Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Fishing for the Optimal Roman High Latitude Time Domain Survey: Cosmological Constraints for 1,000 Possible Surveys

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Simulating 1,000 possible Roman High Latitude Time Domain Survey designs, this paper finds that a split of roughly 20% prism time, 30-40% Wide imaging, and the remainder in Deep imaging yields the best dark-energy Figure of Merit, with…

desk verdict A transparent, well-executed Fisher-matrix optimization of 1,000 Roman HLTDS designs; the ranking is conditional on omitted selection terms, but the paper's honest framing keeps it sound. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04327 v2 pith:VZGQJBWC submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.CO

David Rubin , Greg Aldering , Andy Fruchter , Lluis Galbany , Rebekah Hounsell , Rick Kessler , Saul Perlmutter , Ben Rose
show 4 more authors
Masao Sako Dan Scolnic Jannik Truong the Roman Supernova Cosmology Project Infrastructure Team
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords NancyGraceRomanSpaceTelescopeHighLatitudeTimeDomainSurveyTypeIasupernovaedarkenergyoptimizationFishermatrixFigureofMeritsupernovacosmology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to settle how the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope should spend its High Latitude Time Domain Survey (HLTDS) to get the tightest possible dark-energy measurement from Type Ia supernovae. It simulates 1,000 plausible survey designs, each varying the time split among a Wide imaging tier, a Deep imaging tier, and a slitless prism spectroscopy tier, and scores every design with a Fisher-matrix Figure of Merit based on the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters $w_0$ and $w_a$. The central finding is that the exact best design depends on the assumed supernova dispersion model and on whether Rubin Observatory deep-drilling supernovae are included, but a split of roughly 20% prism, 30-40% Wide imaging, and the rest Deep imaging performs best, and the baseline CCS survey sits near the top of the ranking. A careful reader would care because choosing this allocation correctly determines whether Roman's flagship supernova program reaches the precision it promises.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fisher-matrix calculation performed for each simulated survey, which linearizes the full supernova cosmology model: simulated photometry and prism spectrophotometry for each supernova, per-supernova gray and filter-correlated dispersion, host-galaxy extinction, distance moduli per redshift bin, correlated filter zeropoints, effective-wavelength offsets, count-rate nonlinearity, a fundamental color-slope uncertainty, and a two-dimensional spline for training the mean supernova model. From the resulting distance-modulus covariance matrix, the Dark Energy Task Force Figure of Merit is computed as $[\det(\mathrm{Cov}(w_0,w_a))]^{-1/2}$, anchored by a Planck shift-parameter prior. The argument is carried by relative rankings of 1,000 surveys under two dispersion models, with and without about 3,500 Rubin DDF supernovae, at fixed total survey time. Interlaced cadences, where half the imaging filters are observed each visit with one blue filter always observed, are the only cadence type considered because they double the effective sampling at fixed depth per day while reducing overheads.

