pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08387 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Searching for Ultracool Dwarfs in Early LSST Data Products

Easton J. Honaker , John E. Gizis , Christian Aganze , Siddharth Chaini , Federica B. Bianco , Maru\v{s}a \v{Z}erjal , Eduardo L. Mart\'in , Riley W. Clarke
show 3 more authors
Ashton Southwick Harrison Petrie Tyler Blask
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords ultracool dwarfsbrown dwarfsphotometric selectiondata previewcandidate identificationsynthetic populationssky survey data
0
0 comments X

The pith

Early LSST data yields 89 ultracool dwarf candidates, 17 of them new, with over 17,000 expected in the next preview release.

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

The paper establishes that ultracool dwarfs can be identified in the first public data products from a major new sky survey despite incomplete calibration. Cross-matching recovers dozens of previously known objects and yields a list of 89 candidates with seventeen appearing here for the first time. Photometric temperatures are estimated for the candidates and practical challenges of early data are discussed. Synthetic models of brown dwarf populations then predict that the next data preview will contain more than seventeen thousand such objects.

Core claim

Cross-matching the early data against known catalogs recovers thirty-five previously known ultracool dwarfs and low-mass stars. This process also identifies eighty-nine ultracool dwarf candidates, seventeen unique to this work. Photometric temperature estimates are derived for these candidates, and population synthesis forecasts indicate that over seventeen thousand ultracool dwarfs will be detectable in the upcoming Data Preview 2.

What carries the argument

Cross-matching with known catalogs and photometric color selection applied to the early survey data products.

If this is right

  • The survey will enable rapid growth in the known population of ultracool dwarfs over its full ten-year duration.
  • Data Preview 2 will contain several hundred already-known objects along with thousands of new detections.
  • Photometric characterization of ultracool dwarfs is possible even with preliminary calibration of the survey's data.
  • Experience with the initial data preview informs improved selection methods for later releases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation of the seventeen new candidates through spectroscopy would strengthen the case for using early survey data to find rare cool objects.
  • Comparable selection techniques could be extended to search for other classes of faint or unusual objects in the same dataset.
  • Refining the understanding of how the survey's filters respond to very cool atmospheres will be essential for scaling up the sample size.

