S-type asteroid population currently inhabiting the main belt; debris scattered
inward mainly by Jupiter and Saturn ended up contributing to the C-type component of the belt. The presence in the main
asteroid belt of material formed well beyond Jupiter and Saturn has been dramatically confirmed by
\citet{2021ApJ...916L...6H}, who found two extremely red main-belt asteroids, 203~Pompeja and 269~Justitia. Such red
bodies may share an origin with trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) and Centaurs that have surfaces covered with complex
organics (see for example \citealt{2008ssbn.book..143B}). However, red carbonaceous asteroids may turn less red over
time because of space weathering (see for example \citealt{2022ApJ...924L...9H}).

As the current orbital architecture of the coupled subsystems made of the inner and outer planets may have remained in
its present form for Gyr (see for example \citealt{1998AJ....116.2055I,1999Icar..139..336I,2002MNRAS.336..483I,
2007PASJ...59..989T,2022CeMDA.134...20M}) it is reasonable to assume that the dynamical pathways that might have
populated the main asteroid belt in the past could still be open today. In order to investigate such a possibility,
numerical integrations may be used to identify present-day members of the main asteroid belt that may have followed
significantly different orbits in the relatively recent past. There are, however, over 10$^{6}$ known main-belt members
and a blind search would require a very substantial amount of computer power in order to complete the task. In sharp
contrast, a data mining exploration of a reliable database may lead to robust results using just modest resources. Here,
we present results from a data mining experiment aimed at singling out present-day members of the main asteroid belt
that may have reached the belt during the last few hundred years. In a way, our investigation is the exact opposite of
the one discussed by \citet{2017A&A...598A..52G} that focused on the escape of asteroids from the main belt. This paper
is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{sec:2}, we present the data and methods used in our analyses, which are shown in
Sect.~\ref{sec:3}. In Sect.~\ref{sec:4}, we apply $N$-body simulations to further study some objects of interest singled
out by our statistical analyses. In Sect.~\ref{sec:5}, we discuss our results. Our conclusions are summarized in
Sect.~\ref{sec:6}.

\section{Data and methods}
\label{sec:2}
As of April 22, 2022, the Minor Planet Center (MPC)\footnote{\url{https://minorplanetcenter.net/}} had 344.0 million of
observations of 1,194,113 asteroids and 4405 comets (see for example \citealt{2015IAUGA..2253004R,2016IAUS..318..265R,
2019AAS...23324503H}). The vast majority of the data corresponded to members of the main asteroid belt. The data are
available from the MPC itself and, in somewhat processed form, from several other online resources that include the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)\footnote{\url{https://www.jpl.nasa.gov}}-hosted ensemble of small-bodies websites and the
European Asteroids Dynamic Site (ASTDyS)\footnote{\url{https://newton.spacedys.com/astdys/index.php?pc=0}} online
information service (see for example \citealt{2012IAUJD...7P..18K,2015IAUGA..2235184B}). These databases can be queried
using tools available from the websites themselves, but also through several packages written in the {\tt Python}
language \citep{van1995python,10.5555/1593511}.

\subsection{Data}
\label{sec:2.1}
Here, we work with publicly available data (orbit determinations, input Cartesian vectors, ephemerides) from JPL's
Small-Body Database (SBDB)\footnote{\url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html\#/}} and {\tt Horizons} on-line
solar system data and ephemeris computation service,\footnote{\url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/}} both provided by
the Solar System Dynamics Group (SSDG,\footnote{\url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/}} \citealt{1996DPS....28.2504G,
1997DPS....29.2106C,1997BAAS...29.1099G,2011jsrs.conf...87G,2015IAUGA..2256293G}). The {\tt Horizons} ephemeris system
has recently been updated, replacing the DE430/431 planetary ephemeris, used since 2013, with the new DE440/441 solution
\citep{2021AJ....161..105P}. DE440 covers the years 1550--2650 while DE441 is tuned to cover a time range of $-$13,200
to +17,191 years \citep{2021AJ....161..105P}. The new DE440/441 general-purpose planetary solution includes seven
additional years of ground and space-based astrometric data, data calibrations, and dynamical model improvements, most
significantly involving Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, and the Kuiper Belt \citep{2021AJ....161..105P}. Most data were
retrieved from JPL's SBDB and {\tt Horizons} using tools provided by the {\tt Python} package {\tt Astroquery}
\citep{2019AJ....157...98G} and its {\tt HorizonsClass}
class.\footnote{\url{https://astroquery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/jplhorizons/jplhorizons.html}}

\subsection{Methods}
\label{sec:2.2}
The statistical analyses in Sect.~\ref{sec:3} have been carried out using tools from several {\tt Python} packages ({\tt
Python~3.9} and the latest versions of the libraries were used). Some figures have been produced using the {\tt
Matplotlib} library \citep{2007CSE.....9...90H} and statistical tools provided by {\tt NumPy}
\citep{2011CSE....13b..22V,2020Natur.585..357H}. Sets of bins in frequency-based histograms were computed using {\tt
NumPy} by applying the Freedman and Diaconis rule \citep{Freedman1981OnTH}.

The $N$-body simulations discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:4} were carried out using a direct $N$-body code developed by
\citet{2003gnbs.book.....A} that is publicly available from the website of the Institute of Astronomy of the University
of Cambridge.\footnote{\url{http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~sverre/web/pages/nbody.htm}} This software uses the Hermite
integration scheme implemented by \citet{1991ApJ...369..200M}. This scheme applies a predictor-corrector time
integration method that uses an extrapolation of the equations of motion to predict positions and velocities from which
the new accelerations are computed, then the predicted values are corrected using interpolation by applying finite
differences techniques. The Hermite scheme allows efficient numerical integration of the entire Solar system thanks to
the use of a block-step strategy \citep{2003gnbs.book.....A} in which suitably quantized time-steps allow the precise
integration of the orbits of Mercury or planetary satellites and trans-Neptunian objects simultaneously; encounters at
very close range can also be followed with sufficient precision (see for example the application to the Chelyabinsk
event in \citealt{2015ApJ...812...26D}). Results from this code have been extensively discussed by
\citet{2012MNRAS.427..728D} and compare well with those from \citet{2011A&A...532A..89L} among others. In our
calculations, relative errors in the total energy are as low as 10$^{-16}$ to 10$^{-15}$. The relative error in the
total angular momentum is several orders of magnitude smaller.

The physical model included gravitational perturbations from the eight major planets, the Moon, the barycentre of the
Pluto-Charon system, and the three largest asteroids. When integrating the equations of motion, non-gravitational
forces, relativistic or oblateness terms were not taken into account. Besides studying some representative orbits, we
performed additional calculations that applied the Monte Carlo using the Covariance Matrix (MCCM) methodology described
by \citet{2015MNRAS.453.1288D} in which a Monte Carlo process generates control or clone orbits based on the nominal
orbit but adding random noise on each orbital element by making use of the covariance matrix (that was also retrieved
from JPL's SSDG SBDB using the {\tt Python} package {\tt Astroquery} and its {\tt SBDBClass}
class).\footnote{\url{https://astroquery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/jplsbdb/jplsbdb.html}}

\section{Statistical analysis}
\label{sec:3}
In order to identify present-day members of the main belt that may have had very different orbits in the relatively
recent past ($\sim$400~yr ago), we retrieved (from JPL's {\tt Horizons} via the {\tt astroquery.jplhorizons} package
pointed out above) the heliocentric osculating orbital elements of each known member of the main belt for two epochs
($t$ and $t_{0}$): 2459600.5 JD TDB (2022-Jan-21.0 00:00:00.0 TDB, Barycentric Dynamical Time, J2000.0 ecliptic and
equinox) and 2305427.5 JD TDB (= A.D. 1599-Dec-12 00:00:00.0 TDB). Then, we computed the absolute relative variation of
the value of the orbital elements semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination ($a$, $e$ and $i$, respectively),
$\Delta_{a}$, $\Delta_{e}$ and $\Delta_{i}$. For example, $\Delta_{a}=|a_{t} - a_{t_{0}}|/a_{t}$ gives the absolute
relative variation in the value of the semimajor axis. By computing the distributions of $\Delta_{a}$, $\Delta_{e}$ and
$\Delta_{i}$, we can single out known members of the main belt that had statistically significant different orbits in
the recent past. The orbital evolution of such objects can be studied in further detail using $N$-body simulations to
find out about their past dynamical history and most probable origin.

\subsection{Inner main belt}
\label{sec:3.1}
Following JPL's SBDB, inner main-belt asteroids have $a<2.0$~au and $q>1.666$~au. The current tally of this orbit class
is 26,027 objects (as of April 22, 2022). Most objects in this region are Hungaria asteroids that populate the 5:1
mean-motion resonance with Jupiter between 1.78~au and 2~au from the Sun (see for example
\citealt{2010Icar..207..769M}).

Figure~\ref{fig:inndist} shows the resulting distributions of the absolute relative variation of the value of the
orbital elements semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination: $\Delta_{a}$, $\Delta_{e}$ and $\Delta_{i}$. We use the
1st and 99th percentiles of the distribution to identify severe outliers (see for example \citealt{2012psa..book.....W}).
Objects in the 1st percentile of the distribution, particularly in the case of $\Delta_{a}$, can be considered as
unusually dynamically stable; minor bodies in the 99th percentile are the least stable of the sample set and any
newcomers to the main belt are expected to be above the 99th percentile of the distribution in $\Delta_{a}$. In the
figure, median values are shown as vertical or horizontal blue lines and the 1st and 99th percentiles are displayed as
red lines. For $\Delta_{a}$ the 1st, 16th, 50th, 84th, 99th percentiles are: 1.66$\times$10$^{-6}$,
2.46$\times$10$^{-5}$, 7.83$\times$10$^{-5}$, 0.00016 and 0.00030. For $\Delta_{e}$, the same percentiles are: 0.00027,
0.00424, 0.01253, 0.02226, and 0.03979. And for $\Delta_{i}$: 4.96$\times$10$^{-5}$, 0.00077, 0.00197, 0.00300, and
0.00440. The distributions are not normal but in a normal distribution a value that is one standard deviation above the
mean is equivalent to the 84th percentile and a value that is one standard deviation below the mean is equivalent to the
16th percentile (see for example \citealt{2012psa..book.....W}).
\begin{figure*}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{INNERbeltDAs.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{INNERbeltaDAlog.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{INNERbeltDEs.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{INNERbeltaDElog.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{INNERbeltDIs.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{INNERbeltaDIlog.pdf}
\caption{Inner main belt (26,027 objects as of April 22, 2022). Absolute relative variation of the value of the orbital
elements semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination: $\Delta_{a}$, $\Delta_{e}$ and $\Delta_{i}$. The left-hand side
column of panels shows the distributions as frequency histograms; the right-hand side column of panels shows the
distribution of absolute relative variations as a function of the semimajor axis in logarithmic scale. Median values are
shown as vertical or horizontal blue lines and the 1st and 99th percentiles as red lines. Data source: JPL's
{\tt Horizons}.}
\label{fig:inndist}
\end{figure*}

