Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 36 references

JWST MIRI Medium Resolution Spectrometer Point Fixed Pattern Corrections: Cleaner and Higher Signal-to-Noise Spectra of Point Sources

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs 48 point fixed pattern corrections for JWST MIRI MRS point-source spectra and shows that they remove fixed-pattern artifacts and raise signal-to-noise limits above 1000 at shorter wavelengths.

desk verdict A solid, practically important calibration paper for MRS point sources, with correct validation and a useful package; the main caveat is the unquantified sensitivity to sub-pixel pointing offsets. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13464 v1 pith:ZQVCZ44D submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.IM

Karl D. Gordon , David R. Law This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords JWSTMIRIMediumResolutionSpectrometerfixedpatternnoisespectralcalibrationsignal-to-noiseinfraredspectroscopypointsources
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

The paper seeks to establish that the fixed-pattern noise capping the signal-to-noise of JWST MIRI Medium Resolution Spectrometer point-source spectra can be largely removed by a set of 48 wavelength-dependent corrections, built from observations of flux-calibration O, A, and G dwarfs plus two asteroids. Combining stars and asteroids lets the corrections stay high signal-to-noise across the full 5-28 µm range and fills in regions masked near stellar lines. The authors claim that applying these PFPCs removes both narrow and broad artifacts and raises S/N by up to almost 8x when the pipeline residual fringe correction is not used, and up to 3x when it is used, reaching S/N values above 1000 at shorter wavelengths. The result matters because the fixed pattern currently limits the weakest spectral features that can be detected, and because broad artifacts such as a 5.8 µm feature resembling dust absorption are shown to be instrumental.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Point Fixed Pattern Correction (PFPC), a wavelength-dependent multiplicative correction measured separately for each of the 12 MRS channel/grating segments and each of the 4 dither positions, yielding 48 corrections in all. It is built from ratios of reduced calibration spectra to models: CALSPEC synthetic spectra for the O, A, and G dwarf standards and quadratic continuum fits for asteroids, with stellar lines and low-S/N regions masked and a sigma-clipped average taken across the ensemble of targets. The PFPC acts as a transfer function that divides out the fixed-pattern noise tied to the specific pipeline version and reference files, and the accompanying MRS-PFPC package applies it to individual dither spectra before averaging and optional residual fringe correction.