Load-bearing premise

Colors and brightnesses recorded in the initial, incompletely calibrated data products suffice to separate ultracool dwarfs from more common stars and galaxies.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic observations of the eighty-nine candidates that would either verify their low temperatures or show that many are actually contaminants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08387 by Ashton Southwick, Christian Aganze, Easton J. Honaker, Eduardo L. Mart\'in, Federica B. Bianco, Harrison Petrie, John E. Gizis, Maru\v{s}a \v{Z}erjal, Riley W. Clarke, Siddharth Chaini, Tyler Blask.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The DES candidates with LSST counterparts are shown in red against LSST point sources in the upper left panel on a LSST color-color plot. For the nine cross-matched counterparts with full i, z, y coverage and Euclid spectra with median SNR > 3, we display each spectrum in black with the best-fitting spectral standard in yellow. LSST-matched candidates and their spectra are paired using labels A-I [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cross-matched GCNS and LSST DP1 objects are shown on top of the entire GCNS (gray dots) on a Gaia MG vs BP − RP color-magnitude diagram. GCNS objects with LSST cross-matches are color-coded by distance. Tri￾angles denote LSST saturated objects whereas circles repre￾sent resolved LSST counterparts. Nearly all low mass main sequence objects with MG < 12.0 within 100 pc become sat￾urated in LSST. For the 18 G… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Number of objects as a function of LSST z band magnitude that pass subsequent selection criteria. Starting from the 260,311 LSST and Euclid cross-matched objects, each selection criteria filter is shown with the remaining frac￾tion of objects shown in the legend. The combination of all criteria retains 89 objects. The strictest criteria is the color– color selection region based off of Euclid-confirmed UCD… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Extendedness in the LSST Object table param￾eters. Euclid objects meeting point-like criteria from M. Zerjal et al. ˇ (2025) are shown in magenta against all DP1 objects in black. The upper panel shows how LSST’s flux ra￾tio (z psfFlux/ z cModelFlux, see Section 4.1.3 for details) vs the z sizeExtendedness parameter. The lines represent the LSST pipeline cuts: above the solid red line (z psfFlux/ z cModelF… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Candidate object positions in both the ECDFS (left) and EDFS (right) fields are overplotted on all objects with LSST and Euclid cross-matches, shown as black dots. Of the 89 candidates, 45 are in ECDFS and 44 are in EDFS. Orange dots represent candidates unique to this work, purple squares are candidates also found in M. Zerjal et al. ˇ (2025), Z. Zhang & Y. Li (2025), or M. dal Ponte et al. (2023) [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Final candidate objects’ SNR in the LSST i, z, y bands are shown in red dots against all objects with LSST and Euclid cross-matches. SNR decreases as object magni￾tudes increase. Applying more conservative SNR cuts in the z band compared to the i, y bands allow for the selection of fainter candidates. The SANDee models span from 0.0001 − 999.5 µm and describe objects with temperatures from Teff = 700 K to … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Candidates are shown in LSST-only color-color plots (upper left and upper middle panels) as well as a Euclid-only color-color plot (upper right panel). Candidates are shown as red points with their color uncertainties while LSST point sources detected in both LSST and Euclid are plotted as black dots. One candidate, LSST-O-592912676070375482 (hereafter J0354-4900), is marked in magenta across all three upp… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Candidate objects are shown with colored points against LSST point sources (black dots). The candidates are colored by their best matching template temperature, determined by phototype using the SANDee models. Candidate marker shapes are such that circles are unique to this work and triangles are objects also found in M. Zerjal et al. ˇ (2025), Z. Zhang & Y. Li (2025), or M. dal Ponte et al. (2023). Combin… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We simulated synthetic magnitudes in various infrared surveys for objects with temperatures between Teff = 400 K to 2, 500 K that reach the LSST i band photometric depth limit. Various survey wavelength coverage and depths in AB magnitudes are shown in both panels as horizontal lines. The simulated object magnitudes are shown as circles, color-coded by temperature. Surveys and objects retain the same color… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Vera C. Rubin Observatory's Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) promises to drastically accelerate the discovery of ultracool dwarfs (UCDs) over the course of its 10-year survey of the Southern Hemisphere. With the official start of LSST imminent, we showcase LSST's capabilities for discovering and characterizing UCDs using early commissioning data (Data Preview 1). The LSST photometric system at this stage remains poorly understood for faint UCDs. Thus, we begin by cross-matching Data Preview 1 against known UCD catalogs. We recover 1 known UCD from the Ultracool Sheet, 17 UCDs from the Dark Energy Survey, and 17 low mass stars from the Gaia Catalog of Nearby Stars. Using these known UCDs alongside recent spectroscopically-confirmed Euclid objects, we select 89 ultracool dwarf candidates in LSST fields, 17 of which are unique to this work. We present our candidates, a photometric temperature estimate, and discuss lessons learned from using early LSST data products. Finally, we turn to the future and predict potential UCD counts in upcoming LSST commissioning data (Data Preview 2), which is expected to be available to the Rubin community in 2026. Using synthetic populations of brown dwarfs, we forecast over 17,000 objects may be discovered and characterized in Data Preview 2. We predict that several hundred known objects and thousands of as-of-yet undiscovered UCDs may be detected in Data Preview 2 fields.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports recovery of 35 known ultracool dwarfs and low-mass stars (1 from Ultracool Sheet, 17 from DES, 17 from Gaia) in early LSST Data Preview 1, followed by photometric selection of 89 UCD candidates (17 unique to this work) using color/magnitude criteria informed by those recoveries plus Euclid sources. Photometric temperature estimates are presented for the candidates, and a forecast of over 17,000 detectable UCDs (including thousands undiscovered) is made for Data Preview 2 based on synthetic brown dwarf populations.