Our analysis shows that the most stable objects, those within the 1st percentile of the distributions, tend to occupy
the central regions of the inner belt, with $a\sim1.9$~au. On the other hand, there are no objects with large values
(for example $>1$) of the relative variations. In particular, the maximum value of $\Delta_{a}$ is of the order of
0.0015 (see the right-hand side panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:inndist}), which means that the largest variation of the
semimajor axis over the studied time interval is well under 1\%. The largest variations are observed in $\Delta_{e}$.
Figure~\ref{fig:inndist}, right-hand side top panel, shows that the largest variations are linked to mean-motion
resonances; the banded distribution observed is the result of the overlapping grid of mean-motion resonances with Earth
and Mars discussed by \citet{2006Icar..184...29G, 2019Icar..317..121G}. The maxima in the distributions of $\Delta_{e}$
and $\Delta_{i}$ are linked to objects subjected to the von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai mechanism \citep{1910AN....183..345V,
1962AJ.....67..591K,1962P&SS....9..719L,2019MEEP....7....1I} that drives anti-correlated eccentricity-inclination
oscillations. The effects of the von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai mechanism have been well documented not only within the inner
main belt \citep{1996A&A...307..310M} but in other sections of the belt as well \citep{2017MNRAS.468.4719V}.

\subsection{Main belt}
\label{sec:3.2}
Following JPL's SBDB, main-belt asteroids have 2.0~au $<a<$ 3.2~au and $q>1.666$~au and this orbit class includes
1,073,121 objects. Figure~\ref{fig:maidist}, right-hand side top panel, shows the strong Kirkwood gap at 2.5~au due to
the 3:1 mean-motion resonance with Jupiter, another one at 2.82~au caused by the 5:2 mean-motion resonance with Jupiter,
and a third one at 2.958~au linked to the 7:3 mean-motion resonance with Jupiter (see for example
\citealt{1999ssd..book.....M}).

The maximum values of $\Delta_{a}$, $\Delta_{e}$ and $\Delta_{i}$ are observed for objects with $a>3.0$~au. However, the
maximum value of $\Delta_{a}$ is under 0.1 (with one exception); therefore, the largest variation over the studied time
interval is still below 10\%, not high enough to signal objects that may have entered the main belt in the relatively
recent past. Although not as clearly as in Figure~\ref{fig:inndist}, right-hand side top panel, Figure~\ref{fig:maidist},
right-hand side top panel, shows an overlapping grid of mean-motion resonances. For $\Delta_{a}$ the 1st, 16th, 50th,
84th, 99th percentiles are: 7.34$\times$10$^{-6}$, 0.00012, 0.00044, 0.00134 and 0.00677. For $\Delta_{e}$, the same
percentiles are: 0.00028, 0.00449, 0.01827, 0.06437, and 0.31803. And for $\Delta_{i}$: 0.00030, 0.00482, 0.01593,
0.04076, and 0.17062. These values are higher than their equivalents for the inner main belt. Our analysis reveals that
the most stable objects, those within the 1st percentile of the distributions, tend to occupy the regions with 2.0~au
$<a<$ 2.5~au, and they could be as stable as their counterparts in the inner belt.
\begin{figure*}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{MAINbeltDA.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{MAINbeltaDAlogUPTD.png}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{MAINbeltDE.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{MAINbeltaDElogUPTD.png}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{MAINbeltDI.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{MAINbeltaDIlogUPTD.png}
\caption{Main belt's core (1,073,121 objects as of April 22, 2022). Absolute relative variation of the value of the
orbital elements semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination: $\Delta_{a}$, $\Delta_{e}$ and $\Delta_{i}$. The
left-hand side column of panels shows the distributions as frequency histograms; the right-hand side column of panels
shows the distribution of absolute relative variations as a function of the semimajor axis in logarithmic scale. Median
values are shown as vertical or horizontal blue lines and the 1st and 99th percentiles as red lines. Data source: JPL's
{\tt Horizons}.}
\label{fig:maidist}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Outer main belt}
\label{sec:3.3}
Following JPL's SBDB, outer main-belt asteroids have 3.2~au $<a<$ 4.6~au and the current membership of this orbit class
includes 36,901 objects. This region hosts the Hildas (see for example \citealt{1998P&SS...46.1425F}), a concentration
of asteroids trapped in the 3:2 mean-motion resonance with Jupiter (between 3.7~au and 4.2~au), the Cybele asteroids
(see for example \citealt{2015MNRAS.451..244C}), in the 7:4 mean-motion resonance with Jupiter (between 3.27~au and
3.7~au), and the Thule dynamical group (see for example \citealt{2008MNRAS.390..715B}) in the 4:3 mean-motion resonance
with Jupiter (between 4.26~au and 4.3~au). At 3.27~au, we have the Hecuba gap (see for example
\citealt{2002MNRAS.335..417R}). The dynamical space between the Cybele, Thule, and Hilda asteroidal populations is
unstable because of the overlapping of numerous three-body mean-motion resonances, the so-called ``resonance sea"
discussed by \citet{2006Icar..184...29G}.

Figure~\ref{fig:outdist} shows that this region is by far the most perturbed of the main asteroid belt. The values of
the absolute relative variations of $a$, $e$, and $i$ are significantly higher than in other regions of the belt. For
$\Delta_{a}$ the 1st, 16th, 50th, 84th, 99th percentiles are: 5.25$\times$10$^{-5}$, 0.00084, 0.00353, 0.00960 and
0.03954. For $\Delta_{e}$, the same percentiles are: 0.00237, 0.04060, 0.15082, 0.42004, and 2.13023. And for
$\Delta_{i}$: 0.00035, 0.00586, 0.02082, 0.05824, and 0.45447. Here, we find multiple objects with $\Delta_{a}$ well
above the 99th percentile of the distribution. In the following section, we will focus on the subsample with
$\Delta_{a}>0.6$ that we consider as highly likely to having arrived at the outer main belt in relatively recent times.
It is however possible that some of such objects are trapped in secular resonances that may bring them back and forth
into the belt from beyond Jupiter. If the orbit determinations are robust enough, numerical integrations should be able
to confirm their true dynamical nature.
\begin{figure*}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{OUTERbeltDA.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{OUTERbeltaDAlog.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{OUTERbeltDE.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{OUTERbeltaDElog.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{OUTERbeltDI.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{OUTERbeltaDIlog.pdf}
\caption{Outer main belt (36,901 objects as of April 22, 2022). Absolute relative variation of the value of the orbital
elements semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination: $\Delta_{a}$, $\Delta_{e}$ and $\Delta_{i}$. The left-hand side
column of panels shows the distributions as frequency histograms; the right-hand side column of panels shows the
distribution of absolute relative variations as a function of the semimajor axis in logarithmic scale. Median values are
shown as vertical or horizontal blue lines and the 1st and 99th percentiles as red lines. Data source: JPL's
{\tt Horizons}.}
\label{fig:outdist}
\end{figure*}

\section{Recent arrivals}
\label{sec:4}
From the analyses in Sect.~\ref{sec:3}, we conclude that only the outer main belt hosts a population of minor bodies
that may have entered the belt during the last few hundred years. Assuming a threshold of $\Delta_{a}>0.6$ as pointed
out above, the list of recent arrivals in Table~\ref{tab:1} includes 2003~BM$_{1}$, 2007~RS$_{62}$, 457175
(2008~GO$_{98}$), 2010~BG$_{18}$, 2010~JC$_{58}$, 2010~JV$_{52}$, 2010~KS$_{6}$, 2010~LD$_{74}$, 2010~OX$_{38}$,
2011~QQ$_{99}$, 2013~HT$_{149}$, 2015~BH$_{103}$, 2015~BU$_{525}$, 2015~RO$_{127}$, 2015~RS$_{139}$, 2016~PC$_{41}$,
2016~UU$_{231}$, 2020~SA$_{75}$, 2020~UO$_{43}$, and 2021~UJ$_{5}$.
\begin{table*}
\tabcolsep 0.14truecm
\caption{Recent arrivals to the outer main belt (absolute relative variation of the semimajor axis, $\Delta_{a}>0.6$).
The data include number (if assigned by the MPC) and provisional designation, number of days spanned by the data arc,
number of observations used to compute the orbit determination, semimajor axis, eccentricity, inclination (these
three referred to epoch 2459600.5 JD TDB), absolute relative variation of $a$, $e$, and $i$. Data sources: JPL's SBDB
and {\tt Horizons}.}
\label{tab:1}
\begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrrr}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
object                   &  arc  & obs. & $a$     &  $e$    & $i$      & $\Delta_{a}$ & $\Delta_{e}$ & $\Delta_{i}$ \\
                         &  (d)  &      & (au)    &         & ($^{o}$\xspace)  &             &             &                \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
        2003 BM$_{1}$    &  5140 &  90  & 3.64009 & 0.51436 & 11.34667 &  4.06475    & 0.43067     & 0.28590        \\
        2007 RS$_{62}$   &     1 &   9  & 3.49720 & 0.36435 &  0.61698 &  0.60015    & 0.97395     & 1.82065        \\
457175 (2008 GO$_{98}$)  &  6207 & 690  & 3.97017 & 0.27908 & 15.55621 &  0.60318    & 0.58341     & 0.03283        \\
        2010 BG$_{18}$   &     1 &  11  & 3.80613 & 0.25454 & 17.85287 &  0.77561    & 0.12023     & 0.35398        \\
        2010 JC$_{58}$   &     2 &  12  & 3.63599 & 0.37660 &  5.98705 &  0.73026    & 0.48396     & 0.46895        \\
        2010 JV$_{52}$   &     1 &   8  & 3.83195 & 0.21150 &  4.12106 &  1.07049    & 0.39983     & 0.74718        \\
        2010 KS$_{6}$    &     1 &  11  & 3.92736 & 0.24029 &  9.39648 &  0.61127    & 0.34709     & 0.29612        \\
        2010 LD$_{74}$   &     1 &  15  & 3.90426 & 0.32040 & 18.84908 &  5.35829    & 1.50536     & 0.66081        \\
        2010 OX$_{38}$   &     1 &  13  & 4.11663 & 0.26317 &  4.29817 &  0.81833    & 0.14387     & 0.40455        \\
        2011 QQ$_{99}$   &  8918 &  48  & 3.80163 & 0.42617 &  3.21247 &  0.98310    & 0.30898     & 3.38391        \\
        2013 HT$_{149}$  &     2 &  11  & 4.15614 & 0.18113 &  0.72244 &  0.66600    & 0.14155     & 5.98370        \\
        2015 BH$_{103}$  &     6 &  12  & 4.08323 & 0.18091 &  2.04186 &  0.70796    & 0.18405     & 1.07415        \\
        2015 BU$_{525}$  &     1 &  17  & 3.49100 & 0.51602 &  8.86846 &  2.87732    & 0.38818     & 0.07012        \\
        2015 RO$_{127}$  &     3 &  11  & 3.57322 & 0.36363 &  1.56916 &  1.12174    & 0.24970     & 0.37371        \\
        2015 RS$_{139}$  &     3 &   7  & 4.08529 & 0.32595 &  1.35669 &  1.11238    & 0.39090     & 7.32546        \\
        2016 PC$_{41}$   &     3 &  11  & 3.63385 & 0.39302 &  8.15787 &  1.24666    & 0.14065     & 0.74684        \\
        2016 UU$_{231}$  &     1 &  22  & 3.57738 & 0.34396 &  2.15470 &  1.04531    & 0.16766     & 0.53508        \\
        2020 SA$_{75}$   &    30 &  18  & 3.58730 & 0.53166 &  3.03217 &  1.18201    & 0.23644     & 3.66545        \\
        2020 UO$_{43}$   &   548 &  13  & 4.13775 & 0.64513 &  1.75827 & 10.65010    & 0.72835     & 1.23496        \\
        2021 UJ$_{5}$    &    68 &  51  & 3.39604 & 0.51475 &  9.38787 &  1.59925    & 0.23100     & 0.65926        \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

