pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 1612.05560 · v4 · submitted 2016-12-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

A. Calamida, A. F. Heavens, A. Fitzsimmons, A. M. Koekemoer, A. N. Taylor, A. Obaika, A. Rai, A. Rest, A. Riess, A. Riffeser, A. R. Thakar, A. S. B. Schultz, A. Szalay, B. Goldman, B. McLean, B. Shiao, C. D. Keyes, C. Frenk, C. Goessl, C. Holmberg, C. Rae, C. W. Stubbs, C. Z. Waters, D. Farrow, D. G. Monet, D. Le, D. Liska, D. N. A. Murphy, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. R. Soderblom, D. Scolnic, D. Thilker, D. Unger, E. A. Magnier, E. A. Pier, E. Ba\~nados, E. F. Bell, E. F. Schlafly, E. J. Bernard, E. K. Grebel, E. Mindel, E. Morganson, E. Schilbach, E. Small, F. Boffi, F. Walter, G. A. Luppino, G. Hasinger, G. Masci, G. Narayan, H. A. Flewelling, H. W. Rix, J. A. Peacock, J. Koppenhoefer, J. L. Tonry, J. N. Heasley, J. R. Lucey, J. S. Morgan, J. Thiel, J. Valenti, J. Wagner, K. C. Chambers, K. S. Long, K. W. Hodapp, K. W. Smith, L. Denneau, L. Rutz, L. Strolger, M. A. Nieto-Santisteban, M. Boegner, M. E. Huber, M. Holman, M. Jackson, M. Liu, M. Postman, M. T. Botticella, N.C. Hambly, N. Deacon, N. F. Martin, N. Kaiser, N. Metcalfe, N. Primak, P. A. Price, P. Grant, P. Misra, P. M. Onaka, P. Norberg, P. Taylor, P. W. Draper, R. Bender, R. Gourgue, R. Henderson, R. H. Lupton, R. Jedicke, R. J. Wainscoat, R. Kotak, R.-P. Kudritzki, R. P. Saglia, R. Russel, R. Thomson, R. White, R. Wyse, S. Casertano, S. Chastel, S. Cole, S. Gezari, S. Isani, S. J. Smartt, S. P. Watters, S. R\"oser, S. Seitz, S. Werner, T. Goggia, T. Grav, T. Henning, T. M. Heckman, T. Walder, U. Hopp, V. Gibbs, W.-H. Ip, W. M. Wood-Vasey, W.-P. Chen, W. S. Burgett, W. Sweeney, X. Chen, Y. Urata

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 22:03 UTC · model claude-opus-4-7

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords wide-field imaging surveyPan-STARRS1photometric calibrationastrometric calibrationGaia reference frametime-domain astronomyimage processing pipelinesky tessellation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Pan-STARRS1 delivers a public five-band optical survey of three quarters of the sky, calibrated to roughly 10 millimag in flux and a few milliarcseconds in position.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Pan-STARRS1 was a single 1.8-meter wide-field telescope on Haleakala that, between 2009 and 2014, repeatedly imaged the entire sky north of declination -30 degrees in five optical/near-infrared bands, plus a set of deeper repeated fields and specialised cadences for solar system objects, M31, and exoplanet transits. This paper is the system-level description of that program: how the telescope, the gigapixel camera, the image pipeline, and the catalog database fit together, what surveys were actually executed, and what the resulting public data products look like. The headline performance numbers are a stacked 5σ depth around r ≈ 23.2, photometric uniformity at the 7–12 millimag level across the sky, and astrometric agreement with Gaia at the few-milliarcsecond level after recalibration. A reader should care because, with the public release through MAST, PS1 becomes the de facto deep optical reference catalog over three quarters of the sky — a calibration backbone for time-domain searches, a discovery engine for near-Earth objects and high-redshift quasars, and a working template for the wide-field surveys that come after.

Core claim

The paper presents the completed Pan-STARRS1 survey program: a 1.8-meter wide-field telescope on Haleakala equipped with a 1.4-gigapixel camera that imaged the entire sky north of declination -30 degrees in five filters (grizy) plus deeper "Medium Deep" patches and specialised cadences for the solar system, M31, and a transit survey. The authors report that the stacked 3π survey reaches 5σ point-source depths of roughly 23.3, 23.2, 23.1, 22.3, 21.4 magnitudes in g, r, i, z, y; that photometric zero points are uniform to 7–12 millimag across the sky; and that, after recalibration to the Gaia reference frame, astrometric residuals are at the few-milliarcsecond level. The deliverable is a publi

What carries the argument

A 1.8-meter telescope feeding a 60-device, 1.4-gigapixel orthogonal-transfer-array camera through a six-filter system (grizy plus a wide w), coupled to an Image Processing Pipeline that detrends, warps onto a fixed sky tessellation, stacks, difference-images, and runs forced PSF photometry on individual epochs at positions defined by the stacks. Photometric closure is enforced by an ubercal-style global solution; astrometric closure is enforced by recalibrating every epoch against the Gaia DR1 frame.

If this is right

  • Any northern-hemisphere imaging program now has dense in-field photometric and astrometric standards good to roughly 10 millimag and a few milliarcseconds, removing a long-standing calibration bottleneck.
  • Time-domain science that needs deep multi-color reference images — supernova searches, tidal disruption events, microlensing, asteroid recovery — can use the public stacks as templates rather than building their own.
  • Three-dimensional dust maps, Milky Way halo structure (RR Lyrae out to ~120 kpc), and high-redshift quasar census work built on PS1 become reproducible from the released catalogs.
  • PS1 effectively extends the Gaia astrometric frame to fainter magnitudes over 3π steradians, which can be used to recalibrate archival data including HST imaging.
  • The infrastructure choices (skycell tessellation, forced photometry on warps driven by stack detections, ubercal-style photometric closure) become a working template for upcoming wide-field surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the most durable scientific legacy of PS1 may be calibration rather than discovery — it provides a dense, uniform standard-star network that any subsequent northern survey will lean on, including LSST cross-checks.
  • Editorial inference: forced photometry on individual warps, seeded by stack detections, sidesteps the intractable PSF discontinuities in coadds and is likely the right default pattern for surveys that combine many epochs of variable image quality.
  • Editorial inference: the reported ~10 millimag photometric floor is set largely by unmodeled small-scale PSF variations (optics ripples, atmospheric seeing structure, detector charge diffusion 'tree rings'); pushing below it will require physics-based PSF models, not more averaging.
  • Editorial inference: the strategy of pairing red-band (z, y) visits six months apart was a deliberate trade against asteroid linkage, and the modified design quads represent a learned compromise — a useful case study for any survey that has to satisfy both parallax and moving-object cadence in one schedule.