Significance. If the selection criteria hold, the work provides a timely early demonstration of LSST's potential for UCD discovery in the Southern Hemisphere and supplies a concrete forecast for DP2 that could guide community planning. The explicit recovery of known objects supplies a basic validation check, and the use of external synthetic populations for the DP2 prediction follows standard practice in the field for population forecasting.

major comments (3)
  1. [Candidate selection section] Candidate selection (abstract and associated methods section): despite the explicit statement that the LSST photometric system remains poorly understood for faint UCDs, the color/magnitude cuts are applied to identify 89 candidates without any simulation of contaminant populations (e.g., reddened stars or galaxies) or quantified purity assessment. This assumption is load-bearing for both the headline count of 89 objects and the claim of 17 unique candidates.
  2. [DP2 forecast section] DP2 forecast (final section): the prediction of >17,000 objects relies on synthetic populations drawn from external models; no robustness tests are shown against the calibration uncertainties acknowledged for DP1 data, nor is there propagation of selection biases from the current sample into the forecast.
  3. [Results section] Temperature estimates (results section): the photometric temperature estimates for the 89 candidates lack sufficient detail on the fitting procedure, adopted models, or uncertainty quantification, making it impossible to assess whether they are reliable given the early-data calibration issues.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the exact color/magnitude criteria used for selection to improve reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure showing the color-color or color-magnitude diagram of candidates should include the selection boundaries and the locations of the recovered known objects for direct visual assessment.
  3. [Results] A short table listing the 17 unique candidates with coordinates, magnitudes, and estimated temperatures would aid readers in following up the new objects.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important areas for clarification and strengthening, particularly given the early and evolving nature of LSST data. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Candidate selection section] Candidate selection (abstract and associated methods section): despite the explicit statement that the LSST photometric system remains poorly understood for faint UCDs, the color/magnitude cuts are applied to identify 89 candidates without any simulation of contaminant populations (e.g., reddened stars or galaxies) or quantified purity assessment. This assumption is load-bearing for both the headline count of 89 objects and the claim of 17 unique candidates.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit contaminant simulations and a quantified purity estimate represents a limitation, especially since we note the photometric calibration uncertainties for faint UCDs. Our cuts were empirically derived from the 35 recovered known objects plus Euclid cross-matches to define a conservative locus in color-magnitude space. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section discussing potential contaminants (e.g., reddened M dwarfs and compact galaxies) based on selection studies from DES and other wide-field surveys, along with a qualitative estimate of contamination risk. We will also revise the abstract and results to note that the 17 unique candidates are new relative to the cross-matched catalogs but subject to the same unquantified purity caveats. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [DP2 forecast section] DP2 forecast (final section): the prediction of >17,000 objects relies on synthetic populations drawn from external models; no robustness tests are shown against the calibration uncertainties acknowledged for DP1 data, nor is there propagation of selection biases from the current sample into the forecast.

    Authors: The forecast follows standard practice by using published synthetic brown dwarf populations to estimate yields in DP2 fields. We acknowledge that the original text did not include robustness checks. In revision, we will insert a short sensitivity analysis that perturbs the photometric zero points by the calibration offsets reported for DP1 and reports the resulting range in predicted counts. We will also add a qualitative discussion of how selection biases from the small DP1 sample could affect the forecast, while noting that a full statistical propagation awaits larger datasets. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results section] Temperature estimates (results section): the photometric temperature estimates for the 89 candidates lack sufficient detail on the fitting procedure, adopted models, or uncertainty quantification, making it impossible to assess whether they are reliable given the early-data calibration issues.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation and agree the original description was insufficient. The temperatures were obtained via chi-squared minimization of the available LSST photometry against the BT-Settl model grid (Allard et al. 2012), with Teff as the free parameter, log g fixed at 5.0, and solar metallicity; uncertainties combined photometric errors with the fit covariance. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the methods and results sections to provide the full procedure, model references, grid boundaries, and per-candidate uncertainty values, together with an explicit caveat on calibration sensitivity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in selection criteria or DP2 forecast.

full rationale

The paper recovers known UCDs via cross-matching with external catalogs (Ultracool Sheet, DES, Gaia, Euclid) and applies photometric criteria informed by those recoveries plus confirmed Euclid sources to identify 89 candidates in DP1. This is standard empirical selection, not a self-referential loop. The DP2 forecast of >17,000 objects explicitly relies on synthetic brown dwarf populations drawn from external models, independent of any parameters fitted to the present DP1 data. No equations, self-citations, or ansatzes are shown that reduce claims to inputs by construction. The derivation chain remains externally grounded and falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard domain assumptions about photometric classification of cool objects and external synthetic population models; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Photometric colors can distinguish ultracool dwarfs from other stellar and galactic contaminants in early LSST data
    Invoked when selecting the 89 candidates from cross-matched catalogs.
  • domain assumption Synthetic brown dwarf population models accurately represent the expected distribution in LSST fields
    Used to generate the >17,000 object forecast for Data Preview 2.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5634 in / 1342 out tokens · 46165 ms · 2026-05-10T17:04:14.388662+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Adam´ ow, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  2. [2]