Unfortunately, most of the objects in Table~\ref{tab:1} have very short data arcs and, consistently, their orbit
determinations are very uncertain. The objects with the highest probability of being newcomers are 2003~BM$_{1}$,
2010~LD$_{74}$, 2015~BU$_{525}$ and 2020~UO$_{43}$. Asteroids 2003~BM$_{1}$ and 2020~UO$_{43}$ have robust orbit
determinations (but see the comment on 2020~UO$_{43}$ later on), but 2010~LD$_{74}$ and 2015~BU$_{525}$ have very poor
orbit determinations, based on observational arcs spanning just one day. Minor bodies 2003~BM$_{1}$, 2015~BU$_{525}$,
2020~SA$_{75}$, 2020~UO$_{43}$, and 2021~UJ$_{5}$ are included in the list of asteroids with comet-like orbits
maintained by Y.~R. Fern\'andez.\footnote{\url{https://physics.ucf.edu/~yfernandez/lowtj.html}} None of these objects
have been studied in detail yet and no cometary activity has ever been observed on any of them.

In sharp contrast and among the rest of the sample, at least one object has been found to exhibit cometary activity,
457175 (2008 GO$_{98}$), and it has a dual designation as comet 362P \citep{2018P&SS..160...12G,2019Icar..317...44B,
2021AdSpR..67..639K}. From this group, only 457175, 2011~QQ$_{99}$, and 2021~UJ$_{5}$ (data arc of 68~d with 51
observations) have robust orbit determinations. It is rather suspicious that out of 15 objects in Table~\ref{tab:1} with
$0.6<\Delta_{a}<2$ just 20\% have sufficiently good orbit determinations, with 80\% having very short data arcs, mostly
$\leq$3~d. The lack of recovery observations suggests that some of these objects may have been in outburst when
discovered and their apparent magnitudes outside their active phases may be too low to enable casual recovery by
non-targeted surveys such as those looking for TNOs or near-Earth objects (NEOs). A recent example of an object
serendipitously discovered when in the active phase is Centaur 2020~MK$_{4}$ \citep{2021A&A...649A..85D}.

Figure~\ref{fig:best2nom} shows the short-term past and future dynamical evolution of the nominal orbits of
2003~BM$_{1}$ and 2020~UO$_{43}$ as computed by JPL's {\tt Horizons} (the ephemerides were retrieved using the
{\tt Astroquery} package as pointed out above and plotted using {\tt Matplotlib}). The two objects exhibit a rather
chaotic evolution both in the recent past and into the immediate future. This is the result of planetary encounters at
close range (mainly with Jupiter and Saturn, see below). Figure~\ref{fig:best2nom}, left-hand side top panel, shows that
2003~BM$_{1}$ came from the neighborhood of Uranus and arrived at its present location nearly 235~yr ago. However, the
most striking case involves 2020~UO$_{43}$ that may have reached its current orbit coming from interstellar space. This
object may have entered the Solar system nearly a century ago with an eccentricity of 1.1150, not too different from
that of 1I/2017~U1~(`Oumuamua), 1.20113$\pm$0.00002, the first known interstellar body passing through the Solar system
(see for example \citealt{2017RNAAS...1....9D,2017RNAAS...1....5D,2018Msngr.173...13H,2018Natur.559..223M,
2019NatAs...3..594O,2019ApJ...876L..26S}).
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.490\linewidth]{2003BM1aei.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.500\linewidth]{2020UO43aei.pdf}
  \caption{Evolution of the orbital elements semimajor axis (top panels), eccentricity (middle panels), and inclination
           (bottom panels) for the nominal orbit of 2003~BM$_{1}$ (left-hand side panels) and 2020~UO$_{43}$ (right-hand
           side panels). For 2020~UO$_{43}$, the semimajor axis and eccentricity are initially negative and larger than
           1, respectively. These values are associated with unbound orbits. The origin of time is the epoch 2459600.5
           JD Barycentric Dynamical Time (2022-Jan-21.0 00:00:00.0 TDB) and the output cadence is 30~d. The source of
           the data is JPL's {\tt Horizons}.
          }
  \label{fig:best2nom}
\end{figure}

The second group of newcomers, those with $\Delta_{a}<2$, may have come from Centaur orbital space (see for example
\citealt{2007Icar..190..224D,2009Icar..203..155B,2009AJ....137.4296J,2019AJ....157..225W,2020CeMDA.132...36D,
2021Icar..35814201R}). Figure~\ref{fig:best3nom} shows the short-term past and future evolution of the three objects
with the best orbit determinations of the sample: 457175, 2011~QQ$_{99}$, and 2021~UJ$_{5}$. The three objects have
chaotic dynamical histories, but 457175 appears to have followed a one-way path into the outer main belt; the other two
objects seem to spend as much time inside the belt as outside of it and even beyond Jupiter's orbit (2011~QQ$_{99}$).
The evolution of the relevant orbital elements of the remaining objects in Table~\ref{tab:1} is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:others} of Appendix~\ref{app:3}. As in the previous case, the jumps in the values of the orbital
parameters are the result of planetary encounters at close range (mainly with Jupiter and Saturn, see below).
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.327\linewidth]{2008GO98aei.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.327\linewidth]{2011QQ99aei.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.327\linewidth]{2021UJ5aei.pdf}
  \caption{Evolution of the orbital elements semimajor axis (top panels), eccentricity (middle panels), and inclination
           (bottom panels) for the nominal orbit of 457175 (2008~GO$_{98}$), left-hand side panels, 2011~QQ$_{99}$,
           central panels, and 2021~UJ$_{5}$, right-hand side panels. The origin of time is the epoch 2459600.5 JD
           Barycentric Dynamical Time (2022-Jan-21.0 00:00:00.0 TDB) and the output cadence is 30~d. The source of the
           data is JPL's {\tt Horizons}.
          }
  \label{fig:best3nom}
\end{figure}

In the following, we will study in more detail the past dynamical evolution of some of these objects. We will leave
outside of our analyses those objects with short data arcs in Table~\ref{tab:1} and 457175 because its orbital evolution
is affected by the non-gravitational force caused by outgassing. The orbit determination of 457175 available from JPL's
SBDB includes the usual orbital elements ---$a$, $e$, $i$, longitude of the ascending node, $\Omega$, argument of
perihelion, $\omega$, and time of perihelion passage, $\tau$--- and three non-gravitational parameters associated with
the non-gravitational radial, transverse, and normal accelerations.

\subsection{2003~BM$_{1}$}
\label{sec:4.3}
This object was first observed on January 24, 2003 by the Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking (NEAT,
\citealt{1997NYASA.822....6H,1999AJ....117.1616P}) program at Palomar Mountain \citep{2003MPEC....B...29L}. Its orbit
determination is based on 90 observations with a data-arc span of 5140~d (see Table~\ref{elementsBM1} in
Appendix~\ref{app:1}). Asteroid 2003~BM$_{1}$ follows a rather eccentric path that approaches Mars, but it does not
cross its orbit, reaching aphelion beyond Jupiter, which is the only planet that can directly perturb its trajectory.
The value of its semimajor axis, 3.64~au, places it in the orbital realm of the Cybele asteroids, but it is not one of
them. Figure~\ref{fig:best2nom}, left-hand side panels, shows that the nominal orbit led 2003~BM$_{1}$ into the outer
belt from the neighborhood of Uranus. \citet{2008A&A...487..363D} included this object in their study of asteroids in
cometary orbits concluding that some of those objects are not dormant comet candidates from the Jupiter family ---those
with Tisserand's parameter, $T_{\rm J}$ \citep{1999ssd..book.....M}, in the range 2--3 and orbital periods under 20~yr
or 200~yr, depending on the authors--- but asteroids that reached their current orbits as a result of perturbations. The
Tisserand parameter, which is a quasi-invariant, is given by the expression:
\begin{equation}
   T_{\rm J} = \frac{a_{\rm J}}{a} + 2 \ \cos{i} \ \sqrt{\frac{a}{a_{\rm J}} \ (1 - e^{2})} \,, \label{Tisserand}
\end{equation}
where $a$, $e$, and $i$ are the semimajor axis, eccentricity and inclination of the orbit of the small body under study,
and $a_{\rm J}$ is the semimajor axis of the orbit of Jupiter \citep{1999ssd..book.....M}.