Load-bearing premise

That the global photometric and astrometric closure achieved by tying everything to itself (ubercal) and then to Gaia genuinely reflects the absolute accuracy of the catalog, rather than a tightly self-consistent solution that still carries unmodeled small-scale PSF and detector systematics below the millimag and milliarcsecond floors quoted.

What would settle it

Independent cross-comparison of Pan-STARRS1 catalog photometry and astrometry against Gaia, the Dark Energy Survey, and Hyper Suprime-Cam in overlapping fields: if zero-point residuals exceed the quoted 7–12 millimag floor or astrometric residuals exceed a few milliarcseconds at bright magnitudes in a non-trivial fraction of the sky, the calibration claims fail.

read the original abstract

Pan-STARRS1 has carried out a set of distinct synoptic imaging sky surveys including the $3\pi$ Steradian Survey and the Medium Deep Survey in 5 bands ($grizy_{P1}$). The mean 5$\sigma$ point source limiting sensitivities in the stacked 3$\pi$ Steradian Survey in $grizy_{P1}$ are (23.3, 23.2, 23.1, 22.3, 21.4) respectively. The upper bound on the systematic uncertainty in the photometric calibration across the sky is 7-12 millimag depending on the bandpass. The systematic uncertainty of the astrometric calibration using the Gaia frame comes from a comparison of the results with Gaia: the standard deviation of the mean and median residuals ($ \Delta ra, \Delta dec $) are (2.3, 1.7) milliarcsec, and (3.1, 4.8) milliarcsec respectively. The Pan-STARRS system and the design of the PS1 surveys are described and an overview of the resulting image and catalog data products and their basic characteristics are described together with a summary of important results. The images, reduced data products, and derived data products from the Pan-STARRS1 surveys are available to the community from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST) at STScI.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

6 major / 13 minor

Summary. This is the first in a series of seven papers documenting the Pan-STARRS1 (PS1) surveys and the public data releases (DR1: stacked 3π data; DR2: individual-epoch and forced photometry) served by MAST. The paper provides a system-level description of the PS1 telescope, the Gigapixel Camera #1 (GPC1), the filter system, the Image Processing Pipeline (IPP), the PSPS database, and the science servers (MOPS, TSS, PCS), then describes the design and execution of the constituent surveys (3π, Medium Deep, Pan-Planets, PAndromeda, Solar System, calibration sub-surveys). Headline performance numbers are reported: 5σ stack point-source depths of (23.3, 23.2, 23.1, 22.3, 21.4) in grizyP1; a 7–12 mmag upper bound on photometric systematic uncertainty across the sky; and astrometric residuals vs Gaia of (2.3, 1.7) mas (std of mean) and (3.1, 4.8) mas (std of median) in (Δra, Δdec). Section 6 characterizes 3π depth, completeness, star/galaxy separation, and catalog usage; Section 7 surveys the consortium science legacy.

Significance. PS1 is a foundational wide-field optical/NIR resource for the northern sky, and this overview is the canonical citation for hundreds of downstream science applications, calibration of subsequent surveys (HSC, DES cross-checks, ATLAS, ASAS-SN, future LSST/Rubin northern-cross checks), and the Gaia-tied astrometric reference frame for the δ > −30° sky. Real strengths to credit: (i) an honest, granular accounting of system limitations (GPC1 artifacts, ~20% static + 2–3% dynamic mask, PSF discontinuities on stacks motivating the forced-warp photometry strategy, the historical "Magic" streak-masking and its removal); (ii) an internally consistent calibration chain combining "ubercal" relative photometry (Schlafly et al. 2012), Calspec absolute tie (Scolnic et al. 2015), and Gaia astrometric recalibration; (iii) a clear data-product schema enabling reproducible queries; (iv) public release through MAST. The paper's role is largely descriptive, but the headline calibration numbers are load-bearing because downstream users adopt them as error budgets.