What would settle it

Take an independent MRS point-source observation not used to build the PFPCs, reduce it with and without the corrections, and compare residuals across many repeated target-acquisition visits at the same dither positions; if the PFPC-corrected spectra still show the same 1-2% dither-dependent fringes or the 5.8 µm feature, the single-correction-per-dither assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the MRS point-source fixed-pattern noise, which sits at roughly 1-2% amplitude and includes residual fringes, sampling artifacts, flat-field uncertainties, and interpolation artifacts, is stable enough across the default four-point dither pattern to be captured by a single correction per dither position. Dividing each observed spectrum by the appropriate CALSPEC model for a star or a quadratic continuum for an asteroid, masking lines and low-S/N regions, and sigma-clipping across targets yields 48 high-S/N PFPCs. Applied to independent observations, these corrections remove both narrow and broad artifacts: the pipeline's continuum 'wiggles' disappear, the 5.8 µm carbonyl-like feature vanishes, and measured S/N rises by up to ~8x without residual fringe correction and up to ~3x with it, reaching above 1000 at short wavelengths. The paper also finds that the S/N of coadded spectra is limited by the S/N of the PFPCs themselves, not by photon noise, implying that more calibration observations would raise the ceiling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the JWST pointing at each dither position repeats well enough that a single correction per dither position captures the fixed pattern, and that the CALSPEC stellar models and quadratic asteroid continua used to measure the corrections are accurate enough that the residuals being fit are purely instrumental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For point sources whose spectra have molecular or emission-line structure that makes the pipeline fringe correction unsafe, PFPC-corrected spectra gain up to almost 8x in S/N, so weak features in such sources become detectable that would previously be buried in fixed pattern noise.
  • For sources where the fringe correction can be applied, PFPCs push achievable S/N past 1000 at short wavelengths and up to 3x higher than the pipeline, bringing bright-star observations into the sub-1% calibration regime.
  • The broad 5.8 µm feature and other continuum wiggles that survive pipeline reduction are shown to be instrumental and are removed, meaning MRS surveys should not interpret those features as interstellar dust absorption.
  • Because the PFPCs are tied to the specific pipeline version and reference files, any future pipeline update requires regenerating them; the MRS-PFPC package is designed to select the matching PFPC version automatically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the PFPC S/N is indeed the limiting factor for coadded spectra, then adding more diverse calibration targets to future versions should keep raising the maximum achievable S/N, a trend the paper already sees when extra HD 163466 observations are included in the PFPC construction.
  • The single-correction-per-dither assumption should be tested on observations taken without target acquisition or after grating wheel resets; channels 1 and 2, where dither-to-dither PFPC variation is largest, are the most likely places for residual fringes to reappear.
  • A natural extension is to fold the PFPCs into the pipeline reference files themselves, which would let the entire archival MRS data set be reprocessed to this calibration level rather than requiring users to run the custom package.
  • The removal of the 5.8 µm feature suggests that other broad MRS spectral features currently attributed to astrophysical dust or molecular carriers should be re-examined with PFPC-corrected spectra before being published as detections.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives and validates a set of 48 wavelength-dependent Point Fixed Pattern Corrections (PFPCs) for JWST/MIRI MRS point-source spectra observed with the default four-point dither pattern. The corrections are constructed from sigma-clipped averages of observed-to-model ratios for O/A/G dwarf CALSPEC standards and two asteroids, with masking around stellar lines and low-S/N regions. The authors validate on the independent A dwarf HD 163466 and five asteroids not used in constructing the PFPCs, demonstrate removal of known artifacts such as the 5.8 micron feature, and report S/N improvements up to factors of about 8 (without residual fringe correction) and about 3 (with it), with coadded S/N values exceeding 1000 at short wavelengths. A public Python package (MRS-PFPC) and the associated data are provided, and the corrections are explicitly tied to jwst pipeline version 2.0.0.