Figure~\ref{fig:evolutionBM1} shows the results of $N$-body integrations backward in time for the nominal orbit and
representative control or clone orbits of 2003~BM$_{1}$ with Cartesian vectors separated $+$3$\sigma$ (in green),
$-$3$\sigma$ (in lime), $+$6$\sigma$ (in blue), $-$6$\sigma$ (in cyan), $+$9$\sigma$ (in red), and $-$9$\sigma$ (in
pink) from the nominal values in Table~\ref{vectorBM1} of Appendix~\ref{app:2}. These calculations have been carried out
as described in Sect.~\ref{sec:2}. Our results are indicative of a very chaotic dynamical past driven by very frequent
encounters with Jupiter but also with Saturn, inside the Hill radii of both planets. The evolution is so unstable that
some control orbits in Fig.~\ref{fig:evolutionBM1} led to ejections from the Solar system ($-$6$\sigma$ control orbit in
cyan and $+$9$\sigma$ in red); in other words, 2003~BM$_{1}$ has a small probability of having an origin in the Oort
cloud and perhaps even in interstellar space. However, our calculations suggest that its most probable source is in the
region between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune, the Centaur orbital domain. The $-$9$\sigma$ control orbit (in pink)
shows a capture in a von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai secular resonance with anti-correlated eccentricity-inclination
oscillations.
\begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fDjaeiTj2003BM1.pdf}
   \caption{Short-term past evolution of relevant parameters of 2003~BM$_{1}$. We show the evolution of the distance to
            Jupiter (top panel) and Saturn (second to top) of the nominal orbit (in black) as described by the
            corresponding orbit determination in Table~\ref{elementsBM1} of Appendix~\ref{app:1} and those of control
            orbits or clones with Cartesian vectors separated $+$3$\sigma$ (in green), $-$3$\sigma$ (in lime),
            $+$6$\sigma$ (in blue), $-$6$\sigma$ (in cyan), $+$9$\sigma$ (in red), and $-$9$\sigma$ (in pink) from the
            nominal values in Table~\ref{vectorBM1} of Appendix~\ref{app:2}. The Hill radii of Jupiter, 0.338~au, and
            Saturn, 0.412~au, are shown in red. The third to top panel shows the evolution of the semimajor axis, $a$.
            The third to bottom panel shows the evolution of the eccentricity, $e$. The second to bottom panel displays
            the inclination, $i$. The bottom panel shows the variations of the Tisserand's parameter, $T_{\rm J}$
            \citep{1999ssd..book.....M}, and includes the boundary references 2 (in brown) and 3 (in orange). The output
            time-step size is 1~yr, the origin of time is epoch 2459600.5 TDB. The source of the input data is JPL's
            {\tt Horizons}.
           }
   \label{fig:evolutionBM1}
\end{figure}

\subsection{2020~UO$_{43}$}
\label{sec:4.2}
This object was first observed on October 20, 2020, by the Pan-STARRS~1 \citep{2004SPIE.5489...11K} telescope system at
Haleakala. Its orbit determination is based on 13 observations with a data-arc span of 548~d (see
Table~\ref{elementsUO43} in Appendix~\ref{app:1}). Asteroid 2020~UO$_{43}$ follows a quite eccentric orbit that crosses
that of Mars, reaching aphelion well beyond Jupiter. The value of its semimajor axis, 4.14~au places it within the
orbital realm of the Hilda asteroids, but it is not one of them. Figure~\ref{fig:best2nom}, right-hand side panels,
shows that the nominal orbit brought 2020~UO$_{43}$ from interstellar space into the outer belt.

To understand its possible origin better, we performed integrations backward in time using MCCM to generate control
orbits and found that the probability of having this object captured from interstellar space during the last 10$^{5}$~yr
is 0.28$\pm$0.05 (average and standard deviation of 8$\times$10$^{3}$ experiments). Figure~\ref{originUO43} shows the
results of these simulations. Most control orbits led to barycentric distances with values below the aphelion distance
that defines the domain of dynamically old Oort cloud comets (see \citealt{2017MNRAS.472.4634K}). The most
straightforward interpretation of these results is that 2020~UO$_{43}$ may have not arrived from interstellar space: It
could be a dynamically old object instead, with a likely origin in the Solar system. However, an origin outside the
Solar system cannot be rejected with the current orbit determination. In fact, this object might not be real but the
result of bad linkage by the MPC.\footnote{The 2019 Catalina Sky Survey observations are of 108761 (2001~OK$_{46}$); the
2020 observations do not correspond to any known object, but are vague enough to have a meaningless orbit and make it
effectively unrecoverable (Deen 2022, private communication).}
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{es2020UO43.pdf}
  \caption{Values of the barycentric distance as a function of the velocity parameter 10$^{5}$~yr into the past for
           8$\times$10$^{3}$ control orbits of 2020~UO$_{43}$ generated using the MCCM approach. The velocity parameter
           is the difference between the barycentric and escape velocities at the computed barycentric distance in units
           of the escape velocity. Positive values of the velocity parameter are associated with control orbits that
           could be the result of capture. The thick black line corresponds to the aphelion distance ---$a \ (1 + e)$,
           limiting case $e=1$--- that defines the domain of dynamically old comets with
           {$a^{-1}>2.5\times10^{-5}$~au$^{-1}$} (see \citealt{2017MNRAS.472.4634K}); the thick red line signals the
           radius of the Hill sphere of the Solar system (see for example \citealt{1965SvA.....8..787C}).
          }
  \label{originUO43}
\end{figure}

\subsection{210718 (2000 ST$_{252}$)}
\label{sec:4.3}
Asteroid 210718 (2000 ST$_{252}$) is not in Table~\ref{tab:1}, but it is included here because it experienced a
short-term excursion well outside the outer asteroid belt within the explored time frame. This object was first observed
on September 24, 2000, by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) project \citep{2000Icar..148...21S} from
Socorro, New Mexico. Its orbit determination is based on 584 observations with a data-arc span of 7822~d (see
Table~\ref{elementsST252} in Appendix~\ref{app:1}). Asteroid 210718 follows a moderately eccentric orbit that never gets
close to Mars, reaching aphelion inside Jupiter's orbit. The value of its semimajor axis, 3.61~au places it in the
orbital realm of the Cybele asteroids, but it is not one of them. Figure~\ref{fig:best1nom}, shows that the nominal
orbit led 210718 into the outer belt from beyond Jupiter, but 400~yr ago it was part of the outer asteroid belt.
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{2000ST252aei.pdf}
  \caption{Evolution of the orbital elements semimajor axis (top panels), eccentricity (middle panels), and inclination
           (bottom panels) for the nominal orbit of 210718 (2000 ST$_{252}$) that experiences a short-term excursion
           well outside the outer asteroid belt within the explored time frame. The origin of time is the epoch
           2459600.5 JD Barycentric Dynamical Time (2022-Jan-21.0 00:00:00.0 TDB) and the output cadence is 30~d. The
           source of the data is JPL's {\tt Horizons}.
          }
  \label{fig:best1nom}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:evolutionST252} shows the result of $N$-body integrations backward in time for the nominal orbit and
representative control orbits of 210718. As in the case of 2003~BM$_{1}$, our results show a very chaotic dynamical past
driven by frequent encounters with Jupiter and Saturn, inside the Hill radii of both planets. The evolution is quite
unstable and one control orbit in Fig.~\ref{fig:evolutionST252} led to an ejection from the Solar system ($-$6$\sigma$
control orbit in cyan); therefore, 210718 has a very small probability of having an origin in the Oort cloud and
perhaps even in interstellar space. However, our calculations suggest that its most probable source, like in the case of
2003~BM$_{1}$, is in the region between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune, the Centaur orbital domain.
\begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fDjaeiTj2000ST252.pdf}
   \caption{Short-term past evolution of relevant parameters of 210718 (2000~ST$_{252}$). We show the evolution of the
            distance to Jupiter (top panel) and Saturn (second to top) of the nominal orbit (in black) as described by
            the corresponding orbit determination in Table~\ref{elementsST252} of Appendix~\ref{app:1} and those of
            control orbits or clones with Cartesian vectors separated $+$3$\sigma$ (in green), $-$3$\sigma$ (in lime),
            $+$6$\sigma$ (in blue), $-$6$\sigma$ (in cyan), $+$9$\sigma$ (in red), and $-$9$\sigma$ (in pink) from the
            nominal values in Table~\ref{vectorST252} of Appendix~\ref{app:2}. The Hill radii of Jupiter, 0.338~au, and
            Saturn, 0.412~au, are shown in red. The third to top panel shows the evolution of the semimajor axis, $a$.
            The third to bottom panel shows the evolution of the eccentricity, $e$. The second to bottom panel displays
            the inclination, $i$. The bottom panel shows the variations of the Tisserand's parameter, $T_{\rm J}$
            \citep{1999ssd..book.....M}, and includes the boundary references 2 (in brown) and 3 (in orange). The output
            time-step size is 1~yr, the origin of time is epoch 2459600.5 TDB. The source of the input data is JPL's
            {\tt Horizons}.
           }
   \label{fig:evolutionST252}
\end{figure}

\subsection{2011 QQ$_{99}$}
\label{sec:4.4}
This object was first observed on September 8, 1996, at the Steward Observatory in Kitt Peak and assigned the
provisional designation 1996~RR$_{10}$. It was rediscovered on August 23, 2011, by the Pan-STARRS~1
\citep{2004SPIE.5489...11K} telescope system at Haleakala and assigned the provisional designation 2011~QQ$_{99}$ to
being later recognized as the former 1996~RR$_{10}$. Its orbit determination is based on 48 observations with a
data-arc span of 8918~d (see Table~\ref{elementsQQ99} in Appendix~\ref{app:1}). Asteroid 2011~QQ$_{99}$ follows a
moderately eccentric orbit that never approaches Mars, reaching aphelion beyond Jupiter that is the only planet that can
directly perturb its path. The value of its semimajor axis, 3.80~au places it within the orbital parameter space of the
Hilda asteroids, but it is not one of them. Figure~\ref{fig:best3nom}, second-to-right-hand side panels, shows that the
nominal orbit led 2011 QQ$_{99}$ in and out of the outer belt.