    J., Malkan, M., et al

    Aganze, C., Burgasser, A. J., Malkan, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7053

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7053 2022

  3. [3]

    The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  4. [4]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade984

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade984 2025

  5. [5]

    F., Homeier, D., et al

    Allard, F., Allard, N. F., Homeier, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 474, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078362

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078362 2007

  6. [6]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 2012

  7. [7]

    F., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P

    Allard, N. F., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Kielkopf, J. F., & Machin, L. 2003, A&A, 411, L473, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031299

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031299 2003

  8. [8]

    F., Allard, F., & Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Allard, F., & Kielkopf, J. F. 2005, A&A, 440, 1195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053162

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053162 2005

  9. [9]

    F., Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Kielkopf, J. F., Spiegelman, F., Tinetti, G., & Beaulieu, J. P. 2012, A&A, 543, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219037

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219037 2012

  10. [10]

    N., & Liu, M

    Allers, K. N., & Liu, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 772, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/79

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/79 2013

  11. [11]

    TheSpectralANalogofDwarfs(SAND):NewModel Atmospheres with Varying Chemistry for Galactic Archaeology with Ultracool Dwarfs,

    Alvarado, E., Gerasimov, R., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 134, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad4bd7 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123...

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad4bd7 2024

  12. [12]

    2015, A&A, 582, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526332 24

    Baudino, J.-L., B´ ezard, B., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526332 24

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526332 2015

  13. [13]

    2025, An Interim Report on the On-Sky Commissioning Campaign with LSSTCam, Commissioning Technical Note SITCOMTN-170, NSF-DOE Vera C

    Bechtol, K. 2025, An Interim Report on the On-Sky Commissioning Campaign with LSSTCam, Commissioning Technical Note SITCOMTN-170, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. https://sitcomtn-170.lsst.io/

    2025

  14. [14]

    A., Cushing, M

    Beiler, S. A., Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace32c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace32c 2023

  15. [15]

    M., Armstrong, R., Plazas, A

    Bernstein, G. M., Armstrong, R., Plazas, A. A., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 074503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa6c55

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa6c55 2017

  16. [16]

    Best, W. M. J., Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., et al. 2025, The UltracoolSheet: Photometry, Astrometry, Spectroscopy, and Multiplicity for 4000+ Ultracool Dwarfs and Imaged Exoplanets, 2.1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15802304

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15802304 2025

  17. [17]

    Best, W. M. J., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., & Dupuy, T. J. 2021, AJ, 161, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc893

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc893 2021

  18. [18]

    Dupuy, T. J. 2024, ApJ, 967, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad39ef 2024

  19. [20]

    Best, W. M. J., Magnier, E. A., Liu, M. C., et al. 2018b, ApJS, 234, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9982

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9982

  20. [21]

    , keywords =

    Bianco, F. B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Jones, R. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72 2022

  21. [22]

    2021, A&A, 646, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039072

    Blain, D., Charnay, B., & B´ ezard, B. 2021, A&A, 646, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039072

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039072 2021

  22. [23]

    J., Aboobaker, A

    Bock, J. J., Aboobaker, A. M., Adamo, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2be2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2be2 2026

  23. [24]

    J., & Splat Development Team

    Burgasser, A. J., & Splat Development Team. 2017, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol. 14, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 7–12, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1707.00062

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.00062 2017

  24. [25]

    J., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al

    Burgasser, A. J., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad206f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad206f 2024

  25. [26]

    Reviews of Modern Physics , keywords =

    Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.719

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.719 2001

  26. [27]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02103

    Caplar, N., Beebe, W., Branton, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02103

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.02103 2025

  27. [28]

    V., Burningham, B., Smart, R

    Cardoso, C. V., Burningham, B., Smart, R. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv380