Significance. If confirmed, this is a high-value calibration product for the MIRI MRS community: it addresses the dominant fixed-pattern noise for point sources, extends coverage to all four channels, and provides a practical tool with public code and machine-readable outputs. The empirical construction is sound in outline, and the authors are careful to validate on sources excluded from the fit and to combine stars and asteroids to separate stellar-line masking from continuum correction. The explicit coupling of the corrections to a specific pipeline version and the acknowledgment that future pipeline updates will require new PFPCs are appropriate. However, the headline quantitative claims (factors of 2-8, S/N above 1000) rest on an incompletely specified S/N estimator, on visually selected clean regions, and on PFPC uncertainties that are not propagated; these need to be tightened before the numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 6] The S/N estimator is not defined precisely enough to support the quantitative claims. The text says S/N was measured by fitting a line to the continuum and measuring the standard deviation in visually clean regions, but it does not state whether the reported values are per native spectral sample, per spectral resolution element, per binned wavelength interval, or per fitted continuum segment. The reported improvement factors (up to about 8 without residual fringe correction, up to about 3 with it) and the S/N above 1000 claim depend directly on this choice. Please specify the estimator, the binning (including the width of the clean regions), the number of independent samples per segment, and the criteria used to select regions, and make the region list available in the package. Because the regions are visually selected, the factors are best-case values; please also provide the full per-segment and per-epoch distribution of improvement factors.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 6 (bottom-left); Sec. 5] The paper's own data show that the static single-PFPC-per-dither assumption is not sufficient for a subset of observations: the bottom-left panel of Fig. 6 shows channel-1 epochs with negligible improvement when the residual fringe correction is applied, and the text attributes this to sub-pixel differences in the delivered dither locations and grating-wheel non-repeatability. This qualification is directly relevant to the abstract's claim that the PFPCs improve spectra 'regardless of their S/N' and to the summary's general applicability statement for the default dither pattern. Please quantify the fraction of epochs and segments for which the PFPC improvement is less than 1.1, report the worst-case performance, and restate the applicability claim as typical rather than best-case behavior. This is load-bearing because a user needs to know when the correction will fail.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 2; Sec. 4.3] The PFPCs are described as setting the limiting S/N (100-300 without residual fringe correction, 180-430 with it), and Sec. 4.3 concludes that the coadded S/N is limited by the PFPC S/N, but no per-wavelength uncertainty is provided for any of the 48 PFPCs. The sigma-clipped average in Fig. 1 has a natural standard error of the mean from the individual target measurements; please compute and plot this uncertainty, report the number of independent measurements surviving clipping in each segment and dither, and propagate the PFPC uncertainty into the corrected spectra. Without this, the statement that the coadded S/N 'gives the PFPC S/N' and the headline S/N above 1000 value cannot be verified.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 2, paragraph 2] The phrase 'targeted stars stars' contains a duplicated word and should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'quadratic fitf'; it should read 'quadratic fit'.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] There are two typos in this section: 'neglibable' should be 'negligible' and 'expect for segment 4A' should be 'except for segment 4A'.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The sentence 'This emission is seen in the pipeline PFPC spectra before residual fringe correction' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the HI 7-6 emission appears in both the pipeline and PFPC reductions before the residual fringe correction is applied.
  5. [Sec. 4.1, step 2] The step that multiplicatively corrects the overall level of each dither position to the average of the four dithers should be justified, since it removes any dither-dependent throughput differences; please state whether this is intended and discuss its effect on absolute flux calibration.
  6. [Fig. 6] The text states that observations from different cycles are shown with different symbols, but the figure caption and legend do not specify the symbol-to-cycle mapping; please add this information.
  7. [Sec. 5] The statement that 'S/N values exceeding 1000' are achieved should explicitly note that this refers to the coadded spectrum, not a single epoch, and that the coadded S/N is stated to be limited by the PFPC S/N rather than by photon noise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PFPC improvements are validated on independent stars and asteroids.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The PFPCs are measured as observed/model ratios for flux-calibration stars and two asteroids, and all claimed improvements are evaluated on independent data: HD 163466 is explicitly not used in constructing the PFPCs, and the paper states 'the HD 163466 observations were not used as the PFPCs would be strongly biased to the observations of this one star.' The five validation asteroids (PID 2361) are distinct from the two calibration asteroids (PID 1549), so the S/N improvement factors are not forced by construction. The limiting-S/N values from Fig. 2 characterize the fixed-pattern noise floor via the scatter of the PFPCs themselves; they are not a prediction checked against the same fitted points. Self-citations to Law et al. (2025), Gordon et al. (2022), and related pipeline-description papers provide prior calibration context but the PFPC construction and validation do not reduce to those citations. The CALSPEC models are external and JWST-independent, and the agreement between stars and asteroids is used as a cross-check rather than as the sole evidence. The acknowledged limitation about a single PFPC per dither and sub-pixel grating-wheel non-repeatability is a robustness or correctness concern, not a circularity, because the paper reports epoch-to-epoch scatter and explicitly leaves offset-dependent corrections to future work.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The PFPCs are empirical products, so the main ledger entries are the assumptions needed to interpret observed/model residuals as instrument noise, plus the stability assumption for applying one correction per dither. No invented physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • 48 PFPC curves = derived from sigma-clipped averages of observed/model ratios
    The central product; each is a measured correction, not a first-principles calculation.
  • asteroid quadratic continuum fits = fitted per segment per asteroid
    Used to define the continuum before deriving PFPCs; if the quadratic is wrong, curvature may leak into corrections.
  • line mask widths = 0.02 and 0.04 um
    Chosen by hand to mask stellar lines; trade-off between excluding model errors and losing correction coverage.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CALSPEC models for O, A, and G dwarfs are accurate outside masked lines.
    Section 3 uses them as divisors; errors propagate into PFPCs and could be removed from science targets as if instrumental.
  • domain assumption Asteroid mid-IR spectra are featureless and described by a quadratic per segment.
    Section 3 relies on quadratic fits to remove continuum without removing real features; broad asteroid features would be baked into the corrections.
  • domain assumption Fixed pattern noise is stable over time and pointing; one correction per dither position applies to all point-source observations with target acquisition.
    Section 1 explicitly assumes pointing repeatability is good enough despite known grating wheel sub-pixel variations.
  • domain assumption Pipeline version 2.0.0 reductions (badpix selfcal, pixel replace, autocentroid) do not introduce artifacts that would be included in the PFPC.
    The PFPCs are directly coupled to the pipeline version and reference files, as stated in Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST MIRI Medium Resolution Spectrometer Point Fixed Pattern Corrections: Cleaner and Higher Signal-to-Noise Spectra of Point Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQVCZ44D