major comments (6)
  1. [§5.2, §6.4.3] The headline '7–12 mmag photometric systematic uncertainty' is a spatial-uniformity bound from the ubercal self-consistency analysis (Schlafly et al. 2012), not an end-to-end absolute floor for arbitrary use cases. §5.2 itself notes that PSF-model error driven by atmosphere/optics/detector variations is limited by a ~3′ PSF-modeling spatial scale, and §6.4.3 demonstrates that on stacks, aperture magnitudes are tighter than PSF magnitudes brightward of i ~ 20 because of PSF discontinuities the model cannot follow. The abstract should distinguish (a) relative/large-scale photometric uniformity, (b) per-epoch PSF-photometry precision floor (~12 mmag at the bright end per §5.2), and (c) absolute AB zero-point uncertainty from the Calspec tie. As written, a reader is invited to apply 7–12 mmag as a per-object error budget, which is not what the underlying analysis supports.
  2. [Abstract & §5.1] The astrometric statement '(2.3, 1.7) mas and (3.1, 4.8) mas' is opaque without restating that these are the standard deviations of the per-region mean and median residuals against Gaia DR1, not single-object positional uncertainties. Please make this explicit in the abstract and in §5.1, including the magnitude/SNR regime in which it holds and the dependence on stellar density (the Galactic-plane behavior is not characterized here). Users will otherwise quote the abstract numbers as a per-source astrometric floor.
  3. [§6.4.2, Fig. 25] The text concedes that the de Vaucouleurs and Sérsic stack model fits 'show a disappointing large scatter' and recommends caution, yet these columns (StackModelFitDeV, StackModelFitSer, StackModelFitExp) are released as Fundamental Data Products in DR1 (Table 10). Given that this is the public data-release reference paper, please quantify the failure mode (e.g., scatter vs magnitude/size, success rate, comparison to a control sample such as SDSS Stripe 82 or HSC) and either (i) document a recommended quality cut, or (ii) flag the columns as advisory in the schema. Without this, users will adopt these columns at face value.
  4. [§6.4.4, §4.2.1] The paper notes that the 'bestDetection' field is corrupted in DR2 and 'will be fixed in DR2.1.' For a release reference paper this is load-bearing for any time-domain query workflow built from the documented schema. Please specify the nature of the corruption, the workaround for users running queries before DR2.1, and an expected timeline; otherwise the published light-curve recipe in §6.4.4 is not reproducible from DR2 as released.
  5. [§6.2, Figs. 16–18] The depth maps are derived from injected fake point sources and the recovery fractions stored in StackDetEffMeta, but the paper does not validate the fakes against real recovery (a forward reference to 'Farrow et al. in preparation' is given). Since the 5σ depths quoted in the abstract and Table 11 are mean values over a highly non-uniform coverage map (Fig. 16), the headline depths should be accompanied by a dispersion or a spatial percentile (e.g., 10th/50th/90th percentile depths per band), and the validation of the fake-source method should be at least sketched here rather than deferred entirely.
  6. [§2.5, Table 3] Table 3 lists overall fill factor as 76% per exposure but the persistent 'burn-trails' from saturation (described as lasting tens of minutes) and the dynamic 2–3% mask are mentioned only qualitatively. Because these affect the effective number of contributing warps to a given stack pixel — and therefore the local depth and photometric error — please provide either a histogram of effective coverage per filter (beyond the binned-pixel count of Fig. 16) or a quantitative statement of how persistence-driven masking propagates into the StackObjectAttributes uncertainties.
minor comments (13)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'standard deviation of the mean and median residuals' is ambiguous on a first read. Recommend rewording to e.g., 'the per-field-mean and per-field-median Gaia residuals have standard deviations of …' and stating the binning unit.
  2. [§2.6, Eq. 1–2] Equations (1) and (2) are standard AB-magnitude definitions and could be condensed; the operationally important statement is the 1.2 airmass convention and the absence of a Galactic extinction correction, which currently appears only in running text.
  3. [Table 4] Percentages sum to 95% (3π 56 + MD 25 + SS 5–11 + PP 4 + PAndromeda 2 + calibration 1+1+1). Please reconcile, or note the residual is engineering/weather-loss time.
  4. [Fig. 11 caption] Caption contains placeholders 'latitude = XX' and 'width of the HA distribution is XX' — please fill in.
  5. [§6.4.4] 'will be fixed in DR2.1' contains an internal inconsistency ('corrupted in DR2 ... fixed in DR2.1' was preceded by 'corrupted in DR2'). Please proofread the paragraph; the sentence reads as if the same release is both broken and the fix.
  6. [§8 Conclusions] '(to wP1 ≃ 22.5 per visit CHECK!)' — leftover editorial marker, please remove or fill in the actual depth.
  7. [Author list / affiliations] Affiliation numbering is non-monotonic and several affiliations (e.g., 12, 22, 39) appear out of order at the end. Recommend renumbering for the final version.
  8. [§3.2.3] Several typos: 'celestical sphere' (should be 'celestial'), 'breifly described' (briefly), 'subsytem' appears twice in the MOPS subsection, the MOPS paragraph itself is duplicated nearly verbatim ('As implemented as a subsytem in the Pan-STARRS System...' appears twice in §2.9.1).
  9. [§2.7.7] 'The intial reference catalog' → 'initial'; 'pixels based' → 'pixel-based'.
  10. [Table 6] Header says 'originally presented in Rest et al. (2014) and is reproduced here in identical form' — fine, but please confirm permissions/citation conventions are met for verbatim reproduction.
  11. [Fig. 4 caption] Reproduced from Tonry et al. (2012b); add explicit permission/copyright statement consistent with journal policy.
  12. [§6.3] The simple (PSF − Kron) < 0.05 star/galaxy cut is shown to fail brightward of i ~ 13.5 (saturated stars) and faintward of i ~ 21. Recommend stating in plain text the recommended magnitude range over which the cut is reliable, since this is the most common entry point for users.
  13. [References] Several preprints cited as 'arXiv:1612.05xxx' (the companion papers II–VI) — please update to published versions where available before final proofs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

6 responses · 2 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report that focuses precisely on the load-bearing numbers downstream users will adopt as error budgets. We agree with all five major points and will revise the manuscript accordingly. The principal changes are: (1) the abstract and §5.1–§5.2 will be rewritten to disambiguate the three distinct photometric error budgets (large-scale spatial uniformity, per-epoch PSF precision floor, and absolute AB tie) and to clarify that the Gaia-tied astrometric numbers are dispersions of per-region mean/median residuals rather than single-source uncertainties; (2) Table 11 will be augmented with percentile depths; (3) §6.4.2 will quantify the failure modes of the stack DeV/Sérsic/Exp fits and recommend explicit quality cuts, with the columns flagged as advisory in coordination with Paper VI; (4) §6.4.4 will replace the brief note about the corrupted bestDetection field with a precise description and a worked-example workaround; and (5) §2.5/§6.2 will add a quantitative effective-coverage distribution and explicit statements on how persistence masking propagates into reported uncertainties. One item — an external control-sample comparison (Stripe 82 / HSC) for the extended-source model fits — is in progress but beyond the scope of this overview and will be reported separately.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Headline 7–12 mmag is a spatial-uniformity bound, not a per-object error budget; abstract conflates (a) relative uniformity, (b) per-epoch PSF precision floor, and (c) absolute AB zero-point uncertainty.