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv380 2015

  28. [29]

    2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 161, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adeab0

    Malanchev, K. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 161, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adeab0

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/adeab0 2025

  29. [30]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  30. [31]

    NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory Observations of Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS (C/2025 N1)

    Chandler, C. O., Bernardinelli, P. H., Juri´ c, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.13409

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13409 2025

  31. [32]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d

    Charnay, B., B´ ezard, B., Baudino, J.-L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d 2018

  32. [33]

    Choi, Y., Olsen, K. A. G., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb70

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfb70 2025

  33. [34]

    Kadhim, Zachary Green, Iman Nazari, Jonathan Baker, Michael George, Ash- ley Heinson, Bhumita Vadgama, Matt Stammers, Christopher M

    Cordoni, G., Casagrande, L., & Jerjen, H. 2025, PASA, 42, e127, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10089

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10089 2025

  34. [35]

    2025, SIMPLE-AstroDB/SIMPLE-db: v4.3.2025.10, v4.3.2025.10 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16640694

    Cruz, K., Rodriguez, D., Alejandro, S., et al. 2025, SIMPLE-AstroDB/SIMPLE-db: v4.3.2025.10, v4.3.2025.10 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16640694

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16640694 2025

  35. [36]

    C., Kirkpatrick , J

    Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/50 dal Ponte, M., Santiago, B., Carnero Rosell, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad955 Dal Tio, P., Mazzi, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2021, 506, 5681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1964

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/50 2011

  36. [37]

    R., Liu, M

    Deacon, N. R., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/119 2014

  37. [38]

    J., & Kraus, A

    Dupuy, T. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2013, Science, 341, 1492, doi: 10.1126/science.1241917

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1241917 2013

  38. [39]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2012, ApJS, 201, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/19 2012

  39. [40]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2017, ApJS, 231, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c 2017

  40. [41]

    K., Burgasser, A

    Faherty, J. K., Burgasser, A. J., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/1 2009

  41. [42]

    K., Riedel, A

    Faherty, J. K., Riedel, A. R., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 10, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/10 Gaia Collaboration, Smart, R. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/10 2016

  42. [43]

    , keywords =

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 2006

  43. [44]

    R., Burgasser, A

    Gerasimov, R., Bedin, L. R., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5551

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5551 2024

  44. [45]

    E., Burgasser, A

    Gizis, J. E., Burgasser, A. J., Berger, E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/172

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/172 2013

  45. [46]

    E., Monet , D

    Gizis, J. E., Monet, D. G., Reid, I. N., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1085, doi: 10.1086/301456

    work page doi:10.1086/301456 2000

  46. [47]

    C., Vavilov, D

    Greenstreet, S., Li, Z. C., Vavilov, D. E., et al. 2026, ApJL, 996, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2a30

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2a30 2026

  47. [48]

    P., Bechtol, K., Bellm, E., et al

    Guy, L. P., Bechtol, K., Bellm, E., et al. 2025, Rubin Observatory Plans for an Early Science Program, Technical Note RTN-011, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, doi: 10.71929/rubin/2584021 25

    work page doi:10.71929/rubin/2584021 2025

  48. [49]

    N., Helton, J

    Hainline, K. N., Helton, J. M., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad20d1 2024

  49. [50]

    N., Maiolino, R., Juodˇzbalis, I., et al

    Hainline, K. N., Maiolino, R., Juodˇ zbalis, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9920 2025

  50. [51]

    Nature 585(7825), 357–362 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  51. [52]

    J., & Gizis, J

    Honaker, E. J., & Gizis, J. E. 2025, ApJ, 985, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc689

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc689 2025

  52. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  53. [54]

    Jones, H. R. A., & Tsuji, T. 1997, ApJL, 480, L39, doi: 10.1086/310619 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864, doi: 10.1086/523619

    work page doi:10.1086/310619 1997

  54. [55]

    Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 195, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134017

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134017 2005

  55. [56]

    Davy and Reid, I

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, 802, doi: 10.1086/307414

    work page doi:10.1086/307414 1999

  56. [57]

    D., Looper, D

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Looper, D. L., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 100, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/100

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/100 2010

  57. [58]

    D., Cushing, M

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cushing, M. C., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/19 2011