What would settle it

Run a full end-to-end catalog simulation with realistic selection cuts and non-Ia contamination for the top-ranked surveys in the Fisher ranking plus the baseline CCS survey, and compare the recovered $w_0$-$w_a$ constraints; if the ranking changes materially, the Fisher approximation is not adequate for survey choice. Alternatively, a first-year measurement of supernova Ia dispersion as a function of rest-frame wavelength and spectral S/N that falls outside the NIR-lower and Twins-lower bookends would invalidate the assumed dispersion models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that relative Figure-of-Merit rankings, computed from realistic simulations and a Fisher-matrix analysis that includes calibration uncertainties and training of the mean supernova model, are stable enough to select a near-optimal HLTDS design. Under the NIR-lower dispersion model, wider imaging and less prism time win; under the Twins-lower model, more prism and less area win. When conservative volume-limited Rubin Deep Drilling Field supernovae are included, the two dispersion models agree much more strongly, and the baseline CCS survey (30% Wide, 50% Deep, 20% prism, with an interlaced 10-day cadence and one always-observed blue filter in each tier) is near the top of the distribution. The paper therefore concludes that the baseline CCS recommendation is a reasonable choice and that it will deliver a generation-defining cosmological measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast leaves out selection effects and non-Ia contamination, assuming they will not dominate in data of Roman's quality; if those biases turn out larger than expected, the relative ranking of surveys could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ranking is right, Roman's baseline CCS survey (30% Wide, 50% Deep, 20% prism, interlaced 10-day cadence) will land near the top of the FoM distribution, especially when Rubin DDF supernovae are included.
  • Interlaced cadences outperform all-filters-every-visit designs, so they should be adopted; they raise the FoM at fixed survey time and allow a fifth filter to be added without shrinking the area.
  • The FoM gain from Rubin DDF supernovae is large, so the HLTDS should be planned jointly with Rubin's deep-drilling program rather than treated as a standalone survey.
  • Per-filter zeropoint uncertainties and the fundamental color slope are the dominant modeled systematics, so meeting the assumed calibration priors is a prerequisite for the predicted FoM.
  • The FoM continues to increase for survey durations past the nominal 0.5 years, so extending the HLTDS is a concrete way to improve dark-energy constraints if schedule allows.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper releases distance-modulus covariance matrices for all 1,000 surveys, other teams can re-weight the same forecasts for alternative dark-energy models (for example, curvature or more general time-varying equations of state) without re-running the light-curve simulations; the paper does not advertise this asset explicitly.
  • A safer decision rule than picking the single highest-FoM design is to choose a survey that scores well under both dispersion models and with and without Rubin DDF supernovae, since the true dispersion model is unknown until flight data arrive.
  • The same relative-FoM pipeline could rank time-domain strategies for other Roman science cases or for future combined supernova and weak-lensing programs, although cross-survey covariance would need to be added.
  • A first-year Roman measurement of supernova dispersion as a function of rest-frame wavelength and spectral S/N would discriminate between the NIR-lower and Twins-lower bookends; if the true dispersion falls outside both, the recommended time allocation would need revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Fisher-matrix-based optimization of the Roman High Latitude Time Domain Survey for Type Ia supernova cosmology. It simulates 1,000 survey variants, each run with and without a conservative Rubin Observatory Deep Drilling Field SN Ia sample, and computes Dark Energy Task Force Figures of Merit from distance-modulus covariance matrices. The analysis includes detailed treatments of calibration uncertainties, mean-SN-model training, and two dispersion models, and it releases the distance-modulus covariance matrices for all surveys. The main conclusions are that interlaced cadences are preferred, that roughly 20% of time in the prism and 30-40% in Wide imaging with the remainder in Deep imaging appears most promising, and that the baseline Core Community Survey is a reasonable choice, especially when Rubin DDF SNe are included.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this paper provides directly actionable guidance for one of the most important planned dark-energy surveys and is a substantial contribution to Roman survey definition. The strengths are concrete: a large and unusual survey-parameter exploration (1,000 variants), a Fisher formalism that explicitly propagates calibration uncertainties and mean-model training, two dispersion-model bookends, public simulation code, and public release of the covariance matrices underlying the ranking. The paper is also appropriately honest that the FoM values are meaningful only for relative ranking. The main unresolved point is whether the omitted selection effects and non-Ia contamination, which vary with the same survey parameters that drive the ranking, could shift the near-optimal surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 / Appendix A] The ranking claim rests on the assertion in Section 1 and Appendix A that selection effects and non-Ia contamination are negligible for the relative comparison. The Fisher model includes only the deterministic SNR Sum > 40 cut (Eq. 5), while Appendix A itself estimates residual selection biases of 0.7-5 mmag at the cut and states that these biases 'would matter for a real analysis.' Because cadence, depth, and prism fraction affect both the per-epoch S/N and the number of marginal SNe, the omitted terms are correlated with the very parameters being ranked. A 5 mmag residual bias at high redshift is not shown to be small compared with the FoM differences that separate the top surveys (Figure 5 displays a 10% FoM band around the maximum). I request a concrete robustness test, e.g., adding a parametric magnitude-dependent selection bias or contamination term to the Fisher calculation, or reweighting SNe by a probabilistic selection function, and showing that the relative ranking and the position of the baseline CCS survey survive. Without this, the central recommendation is not fully secured.
  2. [§5, Figure 5] The headline recommendation ('~20% prism, ~30-40% Wide') is not robust to the dispersion model when Rubin DDF SNe are omitted: the left panels of Figure 5 show the NIR-lower model preferring more Wide imaging and less prism while the Twins-lower model prefers the opposite. The recommendation therefore rests on the Rubin-DDF-inclusive case. Given that the Rubin DDF forecast in §3 assumes a volume-limited z<0.5 sample, a single gri cadence, and perfect inter-calibration of nearby SNe with Rubin (a caveat the authors acknowledge), the paper should either demonstrate that the ranking is stable to plausible reductions in the DDF contribution (for example by rerunning with a fraction of the DDF SNe) or qualify the recommendation as conditional on those assumptions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'fration' should be 'fraction'.
  2. [Table 3] The caption reads 'baseline baseline CCS survey'; the duplicated word should be removed.
  3. [Figure 3] The top and bottom panels share the same axes but are distinguished only by the curve; adding explicit panel labels would improve readability, since the two curves are easy to confuse at a glance.
  4. [Section 4.2] The statement that the 'pivot redshift of 0.3 (roughly the actual pivot redshift value)' does not matter is reassuring, but it would be helpful to state explicitly whether the quoted FoM values use the pivot-redshift formulation or the w0-wa formulation; the text currently leaves this slightly ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey ranking follows from forward simulations plus a Fisher-matrix analysis with externally sourced dispersion and calibration inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a relative ranking of 1,000 Roman HLTDS designs, not a derived physical constant or a parameter fit renamed as a prediction. Each survey's FoM is obtained from an explicit forward simulation of SNe (Section 3), a stated Fisher-matrix model with Jacobian terms for calibration, mean-model training, extinction, and Milky Way assumptions (Section 4), and dispersion models whose constants come from external data or private communications (Pierel et al. 2022; Fakhouri et al. 2015; K. Boone, private communication), not from the present FoM values. The FoM is then computed by inverting the distance-modulus covariance matrix and forming the DETF FoM (Section 4.2); no equation defines the FoM in terms of the survey ranking, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as an independent prediction. The baseline CCS survey conclusion is an output of the ranking, not an input imposed on it. Self-citations such as Rubin et al. (2020, 2022a, 2023a) supply the simulation framework, prism-depth choices, and overhead modeling; these are external assumptions with stated bases and do not reduce the paper's central argument to a self-citation chain. The exclusions of selection effects and non-Ia contamination are explicitly acknowledged as simplifying approximations (Section 1 and Appendix A) with an order-of-magnitude bias estimate; regardless of whether those approximations are correct, they are independent modeling choices, not circular reasoning. The paper also explicitly cautions that the two dispersion models are not directly comparable and that absolute FoM values are not meaningful, reinforcing that the result is a comparative ranking. No load-bearing step reduces by construction, definition, or self-citation to its own inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central ranking rests on assumed SN dispersion models, calibration priors, and a Fisher approximation; no new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are inputs to the forecast rather than fitted outputs of this paper, but they materially affect the optimal time split.