    Authors: We agree with the referee's diagnosis. The 7–12 mmag value derives from the ubercal self-consistency analysis of Schlafly et al. (2012) and characterizes the relative, large-scale photometric uniformity across the sky, not a per-source error floor. We will revise the abstract to explicitly describe this number as the upper bound on the spatial systematic in the relative photometric calibration, and to distinguish it from (b) the ~12 mmag per-epoch PSF-photometry precision floor at the bright end (already noted in §5.2) and (c) the absolute AB zero-point tie via Calspec (Scolnic et al. 2015). A short paragraph will be added at the end of §5.2 restating the three distinct error budgets and warning against using the ubercal number as a per-object PSF-photometry error. We will also cross-reference §6.4.3, which already shows that PSF discontinuities on stacks render aperture magnitudes preferable brightward of i~20. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The astrometric (2.3, 1.7) / (3.1, 4.8) mas numbers are opaque; clarify they are dispersions of per-region mean/median residuals vs Gaia DR1, not single-object uncertainties; specify magnitude/SNR regime and stellar-density dependence.

    Authors: We accept this point. The quoted numbers are the standard deviations of the mean and median (Δra, Δdec) residuals against Gaia DR1 computed in spatial bins, characterizing the systematic floor of the PS1–Gaia frame tie at the bright end where Gaia dominates the reference. We will revise the abstract and §5.1 to state explicitly: (i) that the values are dispersions of per-region (binned) mean/median residuals, not single-source positional errors; (ii) that they apply in the bright regime where stars are well-measured by both Gaia and PS1; and (iii) that single-object astrometric precision in PS1 is SNR- and crowding-limited and is reported in Magnier et al. 2016b (Paper V). Regarding stellar-density dependence: a quantitative characterization in the Galactic plane is not presented in this paper, and we will add an explicit caveat noting that the Gaia-tied calibration was assessed primarily outside the densest plane fields and that users should consult Paper V for plane-specific behavior. revision: yes

  3. Referee: DeV/Sérsic/Exp stack model fits show large scatter yet are released as Fundamental Data Products; quantify failure mode, recommend quality cuts, or flag columns as advisory.

    Authors: The referee is correct that, as the public release reference, the paper should not simply caution and move on. We will (i) add to §6.4.2 a quantitative characterization of the scatter as a function of magnitude and half-light radius for a clean galaxy sample at high Galactic latitude, including the fraction of objects for which each model converged; (ii) provide a recommended quality cut (based on fit χ², size relative to PSF, and S/N thresholds already required for the model fits per §2.7.6); and (iii) coordinate with the schema documentation in Flewelling et al. (2016, Paper VI) and the MAST CasJobs description to flag StackModelFitDeV/Ser/Exp columns as advisory pending the forced-galaxy-shape measurements (ForcedGalaxyShape, §4.2.5), which use the stack fits only as priors and are the recommended product for galaxy morphology. A direct comparison to an external control sample (SDSS Stripe 82 or HSC) is beyond the scope of this overview but is in progress and will be reported in a companion paper. revision: partial

  4. Referee: bestDetection corrupted in DR2; specify the nature, workaround, and timeline so the §6.4.4 light-curve recipe is reproducible.

    Authors: Accepted. We will replace the brief parenthetical in §6.4.4 with an explicit description: the bestDetection flag in DR2 does not consistently identify the highest-S/N unmasked detection per object/filter due to an indexing error in the catalog merge, and as a result joins that rely on bestDetection alone may return a non-optimal epoch. The recommended workaround for users prior to the DR2.1 patch is to query the Detection table directly and select the per-(objID, filter) record with the maximum psfFlux/psfFluxErr subject to the standard quality flags, or to use the ForcedWarpMeasurement table where forced photometry is desired. We will add a worked example query implementing this workaround. The DR2.1 patch is being prepared by the MAST team and we will cite the MAST release-notes page for the up-to-date status rather than commit to a specific calendar date in the manuscript. revision: yes

  5. Referee: Depth maps from injected fakes are not validated against real recovery; abstract/Table 11 quote means over a non-uniform coverage map; provide percentile depths and at least sketch the validation.

    Authors: We agree. We will (i) augment Table 11 with the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentile 5σ stack depths per band, computed over the populated skycells, so the spatial dispersion is visible alongside the mean; (ii) add to §6.2 a short paragraph summarizing the validation of the StackDetEffMeta fake-source recovery against a real-source recovery test on a representative subset of skycells (cross-matching against deeper external catalogs in MD-overlap regions and SDSS Stripe 82 where available), with the full treatment retained in Farrow et al. (in prep.); and (iii) explicitly note in the abstract that the quoted depths are the means of a spatially varying distribution and refer to the revised Table 11 for percentiles. We will also clarify that the limits are for point sources and are typically ~0.5 mag brighter for extended sources (already noted via Metcalfe et al. 2013). revision: yes

  6. Referee: Persistence burn-trails and dynamic mask are described qualitatively; provide effective coverage histograms or quantify how persistence masking propagates into StackObjectAttributes uncertainties.