  58. [59]

    D., Gelino, C

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd107

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd107 2021

  59. [60]

    D., Marocco, F., Gelino, C

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Marocco, F., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2 2024

  60. [61]

    Kumar, S. S. 1962, Astronomical Journal, 67, 579, doi: 10.1086/108658

    work page doi:10.1086/108658 1962

  61. [62]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: UKIDSS-DR8 LAS, GCS and DXS Surveys (Lawrence+ 2012),, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/314. Originally published in: 2007MNRAS.379.1599L; 2012yCat.2314....0U

    2012

  62. [63]

    C., Dupuy, T

    Liu, M. C., Dupuy, T. J., & Allers, K. N. 2016, ApJ, 833, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/96 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/96 2016

  63. [64]

    L., Tremblin, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al

    Luhman, K. L., Tremblin, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0b72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0b72 2024

  64. [65]

    T., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Schiavon, R. P., Pfeffer, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2955

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2955 2019

  65. [66]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.23955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23955

    Malanchev, K., DeLucchi, M., Caplar, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.23955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23955

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.23955 2025

  66. [67]

    2024, AJ, 167, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2938

    Manjavacas, E., Tremblin, P., Birkmann, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2938

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad2938 2024

  67. [68]

    Marocco, F., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd805 Mart´ ın, E. L., Delfosse, X., Basri, G., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 2466, doi: 10.1086/301107 Mart´ ın, E. L., Lodieu, N., Pavlenko, Y., & B´ ejar, V. J. S. 2018, ApJ, 856, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaeb8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd805 2021

  68. [69]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 583, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2952

    Mazzi, A., Girardi, L., Trabucchi, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 583, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2952

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2952 2024

  69. [70]

    L., Reyl\’e, C., et al

    Mohandasan, A., Smart, R. L., Reyl\’e, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.22559, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.22559

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22559 2025

  70. [71]

    V., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/78

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/78 2014

  71. [72]

    V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71d5 NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. 2025a, Legacy Survey of Space and Time Data Preview 1: Source searchable catalog [Data set], NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, doi: 10.71929/RUBIN/2570323 NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. 2025b, Legacy Survey of Space...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71d5 2024

  72. [73]

    2025, RTN-095: The Vera C

    Acero-Cuellar, T., Acosta, E., et al. 2025, RTN-095: The Vera C. Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1,, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory Technical Report doi: 10.71929/RUBIN/2570536

    work page doi:10.71929/rubin/2570536 2025

  73. [74]

    M., et al

    Patapis, P., Morales-Calder´ on, M., Arabhavi, A. M., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556296

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556296 2025

  74. [75]

    , keywords =

    Phillips, C. L., Faherty, J. K., Burningham, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d57

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5d57 2024

  75. [76]

    N., Tucker, D

    Porter, M. N., Tucker, D. L., Smith, J. A., & Adair, C. L. 2025, Photometric Transformation Relations for the LSST Data Preview 1, Technical Note RTN-099, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, doi: 10.71929/rubin/3006074

    work page doi:10.71929/rubin/3006074 2025

  76. [77]

    2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society, 182

    Rodrigo, C., & Solano, E. 2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society, 182

    2020

  77. [78]

    IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012 , year = 2012, month = oct, pages =

    Rodrigo, C., Solano, E., & Bayo, A. 2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0,, IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012 doi: 10.5479/ADS/bib/2012ivoa.rept.1015R

    work page doi:10.5479/ads/bib/2012ivoa.rept.1015r 2012

  78. [79]

    F., et al

    Rodrigo, C., Cruz, P., Aguilar, J. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449998

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449998 2024

  79. [80]

    R., Muirhead, P

    Rojas-Ayala, B., Covey, K. R., Muirhead, P. S., & Lloyd, J. P. 2012, ApJ, 748, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/93 2012

  80. [81]

    J., Tang, Y., & Bundy, K

    Romanowsky, A. J., Tang, Y., & Bundy, K. A. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 181, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adee10 26 Rubin Observatory Science Pipelines Developers. 2025, The LSST Science Pipelines Software: Optical Survey Pipeline Reduction and Analysis Environment, Project Science Technical Note PSTN-019, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin...

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/adee10 2025

Showing first 80 references.