free parameters (5)
  • NIR-lower dispersion amplitudes = 0.08 mag gray; 0.04 mag optical per-filter; 0.02 mag NIR per-filter
    Hand-set bookend dispersion model in Section 4.1.1 that weights rest-frame NIR data more; directly changes survey ranking.
  • Twins-lower dispersion fit constants = Eq. 6: 0.0712 mag, 18.96; Eq. 7: 0.0643 mag, 12.63, 26.22
    Constants fit to twin-SN dispersion versus S/N points (Fakhouri 2015; K. Boone private communication). This model creates the dispersion-S/N relation that makes prism spectroscopy valuable; affects the prism time optimum.
  • Imaging fallback floor in Twins model = 0.15 mag
    Assumed floor applied when spectroscopy is missing or noisy (Section 4.1.2); affects the relative value of prism time.
  • Calibration systematic priors = 5 mmag zeropoint, 5 angstrom wavelength, 7 mmags/micron color slope, 0.125 mmag/dex CRNL
    Chosen nominal values for systematic uncertainties in the Fisher calculation (Section 4). The paper shows FoM is sensitive to the zeropoint and color slope sizes.
  • SNR Sum selection threshold = 40
    Hand-set quadrature S/N cut replacing full selection treatment (Section 4 and Appendix A). The sample and FoM ranking depend on this threshold.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Fisher information matrix linearization approximates the full likelihood for relative FoM ranking.
    The covariance is computed from a linearized Gaussian model (Section 4, Equation 3); no end-to-end light-curve fit validation is shown.
  • domain assumption Selection effects and non-Ia contamination are subdominant and can be excluded.
    Explicitly stated in Section 1; if false, the ranking could change.
  • domain assumption Type Ia supernova rates and SALT2/3 population parameters from lower-redshift surveys apply to z~1-2 Roman samples.
    Simulated SNe use Rodney et al. (2014) rates and Betoule et al. (2014) population fits (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy surface brightness distribution from HST GOODS/MCT SNe is appropriate for Roman z~1 hosts.
    Used to draw host backgrounds in simulations (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy light is perfectly subtracted except for Poisson noise.
    Assumed in both imaging and prism simulations (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Flat w0-wa cosmology with Planck shift parameter R and 0.26% prior is the fiducial model.
    Distance moduli are converted to w0-wa FoM via Equations 8 and 9 (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption The two dispersion models bracket the true SN scatter.
    The optimization targets both bookends; if true scatter is outside the assumed range, the optimal survey could differ (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fishing for the Optimal Roman High Latitude Time Domain Survey: Cosmological Constraints for 1,000 Possible Surveys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VZGQJBWC