    Authors: We will add to §2.5/§6.2 a per-filter histogram of the effective number of contributing warps per stack pixel (i.e., the distribution underlying Fig. 16 quantified rather than only displayed as a 2D map), which captures the combined effect of static masking, dynamic burn-trail masking, and survey coverage non-uniformity. We will also add a brief statement that the StackObjectAttributes flux uncertainties are propagated from the per-warp variance images, which already include the masked-pixel bookkeeping, so persistence-driven coverage loss enters the reported errors through the reduced effective exposure depth at the affected pixels rather than as an unmodeled systematic. A full per-pixel persistence model is not included in DR1/DR2; we will state this limitation explicitly. Detailed pixel-level treatment is given in Waters et al. 2016 (Paper III), which we will cross-reference more prominently. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A direct external control-sample validation (SDSS Stripe 82 or HSC) of the StackModelFitDeV/Ser/Exp scatter is not yet available in the manuscript and will be deferred to a companion paper; the present revision will only quantify the internal failure modes and recommend quality cuts.
  • We cannot commit in the manuscript to a specific calendar date for the DR2.1 bestDetection patch; we will direct readers to the MAST release-notes page for the current status.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: descriptive survey/data-release paper whose calibration numbers are internal-consistency metrics tied to external references (Gaia, Calspec).

full rationale

This is a facility and data-release overview paper, not a paper with a single derived theoretical prediction. The relevant question is whether headline calibration claims (7–12 mmag photometric systematic; 2.3/1.7 mas astrometric residuals vs Gaia) are circular by construction. They are not, in the senses this analyzer flags: - The astrometric residuals are computed against Gaia DR1 (Lindegren et al. 2016), which is an external reference frame. The paper explicitly states the comparison is "with Gaia," and Gaia is independent of PS1. The residuals are therefore an external-benchmark check, not a self-comparison. - The photometric 7–12 mmag figure derives from the ubercal analysis (Schlafly et al. 2012) using overlapping PS1 exposures, with the AB zeropoint tied to HST Calspec standards via Scolnic et al. (2014, 2015). Calspec is external. The ubercal procedure does use PS1's own overlapping observations to constrain relative zero points, which is internal-consistency by nature, but the paper presents it correctly as an "upper bound on the systematic uncertainty" / "precision," not as an absolute accuracy claim derived from itself. - The "static sky" reference catalog used after May 2012 is PS1's own re-calibration ("the reference catalog uses Pan-STARRS itself, to create a precise and consistent internal calibration"). This is acknowledged transparently and the absolute tie is then made via Calspec, so it is not load-bearing circularity — it is a documented bootstrapping step with an external anchor. - Self-citations (Magnier et al. companion papers, Schlafly et al. 2012, Tonry et al. 2012b, Scolnic et al. 2015) are to companion or prior PS1 team papers, but they are technical pipeline/calibration references, not invocations of "uniqueness theorems" forbidding alternatives, and the underlying calibration ties to external standards (Gaia, Calspec, 2MASS, Tycho). - Science-result summaries in §7 are descriptive of downstream papers and are not load-bearing claims of this manuscript. The reader's concern that 7–12 mmag is a spatial-uniformity bound rather than an absolute per-object floor is a correctness/scope concern, not circularity. The paper itself notes PSF-model limits on small scales (§5.2) and the "bestDetection" DR2 bug (§6.4.4), so the manuscript is transparent about its limitations. No step reduces a "prediction" to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Model omitted the axiom ledger; defaulted for pipeline continuity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 10618 in / 5061 out tokens · 91081 ms · 2026-05-08T22:03:23.028378+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Forward citations

Cited by 43 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Discovery of the First Octupole Pulsation Mode in a delta Scuti Star: A Stationary l = 3 Sectoral Mode

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    First identification of a stationary l=3 sectoral pulsation mode in any delta Scuti star, appearing as frequencies split by precisely 6 times the orbital frequency due to binary perturbations.

  2. Persephone's Torch: A 15th Magnitude Quadruply-Lensed Quasar From the Couch Discovered with SPHEREx and the LBT

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 accept novelty 7.0

    Spectroscopic and imaging confirmation of the brightest known quadruply-lensed quasar J1330-0905 at z=2.22 with Einstein radius ~0.45 arcsec and predicted magnification ~56.

  3. The Milky Way Tomography with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam: Implications for the past orbit of the Large Magellanic Cloud

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A newly detected stellar substructure beyond 30 kpc in the Milky Way halo matches simulated LMC tidal debris only under the second-passage orbital model.

  4. From DES to KiDS: Domain adaptation for cross-survey detection of low-surface-brightness galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Domain adaptation with an ensemble of CNN and transformer models trained on DES detects 20,180 LSBGs and 434 UDGs in KiDS DR5, with structural parameters and environmental trends consistent with known samples.

  5. Joint probabilistic inference of galaxy redshifts and rest-frame spectra from photometric fluxes with latent diffusion

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A generative latent diffusion framework jointly infers photometric-redshift PDFs and reconstructs rest-frame spectra from photometric data after pre-training a spectral autoencoder on millions of spectra.

  6. Mapping the Milky Way with Gaia Bp/Rp spectra-IV: the broken and asymmetric density profile of the stellar disk traced by a large sample of red clumps

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The Milky Way stellar disk shows a broken radial density profile with four components, azimuthal dependence, inner and outer flaring, and a density-metallicity bump possibly from radial migration.

  7. COLIBRI (SVOM/FM-GFT): Instrumentation and Performances on the SVOM Alerts

    astro-ph.IM 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The COLIBRI telescope meets its design specifications for prompt GRB afterglow observations and subarcsecond localizations based on commissioning results.

  8. SCAT Data Release 1: 1810 optical spectra of 1330 transients

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 accept novelty 6.0

    SCAT DR1 delivers 1810 spectra of 1330 transients with classifications, fitted light curves, new redshifts for many host galaxies, and host properties as a testbed for photometric classification pipelines.

  9. A SPHEREx Pipeline and Spectral Library for Ultracool Dwarfs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A tailored SPHEREx pipeline and public spectral library more than doubles the number of ultracool dwarfs with 0.75-5 micron spectrophotometry to 7402 total.

  10. A SPHEREx Pipeline and Spectral Library for Ultracool Dwarfs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new SPHEREx-based spectral library doubles the sample of ultracool dwarfs with 0.75-5.0 micron spectrophotometry to 7402 objects and provides automated typing tools.

  11. Identifying Changing-Look AGN Transitions in Light Curve Data with the Zwicky Transient Facility

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A criterion of |Δg| > 0.4 mag and |Δ(g-r)| > 0.2 mag detects photometric CL-AGN transitions in 9.6% of known hosts with 1.6% false positive rate from simulations.