Figure~\ref{fig:evolutionQQ99} shows the result of $N$-body integrations backward in time for the nominal orbit and
representative control orbits of 2011~QQ$_{99}$ (input Cartesian vectors from data in Table~\ref{vectorQQ99} of
Appendix~\ref{app:2}). Our results show a very chaotic dynamical past driven again by frequent encounters with Jupiter
and Saturn, inside the Hill radii of both planets. The evolution is however somewhat different from those of 210718 or
2003~BM$_{1}$. Asteroid 2011~QQ$_{99}$ may remain confined within a relatively narrow volume in orbital parameter space,
never venturing too far from the region of the giant planets. Its source region is probably between the orbits of
Jupiter and Neptune, the Centaur orbital domain.
\begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fDjaeiTj2011QQ99.pdf}
   \caption{Short-term past evolution of relevant parameters of 2011~QQ$_{99}$. We show the evolution of the distance to
            Jupiter (top panel) and Saturn (second to top) of the nominal orbit (in black) as described by the
            corresponding orbit determination in Table~\ref{elementsQQ99} of Appendix~\ref{app:1} and those of control
            orbits or clones with Cartesian vectors separated $+$3$\sigma$ (in green), $-$3$\sigma$ (in lime),
            $+$6$\sigma$ (in blue), $-$6$\sigma$ (in cyan), $+$9$\sigma$ (in red), and $-$9$\sigma$ (in pink) from the
            nominal values in Table~\ref{vectorQQ99} of Appendix~\ref{app:2}. The Hill radii of Jupiter, 0.338~au, and
            Saturn, 0.412~au, are shown in red. The third to top panel shows the evolution of the semimajor axis, $a$.
            The third to bottom panel shows the evolution of the eccentricity, $e$. The second to bottom panel displays
            the inclination, $i$. The bottom panel shows the variations of the Tisserand's parameter, $T_{\rm J}$
            \citep{1999ssd..book.....M}, and includes the boundary references 2 (in brown) and 3 (in orange). The output
            time-step size is 1~yr, the origin of time is epoch 2459600.5 TDB. The source of the input data is JPL's
            {\tt Horizons}.
           }
   \label{fig:evolutionQQ99}
\end{figure}

\subsection{2021~UJ$_{5}$}
\label{sec:4.5}
This object was first observed on October 28, 2021, by the Pan-STARRS~2 \citep{2004SPIE.5489...11K} telescope system at
Haleakala. Its orbit determination is based on 51 observations with a data-arc span of 68~d (see Table~\ref{elementsUJ5}
in Appendix~\ref{app:1}). It has a semimajor axis of 3.40~au, eccentricity of 0.51, and orbital inclination of
9.39$^{\circ}$. Its current orbit places it between those of Mars and Jupiter. It may have been a member of the
Jupiter-family of comets \citep{2022ApJ...928...43G} or related populations such as the comet 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann~1
or 2020~MK$_{4}$ \citep{2021A&A...649A..85D}.

Figure~\ref{fig:evolutionUJ5} shows the result of $N$-body integrations backward in time for the nominal orbit and
representative control orbits of 2021~UJ$_{5}$. Our results show a very chaotic dynamical past driven by frequent
encounters with Jupiter and Saturn, inside the Hill radii of both planets. Our calculations suggest that its most
probable source is in the Centaur population or, less likely, the trans-Neptunian region.
\begin{figure}
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fDjaeiTj2021UJ5.pdf}
   \caption{Short-term past evolution of relevant parameters of 2021~UJ$_{5}$. We show the evolution of the distance to
            Jupiter (top panel) and Saturn (second to top) of the nominal orbit (in black) as described by the
            corresponding orbit determination in Table~\ref{elementsUJ5} of Appendix~\ref{app:1} and those of control
            orbits or clones with Cartesian vectors separated $+$3$\sigma$ (in green), $-$3$\sigma$ (in lime),
            $+$6$\sigma$ (in blue), $-$6$\sigma$ (in cyan), $+$9$\sigma$ (in red), and $-$9$\sigma$ (in pink) from the
            nominal values in Table~\ref{vectorUJ5} of Appendix~\ref{app:2}. The Hill radii of Jupiter, 0.338~au, and
            Saturn, 0.412~au, are shown in red. The third to top panel shows the evolution of the semimajor axis, $a$.
            The third to bottom panel shows the evolution of the eccentricity, $e$. The second to bottom panel displays
            the inclination, $i$. The bottom panel shows the variations of the Tisserand's parameter, $T_{\rm J}$
            \citep{1999ssd..book.....M}, and includes the boundary references 2 (in brown) and 3 (in orange). The output
            time-step size is 1~yr, the origin of time is epoch 2459600.5 TDB. The source of the input data is JPL's
            {\tt Horizons}.
           }
   \label{fig:evolutionUJ5}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:5}
Our statistical analyses and calculations indicate that the present-day main asteroid belt may not contain a sizeable
population of minor bodies recently scattered outward by the terrestrial planets. However, it does host a non-negligible
population of newcomers scattered inward by the giant planets and perhaps even captured from the Oort cloud or
interstellar space. These conclusions suggest that the dynamical pathways that may have populated the early main belt
may still be active today, but only in the case of material scattered inward. While asteroids from the main belt are
currently being scattered inward, toward the terrestrial planets \citep{2017A&A...598A..52G}, the flux in the opposite
direction may have ceased altogether. On the other hand, \citet{2016Ap&SS.361..371G} predicted that former Centaurs and
TNOs could be found in the outer asteroid belt. Our results confirm this prediction but all the objects in
Table~\ref{tab:1} have $a$ in the range 3.5--4.2~au.

The presence of 457175 (2008~GO$_{98}$) among the newcomers hints at a connection between them and the small group of
active objects present in the main asteroid belt. Although the first active member of the main asteroid belt was found
in 1979 (originally discovered as 1979~OW$_{7}$, rediscovered as 1996~N$_{2}$, and now known as comet 133P/Elst-Pizarro,
see for example \citealt{2014AJ....147..117J}), the nature of this population remained ambiguous. It was not until some
time later that it became clear that a population of comets was present in the main asteroid belt
\citep{2006Sci...312..561H,2022arXiv220301397J}. Only a very small fraction of the known members of the asteroid belt
has been found to display comet-like features. Although the dominant process behind the observed cometary activity in
the main belt remains unclear, possible mechanisms at work include sublimation of icy materials, impacts, rotational
breakups, and electrostatic effects (see for example \citealt{2012AJ....143...66J,2016A&A...589A.111G,
2022ApJ...928...43G}). The population of main-belt comets includes several bizarre objects. The first known binary
comet, 288P/(300163) 2006~VW$_{139}$ \citep{2017Natur.549..357A,2020A&A...643A.152A}, which is perhaps triple
\citep{2020DPS....5221701K}, belongs to this population that also includes a multi-tailed comet, P/2013~P5
\citep{2013ApJ...778L..21J}, and objects involved in impacts and disruption events as in the cases of (596) Scheila
\citep{2011ApJ...733L...4J}, (6478) Gault \citep{2019A&A...624L..14M}, P/2015~X6 \citep{2016ApJ...826..137M}, P/2016~G1
\citep{2016ApJ...826L..22M}, P/2019~A4 (PANSTARRS) and P/2021~A5 (PANSTARRS) \citep{2021MNRAS.506.1733M} or 248370
(2005~QN$_{173}$) \citep{2021ApJ...922L...8C,2021ApJ...922L...9H}. The $N$-body calculations presented in the previous
section suggest that most newcomers, including 457175, 2011~QQ$_{99}$, and 2021~UJ$_{5}$, might have had an origin as
debris from the 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann~1--P/2008~CL94 (Lemmon)--P/2010~TO20 (LINEAR-Grauer) cometary complex in
Centaur orbital parameter space.

The outer section of the main asteroid belt has been previously studied within the context of the chaotic motion and the
Lyapunov time, $T_{L}$ (the inverse of the maximum Lyapunov exponent), which could be very short for certain objects in
this region (see for example \citealt{1994AJ....108.2323M,1996AJ....112.1278H,2010A&A...523A..67W}). The Lyapunov time
is the characteristic timescale for the exponential divergence of initially close orbits. Focusing on the objects in
Table~\ref{tab:1} with the most reliable orbit determinations, we obtained $T_{L}$=1500~yr (1100~yr for integrations
into the future) for 2003~BM$_{1}$, 500~yr (500~yr) for 2011~QQ$_{99}$, 500~yr (600~yr) for 2020~UO$_{43}$, and 450~yr
(800~yr) for 2021~UJ$_{5}$. Therefore, our relevant results for real objects confirm the conclusions of the analysis in
\citet{2010A&A...523A..67W} and lend credence to the notion that some small bodies may indeed have reached the main belt
within the last few hundred years. However, they may not last long in their current orbits as their $T_{L}$ are also
very short for integrations into the future.

The four asteroids mentioned above have Lyapunov times as short as their chaotic transport times or diffusion times. In
general, this is not the case. The statistical relationship between these two timescales is not straightforward;
it has a large scatter and its fitting is approximately quadratic (see for example \citealt{1997AJ....114.1246M,
1998PhLA..241...53S}). A dramatic example of this fact is in the asteroid 522 Helga, which is both chaotic and stable,
with a short Lyapunov time but infinite diffusion time \citep{1993CeMDA..56..323M}. This topic has been recently
revisited by \citet{2022PhyD..43033101C}.