@misc{pith2026250604327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fishing for the Optimal Roman High Latitude Time Domain Survey: Cosmological Constraints for 1,000 Possible Surveys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VZGQJBWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04327}
}
read the original abstract

The upcoming Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is set to conduct a generation-defining SN Ia cosmology measurement with its High Latitude Time Domain Survey (HLTDS). However, between optical elements, exposure times, cadences, and survey areas, there are many survey parameters to consider. This work was part of a Roman Project Infrastructure Team effort to help the Core Community Survey (CCS) Committee finalize the HLTDS recommendation to the Roman Observations Time Allocation Committee. We simulate 1,000 surveys, with and without a conservative (volume-limited) version of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Deep Drilling Field SNe Ia, and compute Fisher-matrix-analysis Dark Energy Task Force Figures of Merit (FoM, based on w0-wa constraints) for each. We investigate which survey parameters correlate with FoM, as well as the dependence of the FoM values on calibration uncertainties and the SN dispersion model. The exact optimum depends on the assumed dispersion model and whether Rubin DDF SNe Ia are also considered, but ~20% time in prism, ~30--40% time in Wide imaging and the remainder in Deep imaging seems most promising. We also advocate for "interlaced" cadences where not every filter is used in every cadence step to reduce overheads while maintaining a good cadence and increasing the number of filters compared to the Rose et al. (2021) reference survey (the prism has proportionately lower overheads and can be used for each cadence step). We show simulated light curves and spectra for the baseline HLTDS CCS recommendation and release distance-modulus covariance matrices for all surveys to the community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of a possible arrangement of “wedding-cake” tiers in the simulated surveys. The prism tiers are independent of the imaging tiers. In general, deeper prism/imaging data are taken together so that the SNe to￾wards the center have the most complete data (deepest imag￾ing, deepest prism). In general, one wants deeper tiers inside wider tiers so that a SN that falls out of the Deep tiers due to edge effec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Filter possibilities considered in this work. We consider four possibilities for the Wide-imaging tier and five possibilities for the Deep-imaging tier. Most filters are only taken every other visit, but one bluer filter is always observed. The repeated pattern is boxed for each possible combination of filters. F106, F129, F158, F184, and the prism in the Deep tier, but we will see that the CCS Committee recom￾menda… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel: Twins analysis dispersion (Fakhouri et al. 2015) as a function of degraded overall quadrature S/N for a spectrum (K. Boone, private communication for the Perlmutter SN Roman Science Investigation Team) which we fit with Equation 6. Bottom panel: The same curve com￾bined with a weighted average of an assumed 0.15 magnitude floor which applies when the spectroscopic observations are missing or noisy (Equati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: uncertainty on [w(z = 0.3)]−2 as a function of Figure of Merit (which is also an inverse squared uncertainty) color coded by the fraction of the time in Wide imaging. Bottom panel: a similar plot for the uncertainty on w −2 a . The uncertainty on w(z = 0.3) …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scatter plots comparing FoM values (including systematics) from our two dispersion models (NIR lower on the x axis, and Twins lower on the y axis) both without Rubin DDF SNe Ia (left panels) and with Rubin DDF SNe Ia (right panels). Again, we remind the reader that the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FoM vs total Roman survey time for both of our dispersion models and with and without Rubin DDF (all computed for a survey with filters and exposure times similar to the baseline CCS survey, but scaled in area). These results suggest that the HLTDS can still gain in co…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Computed FoM for the baseline CCS survey as a function of assumed systematic uncertainties using the NIR-lower dispersion model, with and without simultaneously training the mean-SN model so that its uncertainties can be propagated. The upper-left panel shows FoM vs. t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relative FoM (including systematics) as a function of survey choices that matter less than the relative allocations of time. We regress out the relative allocation of time in the Wide-imaging tier, Deep-imaging tier, and prism to better highlight the differences for th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Quadrature sum of S/N in imaging (SNR Sum) for the baseline CCS survey also showing the 800 assumed nearby SNe and z < 0.5 Rubin Observatory DDF SNe (for when these SNe are included in the forecast). The colors show different S/N thresholds. The outlined black histogra…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Typical light curves as a function of redshift. The left column shows light curves from the Rubin DDF, the middle column shows light curves from the Deep-imaging tier, and the right column shows light curves from the Wide tier. Each legend shows the total quadrature s…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Quadrature sum of prism spectra S/N values. The colors show different S/N thresholds and we average over five surveys to reduce the sampling noise. Each panel shows a different tier and the bottom panel shows the combina￾tion of all tiers. For each simulation, we perf…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel: a visualization of the distance￾modulus covariance matrix from the baseline CCS survey + Rubin DDF as a function of redshift in bins of 0.05. Middle panel: distance uncertainties as a function of redshift. The left axis shows distance modulus; the right axi…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distance-modulus uncertainty (assuming linear standardization, Tripp 1998) vs. the total quadrature sum of light-curve S/N (SNR Sum). The consistent depth and cadence produce a relation with modest scatter, even over orders of magnitude of S/N. Our chosen S/N cut of S…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ï ?o/> O K ۗT [+r l|__/L ,R5&\ 9g cb 9 t W yBTʥd 4 ^#/@ _ W, j( 8q <&̗.8b ElYc17X'R* El1 *p@]-+ WNg+/<X ߣDL ß 8