  12. A Natural $\gtrsim 100\times$ Telescope: Discovery of the Strongly Lensed Type II SN 2025mkn at $z=1.37$

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Discovery of a gravitationally lensed Type II supernova at z=1.37 with magnification ≳100×, confirmed via multi-telescope spectra and imaging.

  13. Electromagnetic Follow-up of the Sub-Solar Mass Gravitational Wave Candidate S251112cm: Kilonova Constraints and a Coincident IIb Supernova

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No kilonova detected from sub-solar GW candidate S251112cm, but coincident IIb supernova SN 2025adtq yields suggestive evidence for the superkilonova channel, though inconclusive after accounting for chance coincidence.

  14. An X-ray and optical spectral study of the changing-look narrow-line Seyfert 1 2MASX J0413-0050

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    2MASX J0413-0050 transitioned from a narrow-line Seyfert 1 to a Seyfert 1.9 and back while remaining in a high accretion state, supporting classification as a changing-state AGN.

  15. Accessible does not mean exploitable: HiPERCAM reveals the ultra-fast rotation of 2022 OB$_5$

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The asteroid 2022 OB5 rotates every 1.542 minutes, making surface operations impractical despite its favorable orbit.

  16. A New Perspective on Galactic Evolution: Studying the Outskirts of the Abell S1063 Galaxy Cluster

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New deep optical and near-infrared photometry of Abell S1063 yields a catalog of 64394 sources and reveals an additional dense structure northwest of the cluster plus visible filaments.

  17. Blueberry and Green Pea galaxies live in low density environments

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Green Pea and Blueberry galaxies live in isolated low-density environments with the lowest neighbor counts among compared galaxy populations.

  18. Pre-localization of Massive Black Hole Binaries in the Millihertz Band

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A neural spline flow pipeline performs amortized inference on millihertz MBHB signals, delivering ~20 deg² pre-merger sky localizations in ~1 minute while matching PTMCMC sky modes and parameter uncertainties.

  19. With arms wide open: a VLT/MUSE view of the mechanisms driving unwinding spiral arms in cluster galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Unwinding spiral arms in UG101 and UG103 are driven primarily by tidal interactions and ram pressure stripping respectively, diagnosed from spatially resolved gas/stellar kinematics and stellar population maps.

  20. A sample of short-lived Galactic radio transients from ASKAP VAST

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Six new Galactic radio transients found and classified into two types, proposed to originate from wide-orbit white dwarf binaries.

  21. The Milky Way Tomography with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam. II. Global halo structure

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The Milky Way stellar halo follows a double power-law density profile with inner slope -3.3, outer slope -4.8, and break radius 17.4 kpc.

  22. A Theoretical Investigation of He I Line Profiles for the Spectroscopic Analysis of DB White Dwarfs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Simulation-derived Stark-broadened He I profiles are compared to semi-analytical ones for DB white dwarf spectroscopy, including impacts from frequency sampling, neutral particle broadening, and hydrodynamical effects...

  23. Optical identification of the FASHI sources: toward the extended Local Volume

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    71 new dwarf irregular galaxies were discovered via optical identification of HI sources from the FAST All Sky HI Survey within ~16 Mpc.

  24. Searching for Ultracool Dwarfs in Early LSST Data Products

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Early LSST data recovers known ultracool dwarfs and yields 89 candidates with 17 unique to this work, forecasting over 17,000 detections in Data Preview 2 using synthetic populations.

  25. A Catalog of Mid-infrared Variable Sources in the Ecliptic Poles

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New catalog identifies 30,345 mid-IR variable sources at ecliptic poles from NEOWISE data, with AGN dominating in the north and stars in the south plus three transients linked to obscured QSOs.

  26. Deep Adaptive Optics Imaging Rules Out a Helium Star Companion to PSR J1928+1815

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 accept novelty 5.0

    Deep Keck/NIRC2 adaptive optics imaging rules out a helium star companion to PSR J1928+1815, supporting a massive white dwarf with possible wind-driven eclipses.

  27. Parametric SED Modelling of Protoplanetary Discs: Validation and Application to an Unstudied YSO

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A parametric SED modeling method with MCMC inference is validated on the known debris disc 49 Cet and applied to an unstudied YSO, indicating a late-type pre-main-sequence star with a substantial Class II circumstellar disc.

  28. The Zwicky Transient Facility: Data Processing, Products, and Archive

    astro-ph.IM 2019-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    ZTF's realtime pipeline uses novel image differencing and machine learning to generate transient alerts within 13 minutes, achieving 45-85 mas astrometry and 8-25 millimag photometry with better than 2% calibration.

  29. Tidal disruption of a low-mass star in an active galactic nucleus as the origin of the PS16dtm outburst

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    PS16dtm is the tidal disruption of a 0.3 solar-mass star on a circular counter-rotating orbit inside the accretion disk of an NLS1 galaxy, hidden by a gaseous envelope from the observer's view.

  30. Discovery and Characterization of White Dwarf-FGK Main-Sequence Binaries within the Optical Main-Sequence Locus

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    654 WD-FGK binaries cataloged with mostly low-mass hot white dwarfs formed via binary interactions.

  31. The Stellar Abundances and Galactic Evolution Survey (SAGES). V. The First Data Release of the DDO51 Band

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 accept novelty 4.0

    SAGES releases first DDO51 photometry for over 10 million stars across 2500 deg², confirming photometric dwarf-giant separation for late-type stars.

  32. A Search for Variability of Ultracool Dwarfs with the Zwicky Transient Facility

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    ZTF data yielded 32 robust ultracool dwarf rotation periods including 12 new detections, with a trend of decreasing periods toward later spectral types in dwarfs older than 100 Myr.

  33. LAMOST J052016.79+345651.7: An EW-type Binary with Emission Line Spectra and Circumstellar Material

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LAMOST J052016.79+345651.7 is an EW contact binary with warm ionized gas from shock-driven outflows, cold circumstellar dust causing IR excess, and an evolutionary path toward a blue straggler via mass loss.