We have pointed out above that secular resonances (other than von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai's) may bring some of these objects
back and forth into the belt from beyond Jupiter. For instance, asteroids could be perturbed by secular resonances
involving the values of the longitude of perihelion and the ascending node relative to those of Saturn (see for example
\citealt{1969PhDT.........2W,1986A&A...166..326F,1987A&A...179..294F,1988CeMec..43..113F,1989CeMDA..46..231F,
1987CeMec..40..233Y,1991CeMDA..51..131M,1991CeMDA..51..169M}). The role of the so-called $\nu_6$ secular
resonance can be explored by studying the evolution of the resonant argument $\sigma_6$=$\varpi - \varpi_6$, where
$\varpi$=$\Omega + \omega$ is the longitude of perihelion of the asteroid and the one of Saturn is $\varpi_6$. According
to \citet{1969PhDT.........2W}, two resonant states are possible with libration of $\sigma_6$ around 0$^{o}$\xspace (when the
perihelia of the asteroid and Saturn are approximately aligned) or 180$^{o}$\xspace (when the perihelia are somewhat
anti-aligned), for additional details see for example \citet{2011MNRAS.412.2040C} and \citet{2018MNRAS.481.1707H}. The
secular nodal resonance with Saturn can be assessed by studying the resonant argument $\Omega - \Omega_6$. Using JPL's
{\tt Horizons} data, we have explored these secular resonances for 457175, 2003~BM$_{1}$, 2011~QQ$_{99}$,
2020~UO$_{43}$, and 2021~UJ$_{5}$. The secular nodal resonance does not seem to be currently active for any of these
objects, but Fig.~\ref{fig:nu6_a} shows that at least two objects are, have been, or will be subjected to the $\nu_6$
secular resonance. Comet 362P or 457175 may have engaged in anti-aligned $\nu_6$ secular resonant behavior in the past
and 2021~UJ$_{5}$ seems to be currently trapped in the $\nu_6$ secular resonance with $\sigma_6$ oscillating about
0$^{o}$\xspace. Figure~\ref{fig:nu6_b} shows that librations of $\sigma_6$ are also observed for other objects, but not about
0$^{o}$\xspace or 180$^{o}$\xspace. However and given the rather short values of $T_{L}$ pointed out above, any resonant engagements are
expected to be relatively brief.
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.495\linewidth]{2008GO98sigma6.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.495\linewidth]{2021UG5sigma6.pdf}
  \caption{Evolution of the resonant argument $\sigma_6$=$\varpi - \varpi_6$ for 457175 (2008~GO$_{98}$) and
           2021~UJ$_{5}$, left- and right-hand side panels, respectively. The origin of time is the epoch 2459600.5~JD
           Barycentric Dynamical Time (2022-Jan-21.0 00:00:00.0 TDB) and the output cadence is 60~d. The source of the
           data is JPL's {\tt Horizons}.
          }
  \label{fig:nu6_a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.325\linewidth]{2003BM1sigma6.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.325\linewidth]{2011QQ99sigma6.pdf}
  \includegraphics[width=0.325\linewidth]{2020UO43sigma6.pdf}
  \caption{Evolution of the resonant argument $\sigma_6$=$\varpi - \varpi_6$ for (from left to right) 2003~BM$_{1}$,
           2011~QQ$_{99}$, and 2020~UO$_{43}$. The origin of time is the epoch 2459600.5~JD Barycentric Dynamical Time
           (2022-Jan-21.0 00:00:00.0~TDB) and the output cadence is 60~d. The source of the data is JPL's
           {\tt Horizons}.
          }
  \label{fig:nu6_b}
\end{figure}

Our analyses have also uncovered a possible gravitational trap in the outer main belt for interstellar objects entering
the Solar system at relatively slow speeds with respect to the barycenter; in other words, objects following hyperbolic
orbits with low excess eccentricity, $\sim$1 to 1.3. Asteroid 2020~UO$_{43}$ might be one of such objects but its
current orbit determination is not precise enough to confirm (or reject) an interstellar origin (see also the cautionary
note above).

As pointed out in Sect.~\ref{sec:2}, we have not considered the Yarkovsky and Yarkovsky--O'Keefe--Radzievskii--Paddack
(YORP) effects (see for example \citealt{2006AREPS..34..157B}) in our calculations, although both effects have been
confirmed to be detectable in both near-Earth and main-belt asteroid populations (see for example
\citealt{2013Icar..224....1F,2016AJ....151..164C,2017MNRAS.469.4400C,2018A&A...617A..61D,2018A&A...609A..86D,
2019Icar..321..564G,2020AJ....159...92G}). However, ignoring these effects has no significant impact on the evaluation
of the short-term orbital evolution of the objects discussed here because for an average value for the Yarkovsky drift
of 10$^{-9}$~au~yr$^{-1}$ (see for example \citealt{2012AJ....144...60N}), the timescale to enter the main belt is of
the order of Myr, which is several orders of magnitude longer than the time intervals discussed in this research. On
the other hand, accurate modelling of the Yarkovsky force requires relatively precise knowledge of the physical
properties ---such as rotation rate, albedo, bulk density, surface conductivity, or emissivity--- of the objects under
study, which is not the case for the relevant small bodies studied in this work.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:6}
In this paper, we have discussed the details of a data mining experiment aimed at identifying present-day members of the
main asteroid belt that may have reached the belt during the last few hundred years. We have used publicly available
data from JPL's SBDB and {\tt Horizons}. Our analyses show which regions of the belt are the most and the least stable,
and how the various mean-motion resonances shape the orbital architecture of the main belt. Our conclusions can be
summarized as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
   \item The inner belt and the core of the main belt do not include any known object that could be regarded as a recent
         arrival to the belt.
   \item The outer main belt hosts a small but very interesting population of orbital newcomers. A few dozen objects
         may have been inserted into this region within the last few hundred years. The list of interlopers with
         reliable orbit determinations includes 457175 (2008~GO$_{98}$), 2003~BM$_{1}$, 2011~QQ$_{99}$, 2020~UO$_{43}$,
         and 2021~UJ$_{5}$. At least one object has been found to exhibit cometary activity, 457175 or comet 362P, which
         opens an interesting connection between the interlopers singled out here and the small group of active objects
         present in the main asteroid belt.
   \item Asteroid 2020~UO$_{43}$ has a non-negligible probability of having an origin in the Oort cloud or even
         interstellar space, but its orbit determination is not sufficiently robust to reach a conclusive answer to
         the question of its origin, if the object is confirmed as real.
   \item Most interlopers found here may come from the Centaur orbital realm.
\end{enumerate}
Our results suggest that the dynamical pathways that inserted material from beyond Jupiter into the main asteroid belt
early in the history of the Solar system may continue to be active today but those sending debris from the orbital realm
of the terrestrial planets into the belt may be currently inactive or at least their present-day strength could be
significantly weaker than that of those scattering material inward.

\begin{acknowledgements}
   We thank the referee, V. Carruba, for his constructive, thorough, and helpful reports, a second referee for pointing
   out the non-straightforward statistical relationship between Lyapunov time and diffusion time, S.~J. Aarseth for
   providing one of the codes used in this research, A.~B. Chamberlin for helping with the new JPL's Solar System
   Dynamics website, S. Deen for finding precovery images of some of the objects discussed here and for additional
   comments including the issue of the dubious linkage of 2020~UO$_{43}$, and A.~I. G\'omez de Castro for providing
   access to computing facilities. Part of the calculations and the data analysis were completed on the Brigit HPC
   server of the `Universidad Complutense de Madrid' (UCM), and we thank S. Cano Als\'ua for his help during this stage.
   This work was partially supported by the Spanish `Ministerio de Econom\'{\i}a y Competitividad' (MINECO) under grant
   ESP2017-87813-R and by the `Agencia Estatal de Investigaci\'on (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci\'on)' under grant
   PID2020-116726RB-I00 /AEI/10.13039/501100011033. In preparation for this paper, we made use of the NASA Astrophysics
   Data System, the ASTRO-PH e-print server, and the MPC data server.
\end{acknowledgements}

\section*{Statements and Declarations}
The data underlying this paper were accessed from JPL's SBDB (\url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html\#/})
and {\tt Horizons} on-line solar system data and ephemeris computation service (\url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/}),
both provided by the Solar System Dynamics Group (\url{https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/}).
The derived data generated in this research will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

\bibliographystyle{spbasic}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


Spaniard has endured another tough campaign in front of goal.
Inter Milan chairman Erick Thohir has confirmed that out-of-favour Chelsea front man Fernando Torres is one of three possible new strikers that the Serie A giants are hoping to sign for next season, according to reports in the Daily Mail.
The Nerazzurri are set to undergo a massive overhaul of their first-team squad at San Siro when this current campaign draws to a close after what has been yet another desperately disappointing season by their high standards.
And top of the club's wish list is a new forward to help fire them back to the top of the standings in Italy, with Inter understood to be targeting three attackers this summer, the unsettled Chelsea marksman, as well as both Manchester City's Eden Dzeko and Real Madrid's Alvaro Morata.
"We will sign a striker in the summer and he will be of European standard," Thohir is reported to have said in Italian sports daily La Gazzetta dello Sport.
"We have a lot of candidates in our list.
Torres, 30, is contracted to the west London club until June 2016 and has only found the back of the net on four occasions so far this season in 24 appearances for the Blues.


text:
Cars & Auto
5 Ways Tesla Is Transforming the Auto Industry
From technology innovations to charging infrastructure, traditional automakers could learn a lot by studying Tesla.
By Doug Newcomb
https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/5-ways-tesla-is-transforming-the-auto-industry
No matter what you think of Tesla, it's difficult not to admire what the start-up electric-vehicle maker has accomplished since the Model S was released in June 2012. In that short time, established and competitor car companies have had to take Tesla seriously as it's racked up a string of awards and successes and grabbed a surprising amount of market share in the luxury category. And as Tesla prepares to launch a less expensive model, mainstream brands will also feel threatened.
An automotive analyst recently cited five ways in which Tesla is pushing technological change in the automotive industry. And while I don't agree with his list (since only two of the five ways are not exclusive to Tesla), I concur with his premise that Tesla is forcing other automakers to reexamine how in-car tech is being implemented.
But I'd take it even further and say that Tesla is also transforming the car driving, ownership, and buying experience. So I came up with my own list (that starts with the two I agree on with the analyst):
1. Large center-dash touch-screen display: Even though the Model S has been out for almost two years, no other automaker offers the extra-large in-dash touch screen that's become a Tesla trademark. While it can be debated that the screen is too large, too bright, and too distracting, the appeal of such a large interface is undeniable. And it's bound to be copied: We've already seen the idea of a vertical rather than horizontal main in-dash touch screen copied by Volvo for its upcoming infotainment interface.
2. Over-the-air software updates: The analyst's list called this "cloud-based software," which several car companies have been using for years (think OnStar). But he also mentioned something that Tesla is doing on a regular basis and traditional automakers have been slow to implement: over-the-air (OTA) software updates. Tesla has pushed out OTA updates for the Model S for everything from adding a "creep" feature to raising the Model S when battery fires became an issue last year. With the critical need for infotainment software to keep current with consumer devices that connect to cars, OTA updates should be—and can be—routine across the industry.
3. Charging infrastructure: It's the classic chicken-and-egg scenario. Until there's a larger demand for EVs, it's difficult to justify adding more charging infrastructure. But more people may not consider buying an EV until there are more charging stations that can relieve range anxiety. Tesla's answer to the problem? Build its own Supercharger network.
4. Design rules: Styling has always played a huge role in whether people universally like one vehicle (a classic Corvette) and instinctively turn their nose up at another one (the Pontiac Aztek). While there are lots of great-looking cars available, and luxury brands are thick with them, Tesla's emphasis on design—both inside and out—has made it a car that not only stands out because it's new and different, but because the design is fresh and bold.
5. Car buying sucks: I remember hearing about a survey that ranked car shopping just behind going to the dentist in a list of experiences most people dread. The haggling and hassle required to buy a car—and that you can't go direct to a manufacturer—is ripe for an overhaul. By trying to buck the system and bypass the traditional dealer network Tesla is taking the punishment that usually befalls pioneers, but also firing the first salvo in what will likely be a long battle.
Keep in mind that Tesla doesn't have to deal with a lot of the headwinds and headaches that are common for more established automakers, such as juggling multiple model lines, managing a huge global labor force, accruing the legacy costs of unionized workers, and spending billions on ads worldwide to stay competitive. And, of course, Tesla is coasting on tax incentives offered for EVs and doesn't have to comply with looming CAFE standards.
Still, there's a lot that traditional car companies could learn from Tesla—now that they've learned that the maverick automaker is not going away anytime soon.
Tesla Model S Redesign: Look Past the Weird Steering Yoke and See the Future
By Tyler Hayes
The Best High-Tech Cars for 2022
By Alex Colon & Doug Newcomb
The Best Car Phone Mounts for 2022
About Doug Newcomb
Doug Newcomb is a recognized expert on the subject of car technology within the auto industry and among the automotive and general media, and a frequent speaker at automotive and consumer electronics industry events. Doug began his career in 1988 at the car stereo trade publication Mobile Electronics, before serving as editor of the leading consumer magazines covering the topic, Car Audio and Electronics and Car Stereo Review/Mobile Entertainment/Road & Track Road Gear, from 1989 to 2005. In 2005 Doug started his own company, Newcomb Communications & Consulting, to provide content to such outlets as Road & Track, Popular Mechanics, MSN Autos, SEMA News, and many others. In 2008, he published his first book, Car Audio for Dummies (Wiley). He is also a contributor to Wired's Autopia, MSN Autos, and numerous other outlets.
Read the latest from Doug Newcomb
2022 Hyundai Kona Electric Review
2021 Polestar 2 Review
Pioneer AVIC-W8400NEX Review
Autonomous Vehicles Won't Be Speed Demons at First
More from Doug Newcomb