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Picture Perfect: Photometric Transient Classification Using the ParSNIP Model with Roman Hourglass Simulations

    Abdelhadi , B., & Rubin , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03604, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03604

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.03604 2024

  3. [3]

    2021, , 103, 083533, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533

    Alam , S., Aubert , M., Avila , S., et al. 2021, , 103, 083533, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083533 2021

  4. [4]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0609591

    Albrecht , A., Bernstein , G., Cahn , R., et al. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0609591

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0609591 2006

  5. [5]

    2002, SNAP sky background at the north ecliptic pole, Tech

    Aldering, G. 2002, SNAP sky background at the north ecliptic pole, Tech. rep., Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States), 10.2172/842543

    work page doi:10.2172/842543 2002

  6. [6]

    2010, , 716, 712, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/712

    Amanullah , R., Lidman , C., Rubin , D., et al. 2010, , 716, 712, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/712

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/712 2010

  7. [7]

    2011, , 525, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015044

    Astier , P., Guy , J., Pain , R., & Balland , C. 2011, , 525, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015044

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015044 2011

  8. [8]

    2006, , 447, 31, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054185

    Astier , P., Guy , J., Regnault , N., et al. 2006, , 447, 31, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054185

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054185 2006

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    2014, , 572, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423551

    Astier , P., Balland , C., Brescia , M., et al. 2014, , 572, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423551

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    Astraatmadja , T., et al. in prep

  3. [11]

    2016, SNCosmo : Python Library for Supernova Cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017

    Barbary, K., Barclay, T., Biswas, R., et al. 2016, SNCosmo : Python Library for Supernova Cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017

    2016

  4. [12]

    P., Kessler , R., Kuhlmann , S., et al

    Bernstein , J. P., Kessler , R., Kuhlmann , S., et al. 2012, , 753, 152, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/152