  34. The Recurrent Nova Population in M31

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 accept novelty 4.0

    M31 hosts at least 20 recurrent novae with 79 total eruptions; half recur faster than the shortest Galactic example, while light-curve and spatial properties match the Milky Way population.

  35. Relative frequencies of core-collapse supernovae as a function of metallicity: observations vs theoretical predictions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Observations show a slight rise in stripped-envelope supernovae relative to hydrogen-rich ones at higher metallicities, with binary-interaction or rotation models able to match the trends though no unique scenario fits best.

  36. 4MOST ChANGES: Catalog of high-redshift quasar candidates (4.5 < $z$ < 7) selected with SED fitting

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A catalog of 6104 high-redshift quasar candidates (4.5 < z < 7) in the southern hemisphere was produced via multiwavelength photometry and SED fitting, with spectroscopic confirmation of three objects at z > 5.

  37. A Multi-modal Fusion Network for Star-Galaxy Classification from CSST Simulated Datasets

    astro-ph.IM 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A ResNet-50 and BiLSTM multi-modal fusion network achieves 99.81% galaxy recall and 99.66% star recall on a CSST simulated dataset of 125,896 objects.

  38. Galactic Archaeology with the Subaru `\=Onohi`ula Prime Focus Spectrograph Strategic Program

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The PFS Galactic Archaeology survey will observe thousands of stars in Local Group systems to measure density profiles in dwarfs and compare assembly histories of M31 and the Milky Way.

  39. Multiphase Gas Structure in the Circumnuclear Region of NGC 5506 Observed with ALMA

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    New ALMA observations of NGC 5506 show a thick rotating CND where supernova-driven turbulence supplies vertical support and AGN outflow dissociates CO.

  40. The ZTF-ULTRASAT experiment: Characterizing the non-transients in ULTRASAT's high cadence survey

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    ZTF high-cadence data shows RR Lyrae stars and flaring sources can mimic UV transients, with pre-existing ML catalogs offering a concrete mitigation approach.

  41. Design, Testing, and Commissioning of the Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU) 80 cm Infrared Telescope

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 accept novelty 3.0

    The SYSU 80 cm NIR telescope achieves background-limited performance with J ~ 17 mag in 20 s exposures, J ~ 19.4 mag in 30 min stacks, and millimagnitude precision for J ~ 14 mag variables.

  42. Analysis of the Gaia DR3 planetary nebula candidates and the possible symbiotic stars among them

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Follow-up observations reclassify most of 14 Gaia DR3 planetary nebula candidates as D- or D'-type symbiotic systems, with one confirmed LMC planetary nebula and other objects identified as a polar cataclysmic variabl...

  43. SVOM/C-GFT: Instrumentation and Performances on the SVOM Alerts

    astro-ph.IM 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    The C-GFT 1.2-m telescope system for SVOM meets design specifications for GRB optical counterpart follow-up after over one year of post-launch operations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 117 canonical work pages · cited by 42 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Afonso, C., & Henning, T. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 366, Transiting Extrapolar Planets Workshop, ed. C. Afonso, D. Weldrake, & T. Henning, 326

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Alard, C., & Lupton, R. H. 1998, ApJ, 503, 325

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    M., Liu, M

    Aller, K. M., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 120 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Morganson, E., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 14 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 11

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    2012, ApJ, 755, L29

    Berger, E., Chornock, R., Lunnan, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, L29

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    J., Ferguson, A

    Bernard, E. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1759

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Bertin, E. 2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Best, W. M. J., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 118

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    L., et al

    Blagorodnova, N., Van Velzen, S., Harrison, D. L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 603

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    C., Dickinson, M

    Bohlin, R. C., Dickinson, M. E., & Calzetti, D. 2001, AJ, 122, 2118

    work page 2001

  10. [10]

    T., Trundle, C., Pastorello, A., et al

    Botticella, M. T., Trundle, C., Pastorello, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, L52

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    E., & Williams, J

    Carter, W. E., & Williams, J. D. 1973, in The Earth’s Gravitational Field and Secular Variations in Position, ed. P. V. Angus-Leppan, A. G. Bomford, J. C. Dooley, & R. S. Mather, 433

    work page 1973

  12. [12]

    2019, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    Chambers, K. 2019, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Chambers, K. C. 2006b, Mission Concept Statement for PS1, doi:10.5281/zenodo.199843 —. 2007, PS1 Science Goals Statement, doi:10.5281/zenodo.199832

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.199843 2007

  14. [14]

    C., & Denneau, L

    Chambers, K. C., & Denneau, L. J. 2008, PS1 Design Reference Mission, doi:10.5281/zenodo.199860

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.199860 2008

  15. [15]

    C., Onaka, P., Wainscoat, R., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Onaka, P., Wainscoat, R., Magnier, E. A., & Pan-Starrs Team. 2018, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 50, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #50, 310.02

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Chan, J. H. H., Suyu, S. H., More, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 135

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    W., Holman, M

    Chen, Y.-T., Lin, H. W., Holman, M. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, L24

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    M., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 114

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 44

    Chornock, R., Berger, E., Gezari, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 44

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 18 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Annales d’Astrophysique, 11, 247

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    R., Liu, M

    Deacon, N. R., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 119

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    R., Kraus, A

    Deacon, N. R., Kraus, A. L., Mann, A. W., et al. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 455, 4212

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    2013, PASP, 125, 357

    Denneau, L., Jedicke, R., Grav, T., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 357

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    2015, Icarus, 245, 1

    Denneau, L., Jedicke, R., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2015, Icarus, 245, 1

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    J., Catelan, M., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Catelan, M., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 154

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    J., Cole, S., Metcalfe, N., et al

    Farrow, D. J., Cole, S., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 748

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    P., Schlafly, E

    Finkbeiner, D. P., Schlafly, E. F., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.01214

    work page arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05243

    work page arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    2013, ApJ, 779, L8

    Fraser, M., Magee, M., Kotak, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, L8