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Beyond The Beanstalk: You Don't Know Jack
February 7, 2020, 7:00 pm at Hoogland Center for the Arts, 420 S. Sixth St., Springfield, IL
Presented by STC, "Beyond the Beanstalk: You Don't Know Jack" is an original play written by Gil Opferman. It is the story of a modern day family who has a Grandpa who comes to visit and loves to tell his grandkids the many tales of Jack. He tells four stories of Jack, one from each different stage in Jack's life from a young teen to senior. These humorous, magical stories come alive on stage. There's witches, kings, princes, princesses, flying ships, and a lot of surprises! The show is directed by Gil & Ann Opferman featuring a cast of children, teens and adults.
February 8, 2020, 7:00 pm
1 Frozen Jr.
Hoogland Center for the Artsz420 S. Sixth St., Springfield, ILa
"Frozen" Experience for Kids
2 "Frozen" Experience for Kids
3 Blithe Spirit
STC's Murder Mystery Dinner: Sugar & Vice
4 STC's Murder Mystery Dinner: Sugar & Vice
5 Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat
6 Into the Woods
More From Theatre
Hoogland Center for the Arts420 S. Sixth St., Springfield, ILa


West Bengal of Education will virtually prepare the Madhyamik assessments in the month of March in 2018. The outcomes will be announced directly in the authentic website wbresults.nic.in and here in this internet site the students can affirm their respective outcomes via coming into the Roll No. and the other essential important points these are available in Hall ticket. The Results for the Madhyamik 2018 are planning to launch in the month of May in 2018. The students are working difficult as it can see the energy of students in the examinations; they can choose their nice theme in the 11th class through thinking about their marks in the tenth class.
West Bengal WBBSE is additionally known as the West Bengal of Additional Education and learning. It is the State Federal authorities of West Bengal carried out criminal examining authority for the Class tenth examination. It affords the affiliation to colleges in all over the state. At present time, there are loads of private and also Federal Government schools which are affiliated underneath this board. The examination for the 10th wellknown is additionally called the Madhyamik Pariksha or additional exam.
The Madhyamik exam will be equipped every year in all over the state of West Bengal. The fundamental intention of this is to decorate the schooling diploma in all over state. The complete quantity of type 10 examinees in 2018 is 11,02,921, of whom 6,21,366 are girls. The wide variety of boys who have registered for the examination is 4,81,555. The WBBSE Madhyamik exam has been held in 2819 exam centres across the state. The WBBSE 10th Result 2018 is very necessary for the college students as on the foundation of their performances, they will be able to get admission in the direction of their preference in the greater secondary exam, i.e. classification eleven Once the West Bengal Board Madhyamik Result 2018 is released, a direct link to test the same will be updated below. Candidates can read this article to be aware of the whole small print of the WBBSE 10th Result 2018 and date of release.
Log on to the reliable website: wbresults.nic.in.
Now click on on West Bengal Madhyamik Result 2018 net link.
Results could be down load by way of clicking on 'Conserve' and can be acquire a Printout with the aid of clicking 'Print' button.
The college students are eagerly ready for their outcomes as they worked challenging for the exams, they can select their pleasant theme in the 11th classification by depending on the effects in the Madhyamik 2018 results. Last year, A Total 9,10,885 students passed the WBBSE Madhyamik examinations. The ordinary bypass share of college students this year in the WB Board Madhyamik Pariksha Results is 85.05%. The students simply need to enter the official internet site wbresults.nic.in and enter their small print to get the consequences of their Madhyamik exams. They need to enter the Roll no. and some other small print to get the results.


Daniel I. Miles, 52, died suddenly Tuesday morning, August 21, 2012 at his home. He was a native of Hawaii but had lived in Baxley most of his life. He was son of the late Floyd Miles and was also preceded in death by a brother, Reuben Miles and a sister Melinda Thompson.
Survivors include his wife of 32 years, Denise Denner Miles of Baxley; his mother, Patsy Chavis Dyson of Millwood; his step mother, Coleen Miles of Baxley; one son, Daniel Reuben Miles (Loretta) of Baxley; two daughters, Daphne Thomas (Jerome) of Baxley and Debbie Rushing (Jason) of Surrency; two brothers, Michael Miles of New Mexico and Fred Miles of Baxley; one sister, Susan Hutchinson (Jamie) of Baxley. Also, six grandchildren survive.
Funeral services were held Thursday afternoon at 2:00 o'clock at Miles Chapel Church in Appling County with the Rev. Doug Weisel officiating. Interment followed in church cemetery. The family received friends at the funeral home Wednesday evening between 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. The body was carried to the church at 1:00 p.m. Thursday to lie in state.
Active pallbearers were Bill Register, Andrew McMann, Dewayne Carter, Tom Spivey, Lewis Chancey and Tim Courson.
Crosby Funeral Home of Alma was in charge of all the arrangements.


text:
Information Access – Agency Information Guide
Information not publicly available
The Department of Education provides information to the public about its policies and operations under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 also known as the GIPA Act.
Below is a record of information that isn't made available to the public because there is an overriding public interest against disclosure (OPIAD). This complies with s.6 and s.18 of the GIPA Act.
Information is not made publicly available because of one or more of the following reasons:
disclosing it would compromise the department's safety and security
it is held as commercial-in-confidence
other legal reasons.
If you have further queries please contact the area responsible or:
Information access unit
E iaunit@det.nsw.edu.au
Record of open access information not publicly available
Area responsible
Policy Incident Notification and Response Policy States the obligations of workplace managers to report incidents through appropriate channels. It defines "incident", the requirement of employees and others in the workplace to report incidents, types of incidents that must be reported and reporting timeframes. Safety and security - GIPA Act s.14 Item 2 (a)-(e) - disclosure could reveal and compromise the incident reporting system, prejudicing safety and security of students, staff and property. Corporate Services – Health and Safety
Policy Enterprise Data Policy The Department of Education implements data governance systems and processes to ensure that information is fit for purpose, secure, available, accessible and complies with applicable laws and regulations Responsible and effective government - GIPA Act s.14 Item 1 (f) - disclosure could reveal the department's system for managing data which could prejudice the effective exercise of the department's functions. Commercial in confidence - GIPA Act s.14 Item 4 (a), (c), (d) -
Disclosure could place department at a competitive disadvantage; diminish the competitive commercial value of information; prejudice the department's legitimate business, commercial, and financial interests. Strategy and Evaluation – Centre for Statistics and Evaluation (CESE)
Policy Budget Policy The framework for the development and management of the department's budget Commercial in confidence - GIPA Act s.14 Item 4 (a), (c), (d) -
disclosure could place department at a competitive disadvantage; diminish the competitive commercial value of information; prejudice the department's legitimate business, commercial, and financial interests; and
GIPA Act s.14 Item 1 (f) - disclosure could reveal the department's system for managing its budget which could prejudice the effective exercise of the department's functions. Corporate Services - Finance
Back toInformation Access – Agency Information Guide
GIPA guidelines for staff
Major assets
Annual reports and performance
Documents tabled in Parliament
Customer service statement


Suttons Bay Cougars - Date A Cougar Near You!
Suttons Bay Cougars Meet Hot Suttons Bay Cougars Online!
Date Suttons Bay Cougars Online!
There is nothing like finding an older single more experienced women. These older women are often referred to as 'Cougars', & they really know to have fun, enjoy life, & love the company of young guys. In Suttons Bay there is always thousands of cougars online right now, looking for someone that they can spend time with. If you are looking for a cougar, then stop browsing & start meeting cougars today!