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, , 568, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423413

    Betoule , M., Kessler , R., Guy , J., et al. 2014, , 568, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423413

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Gordon , K

    Bohlin , R. C., Gordon , K. D., & Tremblay , P. E. 2014, , 126, 711, 10.1086/677655

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Hubeny , I., & Rauch , T

    Bohlin , R. C., Hubeny , I., & Rauch , T. 2020, , 160, 21, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b4

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    S., & Schlegel , D

    Bolton , A. S., & Schlegel , D. J. 2010, , 122, 248, 10.1086/651008

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    2021, , 912, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b

    Boone , K., Aldering , G., Antilogus , P., et al. 2021, , 912, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, , 938, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    Brout , D., Scolnic , D., Popovic , B., et al. 2022, , 938, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Stritzinger , M., Phillips , M

    Burns , C. R., Stritzinger , M., Phillips , M. M., et al. 2014, , 789, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/32

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    2002, https://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Science/CFHTLS/

    CFHTLS. 2002, https://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Science/CFHTLS/

    2002

  14. [22]

    2011, , 529, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116723

    Chotard , N., Gangler , E., Aldering , G., et al. 2011, , 529, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116723

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0906.4123, 10.48550/arXiv.0906.4123

    Coe , D. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0906.4123, 10.48550/arXiv.0906.4123

    2009 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    DES Collaboration , Abbott , T. M. C., Acevedo , M., et al. 2024, , 973, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    G., Aguilar , J., et al

    DESI Collaboration , Adame , A. G., Aguilar , J., et al. 2025, , 2025, 021, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 66, 10.3847/2515-5172/abf1fb

    Deustua , S., Rubin , D., Hounsell , R., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 66, 10.3847/2515-5172/abf1fb

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Efstathiou , G., & Bond , J. R. 1999, , 304, 75, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02274.x

    1999

  20. [28]

    K., Boone , K., Aldering , G., et al

    Fakhouri , H. K., Boone , K., Aldering , G., et al. 2015, , 815, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/58

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Choi , A., Porredon , A., et al

    Givans , J. J., Choi , A., Porredon , A., et al. 2022, , 134, 014001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac46ba

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, , 264, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9e58

    Gris , P., Regnault , N., Awan , H., et al. 2023, , 264, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9e58

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2007, , 466, 11, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066930

    Guy , J., Astier , P., Baumont , S., et al. 2007, , 466, 11, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066930

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    1996, , 457, 500, 10.1086/176748

    Hoeflich , P., & Khokhlov , A. 1996, , 457, 500, 10.1086/176748

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    J., et al

    Hounsell , R., Scolnic , D., Foley , R. J., et al. 2018, , 867, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac08b

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Y., Conley , A., Howell , D

    Hsiao , E. Y., Conley , A., Howell , D. A., et al. 2007, , 663, 1187, 10.1086/518232

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2001, Nature Methods, arXiv:1907.10121

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001, Nature Methods, arXiv:1907.10121

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    D., Jones , D

    Kenworthy , W. D., Jones , D. O., Dai , M., et al. 2021, , 923, 265, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30d8

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Cinabro , D., et al

    Kessler , R., Becker , A. C., Cinabro , D., et al. 2009, , 185, 32, 10.1088/0067-0049/185/1/32

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    G., & Miquel , R

    Kim , A. G., & Miquel , R. 2006, Astroparticle Physics, 24, 451, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.09.005

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    F., Gangler , E., Mondon , F., et al

    L \'e get , P. F., Gangler , E., Mondon , F., et al. 2020, , 636, A46, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834954

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Allison , J., et al

    LSST Science Collaboration , Abell , P. A., Allison , J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    S., Narayan , G., & Kirshner , R

    Mandel , K. S., Narayan , G., & Kirshner , R. P. 2011, , 731, 120, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/120

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    S., Thorp , S., Narayan , G., Friedman , A

    Mandel , K. S., Thorp , S., Narayan , G., Friedman , A. S., & Avelino , A. 2022, , 510, 3939, 10.1093/mnras/stab3496

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2007, , 666, 674, 10.1086/519986

    Miknaitis , G., Pignata , G., Rest , A., et al. 2007, , 666, 674, 10.1086/519986

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    2010, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), 10.17226/12951