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Frei, Z., & Gunn, J. E. 1994, AJ, 108, 1476 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016a, A&A, 595, A2 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016b, A&A, 595, A1

    work page 1994

  32. [32]

    E., et al

    Gezari, S., Rest, A., Huber, M. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, L77

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    2012, Nature, 485, 217

    Gezari, S., Chornock, R., Rest, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 485, 217

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    2013, A&A, 559, A43 G´ orski, K

    Goldman, B., R¨ oser, S., Schilbach, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A43 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    2011, PASP, 123, 423

    Grav, T., Jedicke, R., Denneau, L., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 423

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 114 —. 2015, ApJ, 810, 25

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Heasley, J. N. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 62

    Heinis, S., Gezari, S., Kumar, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 62

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    F., Sesar, B., et al

    Hernitschek, N., Schlafly, E. F., Sesar, B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 73

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    W., Kaiser, N., Aussel, H., et al

    Hodapp, K. W., Kaiser, N., Aussel, H., et al. 2004b, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 636 Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al. 2000, A&A, 355, L27

    work page 2000

  41. [41]

    W.-S., Stanek, K

    Holoien, T. W.-S., Stanek, K. Z., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, arXiv:1604.00396

    work page arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    H., Denneau, L., Wainscoat, R

    Hsieh, H. H., Denneau, L., Wainscoat, R. J., et al. 2015, Icarus, 248, 289

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    2015, IAU General Assembly, 22, 58303

    Huber, M., Carter Chambers, K., Flewelling, H., et al. 2015, IAU General Assembly, 22, 58303

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    A., McConnachie, A., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al

    Ibata, R. A., McConnachie, A., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 128 38 K. C. Chambers et al

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 128

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    J., Gall, E

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Gall, E. E. E., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1604.01226

    work page arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 109

    Jian, H.-Y., Lin, L., Chiueh, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 109

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    O., Scolnic, D

    Jones, D. O., Scolnic, D. M., Riess, A. G., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.07042

    work page arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    2011, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Juric, M. 2011, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 43, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #217, 433.19

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    1995, ApJ, 449, 460

    Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Broadhurst, T. 1995, ApJ, 449, 460

    work page 1995

  51. [51]

    L., & Luppino, G

    Kaiser, N., Tonry, J. L., & Luppino, G. A. 2000, PASP, 112, 768

    work page 2000

  52. [52]

    E., et al

    Kaiser, N., Aussel, H., Burke, B. E., et al. 2002, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 4836, Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries, ed. J. A. Tyson & S. Wolff, 154–164

    work page 2002

  53. [53]

    2010, in Proc

    Kaiser, N., Burgett, W., Chambers, K., et al. 2010, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7733, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes III, 77330E

    work page 2010

  54. [54]

    2013, AJ, 145, 106

    Kodric, M., Riffeser, A., Hopp, U., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 106

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 144

    Kodric, M., Riffeser, A., Seitz, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 144

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305

    work page 1980

  57. [57]

    Laevens, B. P. M., Martin, N. F., Bernard, E. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 44

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    G., MacLeod, C., et al

    Lawrence, A., Bruce, A. G., MacLeod, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 296

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    2012, AJ, 143, 89

    Lee, C.-H., Riffeser, A., Koppenhoefer, J., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 89

    work page 2012

  60. [60]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 35

    Lee, C.-H., Kodric, M., Seitz, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 35

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    W., Chen, Y.-T., Holman, M

    Lin, H. W., Chen, Y.-T., Holman, M. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 147

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 33

    Lin, L., Jian, H.-Y., Foucaud, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 33

    work page 2014

  63. [63]

    2016, A&A, 595, A4

    Lindegren, L., Lammers, U., Bastian, U., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A4

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 3370

    Liu, J., Hennig, C., Desai, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3370

    work page 2015

  65. [65]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 97 —

    Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 97 —. 2014, ApJ, 787, 138 —. 2015, ApJ, 804, 90 —. 2016, ApJ, 831, 144

    work page 2013

  66. [66]

    H., Gunn, J

    Lupton, R. H., Gunn, J. E., & Szalay, A. S. 1999, AJ, 118, 1406

    work page 1999

  67. [67]

    A., Schlafly, E., Finkbeiner, D., et al

    Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E., Finkbeiner, D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 205, 20

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    A., Chambers, K

    Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., Flewelling, H. A., et al. 2016a, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05240

    work page arXiv

  69. [69]

    A., Schlafly, E

    Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2016b, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05242

    work page arXiv

  70. [70]

    A., Sweeney, W

    Magnier, E. A., Sweeney, W. E., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2016c, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05244

    work page arXiv

  71. [71]

    A., Tonry, J

    Magnier, E. A., Tonry, J. L., Finkbeiner, D., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 065002

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    J., Kotak, R., et al

    McCrum, M., Smartt, S. J., Kotak, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 656

    work page 2014

  73. [73]

    J., Rest, A., et al

    McCrum, M., Smartt, S. J., Rest, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1206

    work page 2015

  74. [74]

    J., Yang, B., Kleyna, J., et al

    Meech, K. J., Yang, B., Kleyna, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, L20

    work page 2013

  75. [75]

    J., Cole, S., et al

    Metcalfe, N., Farrow, D. J., Cole, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1825

    work page 2013

  76. [76]

    G., Levine, S

    Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 984

    work page 2003

  77. [77]

    S., & Kaiser, N

    Morgan, J. S., & Kaiser, N. 2008, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7012, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes II, 70121K

    work page 2008

  78. [78]

    S., Kaiser, N., Moreau, V., Anderson, D., & Burgett, W

    Morgan, J. S., Kaiser, N., Moreau, V., Anderson, D., & Burgett, W. 2012, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 8444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, 84440H

    work page 2012

  79. [79]

    2012, AJ, 143, 142

    Morganson, E., De Rosa, G., Decarli, R., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 142

    work page 2012

  80. [80]

    J., Anderson, S

    Morganson, E., Green, P. J., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 244

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.