text:
Women charged for helping shooting suspect
Courtney Denise Taylor reportedly picked up shooting suspect, brought him to her house, police say
Women charged for helping shooting suspect Courtney Denise Taylor reportedly picked up shooting suspect, brought him to her house, police say Check out this story on baxterbulletin.com: https://www.baxterbulletin.com/story/news/local/2019/11/01/women-charged-helping-shooting-suspect/4127528002/
Josh Dooley, Baxter Bulletin Published 5:35 p.m. CT Nov. 1, 2019
Courtney Denise Taylor (Photo: BCSO)
A 43-year-old Gassville woman is charged with helping double-shooting suspect Alton Bruce Cooke elude a manhunt. Courtney Denise Taylor allegedly picked Cooke up at a Promise Land residence and brought him to her home, according to a news release from Baxter County Sheriff John Montgomery.
On Wednesday morning, Cooke reportedly called Taylor and asked her to come pick him up after he ran a couple off the road and shot them both. The woman in the vehicle who was shot reportedly had a prior relationship with Cooke, according to the sheriff.
Cooke called Taylor a second time and directed her to the residence of a parent of the female shooting victim. Cooke went to the Promise Land residence and picked up Cooke, according to the news release.
She then brought him to her Gassville residence where she lives with a child. The same day, Mountain Home police went to the residence to question Taylor about leads authorities had received that she might have information regarding Cooke's location and some stolen property.
Cooke was reportedly hiding inside the residence at the time investigators were questioning her, according to the news release. At the time she was questioned, she denied he was there.
The next day, authorities surrounded the house, evacuated Taylor and the child along with nearby residences and began attempting to communicate with Cooke. After several hours, they entered the home and discovered Cooke dead from what authorities described as a self inflicted gunshot wound.
Following an interview during which Taylor reportedly admitted to knowingly hiding Cooke from law enforcement officers, she was arrested on a Class B felony charge of hindering apprehension and a Class D felony charge of endangering the welfare of a minor.
She was booked into the Baxter County jail and was held in lieu of a $50,000 bond. A Class B felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison while a Class D felony is punishable by up to six years in prison.
Read or Share this story: https://www.baxterbulletin.com/story/news/local/2019/11/01/women-charged-helping-shooting-suspect/4127528002/
Cowboy hat trick: Three country artists take ASUMH stage
Man accused of beating mother appears in court
Byrd wins Baxter County Spelling Bee
Winners of Elks' essay contest
Does Medicare cover counseling services?
Judge to sentence Yellville woman in burglary case
© 2020 The Baxter Bulletin, a division of Gannett Company, Inc.
Cars.com Mountain Home


Painting a house with stripes would mean a horror house for you. You hate stripes and just couldn't imagine something more horrible than having your house painted in stripes. But you spouse didn't know this about you and made the big mistake of redecorating the entire house while you were on a vacation. When you returned, no one was home. So you entered the house and barrely stand to don't have a panic attack. At first you though that you entered the wrong house, but then you started recognizing your stuff. It's time to end your pain, find some hidden objects you need and escape from this stripes house. Use the mouse to play!


text:
Ray Dalio Has a Point About Bitcoin At $18,000
By Lionel Laurent | Bloomberg
November 19, 2020 at 8:05 a.m. UTC
Mike Novogratz, famous for making the jump from Wall Street to cryptocurrencies, has regularly drawn a link between the global pandemic, financial stimulus and the allure of Bitcoin as a safe haven. "Now is the time to invest in Bitcoin," his crypto firm Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd. thundered in a newspaper ad in August. "I'd be much more nervous [about a price drop] if I thought we're going to cure Covid and all of a sudden everyone's going to be fiscally conservative," Novogratz said at the time.
He got one thing right. Bitcoin is now trading near $18,000, up almost 100% in six months and it's flirting with an all-time high reached in 2017 (which, given it was followed by an ugly crash, faithful Bitcoiners would rather forget). Shares of Galaxy have done even better, rising by 380%. Total assets at Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, the biggest trust provider in the cryptocurrency, have risen fourfold this year to $8.4 billion.
But is this really being driven by people seeking protection from a more uncertain world? A Covid-19 vaccine is getting closer; Donald Trump, whose one-time adviser Steve Bannon cheered Bitcoin as part of a "global populist revolt," is on his way out. Global equity markets are near all-time highs.
If anything, Bitcoin looks much more like the stock market on steroids than it does a digital version of gold, which has barely budged since the end of October as confidence about a Covid cure has gradually improved. You can see why hedge fund skeptics like Ray Dalio are dubious of Bitcoin's charms.
The cryptocurrency's recent above-average correlation with equities is fine when everything's going up, but not in times of stress: In mid-March, for example, a flight to safety triggered by Covid cut Bitcoin's price in half. A recent Kansas City Fed study comparing bonds, gold and Bitcoin between 1995 and Feb. 2020 found Treasuries behaved "consistently" as a safe haven, gold "occasionally" and Bitcoin "never."
Behind the talk of digital gold is the reality of an erratic, still-speculative asset with the potential for big price swings. Serious investor money is changing hands on crypto exchanges partly because a risky trading opportunity is in the air: Charismatic hedge fund convert Paul Tudor Jones compared Bitcoin to "investing in Google early." Right behind the smart money are the excited retail punters who apparently used their $1,200 pandemic stimulus checks to buy Bitcoin.
While digital payment firms such as PayPal Holdings Inc. and Square Inc. have launched Bitcoin applications, this price jump is not about people buying cappuccinos. Data from Chainalysis estimates merchants made up only about 1% of crypto activity in North America between mid-2019 and mid-2020, while exchanges accounted for almost 90%. In East Asia, the world's biggest crypto market, Bitcoin trading is driven by Tether, a token used as a U.S. dollar stand-in that's embroiled in a New York lawsuit over alleged covered-up losses.
Crypto is still a heady bet on life-changing wealth, not a disruptor of how normal people use money.
Hence the confusion of Dalio, who wondered this week if he was "missing something" after dubbing Bitcoin a bubble back in 2017. Nothing had fundamentally fixed Bitcoin's weakness as a currency or store of value, he says, and if it ever became a threat to governments and central banks it would be keelhauled by regulators. He has a point: Bitcoin still looks like an asset with bubble-like price dynamics, exaggerated by the artificial scarcity of its 21-million supply cap and a "HODLing" mentality among its acolytes, who hoard an estimated 60% of outstanding coins.
Sure, you could call a lot of things bubbles, including stock markets supercharged by Tesla Inc. and blank-check SPACs. But the unique power of Bitcoin hype is demonstrated when celebrities such as JK Rowling and Maisie Williams ask publicly for crypto tips on Twitter. The likes of Novogratz and Elon Musk are happy to offer bullish advice.
Given this exuberance, does the 2020 price spike mean a 2021 crash? Not necessarily. But the forces that drive Bitcoin's price aren't as straightforward as its defenders insist. Novogratz feels this year is a milestone: "We've crossed the Rubicon … Bitcoin is now an asset," he said in August. But it will take more than a second trip toward $20,000 to truly convince big banks and consumers that it's a stable one.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the European Union and France. He worked previously at Reuters and Forbes.
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion


text:
Join Us | Login |
Contact Us | 中文 | EN
About HKLA About Lacrosse Hong Kong Field Representative Team Hong Kong U19 Representative Team Hong Kong Box Representative Team
Officials Official List Our Official Training Course
Men's Head Coach Women's Head Coach Coach Development Our Coach Training Course
League Activity
Player Calendar News Gallery Recruit 0
Policy on Prevention of Sexual Harassment
1.	Preamble
This policy is a general guideline on the subject of sexual harassment. It applies to the staff and contractors of the Association.
Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (SDO), sexual harassment is unlawful. The Association is committed to prohibiting any form of sexual harassment. Any person found to have acted in breach of this policy will be subject to disciplinary action including summary dismissal or termination of service agreement.
2.	Definition
2.1	Under SDO, sexual harassment is a form of discrimination which consists of any unwelcome sexual behavior in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated that the harassed person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated. Such behavior includes physical contacts, gestures, spoken words, written statements, use of images of a sexual nature, requests for sexual favours, creating a sexually hostile work environment, etc.
2.2	Sexual harassment covers both verbal and non-verbal conduct. It may occur to any person, regardless of gender. A single incident, even if it is not intentional or there is no evidence to prove the intention, may amount to sexual harassment once the act falls within the definition of sexual harassment.
2.3	Sexual harassment is usually related to an inappropriate use of power by a person over the other. It can also take place in situations where there is no power relationship.
3.	Preventing Sexual Harassment
3.1	Every person has a responsibility to eliminate sexual harassment and is encouraged to report any potential or actual incident of sexual harassment.
3.2	If a person believes that he/she has been sexually harassed or becomes aware of sexual harassment, he/she is recommended to take the following actions:
3.2.1	Speak up at the time. Tell the harasser that the latter's act is unwelcome and should stop immediately.
3.2.2	Keep a record of all evidence.
3.2.3	Tell someone he/she trusts and ask for emotional support and advice.
4.	Sexual Harassment Complaints
4.1	A complaint of sexual harassment may be lodged with the management of the Association. To ensure a fair and proper process, individuals who report the alleged harassment should identify themselves. Anonymous reports or complaints will not be processed, save in exceptional circumstances.
4.2	There are informal and formal procedures to deal with sexual harassment complaints depending on the severity of the incident and the wish of the complainant.
4.3	Informal Procedure
-	The Association will act as a conciliator/mediator to assist in reaching a settlement, if the parties concerned are agreeable to such course of action.
-	If a settlement is reached, the Association will prepare a report signed by all parties for filing.
-	If the complainant cannot be resolved, a formal procedure will be commenced.
4.4	Formal Procedure
-	The complainant should lodge a written complaint containing a precise account of the incident with the Association.
-	The Association will appoint member(s) to investigate the complaint.
-	The alleged harasser will be given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. He/she will be required to refrain from contacting the complainant during the investigation.
-	If a case of sexual harassment is established, the Association will take appropriate disciplinary measures against the harasser.
-	Where the behavior in a sexual harassment case may amount to criminal offences, the Association may consider referring the cases to the police. A complainant may also lodge a complaint of sexual harassment directly with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) or take action in the District Court.
5.	Principles of Handling Complaints
The Association will handle sexual harassment complaints in accordance with the following principles:
5.1	Fairness: all enquiries and complaints will be handled in a just and impartial manner.
5.2	Confidentiality: all information and records related to complaints will be kept confidential and will only be disclosed to relevant staff members and the alleged harasser on a need-to-know basis.
5.3	Promptness: complaints will be handled promptly
5.4	Protection against victimization: complainants and witnesses will be protected against victimization, including retaliation.
5.5	Avoiding conflict of interest: a staff member related to the complainant or the alleged harasser will not take part in the conciliation or investigation process.
6.	Enquiries
6.1	For further enquiries on this policy, please contact the CEO of the Association at telephone number 2114 3406 or email to [email protected].
6.2	Further information pertaining to sexual harassment is available at the website of the EOC (www.eoc.org.hk).
Unit 2201, 22/F, 88 Hing Fat Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
Disclaimer Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Code of Conduct Equal Opportunities Selection Policy Anti-Doping Policy Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy Waiver
2019 © Hong Kong Lacrosse Association
Your membership has been expired. Please renew your membership.