    National\;Research\;Council. 2010, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), 10.17226/12951

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10574, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10574

    Observations Time Allocation Committee , R., & Community Survey Definition Committees , C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10574, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10574

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    1999, , 517, 565, 10.1086/307221

    Perlmutter , S., Aldering , G., Goldhaber , G., et al. 1999, , 517, 565, 10.1086/307221

    1999 doi

  42. [50]

    Pierel , J. D. R., Jones , D. O., Kenworthy , W. D., et al. 2022, , 939, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f9

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Fox , O., Ferruit , P., et al

    Rauscher , B. J., Fox , O., Ferruit , P., et al. 2007, , 119, 768, 10.1086/520887

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Filippenko , A

    Riess , A. G., Filippenko , A. V., Challis , P., et al. 1998, , 116, 1009, 10.1086/300499

    1998 doi

  46. [54]

    G., Strolger , L.-G., Tonry , J., et al

    Riess , A. G., Strolger , L.-G., Tonry , J., et al. 2004, , 607, 665, 10.1086/383612

    2004 doi

  47. [55]

    G., Strolger , L.-G., Casertano , S., et al

    Riess , A. G., Strolger , L.-G., Casertano , S., et al. 2007, , 659, 98, 10.1086/510378

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    G., Rodney , S

    Riess , A. G., Rodney , S. A., Scolnic , D. M., et al. 2018, , 853, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a9

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Riess , A

    Rodney , S. A., Riess , A. G., Strolger , L.-G., et al. 2014, , 148, 13, 10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/13

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    Rose , B., et al. in prep

  51. [59]

    M., Baltay , C., Hounsell , R., et al

    Rose , B. M., Baltay , C., Hounsell , R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.03081, 10.48550/arXiv.2111.03081

    2021 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.15112, 10.48550/arXiv.2010.15112

    Rubin , D. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.15112, 10.48550/arXiv.2010.15112

    2020 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    2021, , 133, 064001, 10.1088/1538-3873/abf406

    Rubin , D., Cikota , A., Aldering , G., et al. 2021, , 133, 064001, 10.1088/1538-3873/abf406

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.17222, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.17222

    Rubin , D., Rose , B., Hounsell , R., et al. 2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.17222, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.17222

    2023 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    L., et al

    Rubin , D., Aldering , G., Astraatmadja , T. L., et al. 2022 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.10632, 10.48550/arXiv.2206.10632

    2022 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    2022 b , , 263, 1, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7b7f

    Rubin , D., Aldering , G., Antilogus , P., et al. 2022 b , , 263, 1, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7b7f

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12098, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12098

    Rubin , D., Aldering , G., Betoule , M., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12098, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12098

    2023 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    M., Jones , D

    Scolnic , D. M., Jones , D. O., Rest , A., et al. 2018, , 859, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Bacon , D., et al

    Shah , P., Davis , T. M., Bacon , D., et al. 2024, , 532, 932, 10.1093/mnras/stae1515

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel , D., Gehrels , N., Baltay , C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    2022, , 935, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c08

    Stein , G., Seljak , U., B \"o hm , V., et al. 2022, , 935, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c08

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2012, , 746, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/85

    Suzuki , N., Rubin , D., Lidman , C., et al. 2012, , 746, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/85

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.01669, 10.48550/arXiv.1809.01669

    The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration , Mandelbaum , R., Eifler , T., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.01669, 10.48550/arXiv.1809.01669

    2018 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    1998, , 331, 815

    Tripp , R. 1998, , 331, 815

    1998

  65. [73]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04968, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04968

    Vogl , C., Taubenberger , S., Cs \"o rnyei , G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04968, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04968

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2008, , 77, 123525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123525

    Wang , Y. 2008, , 77, 123525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123525

    2008 doi

  67. [75]

    1950, Inverting Modified Matrices, Memorandum Report / Statistical Research Group, Princeton (Department of Statistics, Princeton University)

    Woodbury, M. 1950, Inverting Modified Matrices, Memorandum Report / Statistical Research Group, Princeton (Department of Statistics, Princeton University). https://books.google.com/books?id=_zAnzgEACAAJ

    1950

  68. [76]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579, 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.