@misc{pith2026260813464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST MIRI Medium Resolution Spectrometer Point Fixed Pattern Corrections: Cleaner and Higher Signal-to-Noise Spectra of Point Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQVCZ44D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13464}
}
read the original abstract

The JWST Mid-Infrared Instrument Medium Resolution Spectrometer provides the capability to obtain spectra from 5-28 micron. The JWST data reduction pipeline removes the majority but not all of the instrument artifacts and the signal-to-noise (S/N) of the resulting spectra are limited by fixed pattern noise. Building on previous work, Point Fixed Pattern Corrections (PFPCs) are constructed using observations of O, A, and G dwarf flux calibration stars and asteroids taken using the default four point dither pattern. The PFPCs can be applied to spectra of point sources taken with target acquisition and the same dither pattern. They can be used alone or with the pipeline residual fringe correction depending on the sources spectral properties. Both narrow and broad artifacts are removed by the PFPCs improving the spectra regardless of their S/N. For higher S/N observations, the PFPCs significantly improve the S/N by up to factors of a few and S/N values of 1000 or more. The MRS-PFPC python package is provided to allow anyone to utilize the PFPCs for their own data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13464 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The individual PFPCs for channels/gratings 1B, 2C, 3A, and 4B for each star and asteroid are plotted for each dither position offset for clarity. The sigma-clipped average PFPC for each dither is plotted in black offset above the respective individual PFPCs. The clipped data is shown fainter than the data used to construct the averages. The models used for each star are shown at the top of each panel. The models for… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left panels give the derived PFPCs for each dither and the average of the 4 dithers at the top of each plot. The portion of the PFPCs that is not due to the expected residual fringes is shown in right panels where the PFPCs have been corrected using the pipeline residual fringe correction. The average S/N over each segment is given below that segment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The application of the PFPC is illustrated for all 3 bands of channel 2. HD 163466 is a MRS flux calibration star that was not used in constructing the PFPC. The extracted spectra for each dither (Obs), PFPC, and division of the two illustrate the stability of the PFPC. The average of the Obs/PFPC, residual fringe correction for the average (rfcor), and the resulting residual fringe corrected average (Ave/rfcor) are… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The coadded spectra for HD 163466 are plotted as pairs for the pipeline and PFPC. For each pair of spectra the lower gives the default and the upper the residual fringe and spectral overlap corrected spectra. The orange line right below each pair gives the residual fri…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Segments 1A and 1B are shown for the pipeline and PFPC spectra. Both have been had residual fringe and spectral overlap correction applied. The spectral artifact at 5.8 µm is clearly present in the pipeline spectrum and absent in the PFPC spectrum. than stars. The aste…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The improvement in channels 1–3 in the S/N with the application the PFPCs is shown for the 25 epochs of HD 163466 observations and their coadd (circled points). For channel 4 where this star has very low S/N, the improvement is shown using five asteroids and their coad…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, A&A, 641, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037535

    Argyriou, I., Wells, M., Glasse, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037535

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037535 2020

  2. [2]

    R., et al

    Argyriou, I., Glasse, A., Law, D. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346489 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., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346489 2023

  3. [3]

    C., Gordon, K

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

    doi:10.1086/677655 2014

  4. [4]

    C., M´ esz´ aros, S., Fleming, S

    Bohlin, R. C., M´ esz´ aros, S., Fleming, S. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ba9

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ba9 2017

  5. [5]

    2025,, 2.3.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17129028

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2025,, 2.3.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17129028

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.17129028 2025

  6. [6]

    2025,, 1.20.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17515973

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025,, 1.20.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17515973

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.17515973 2025

  7. [7]

    2026,, 2.0.0 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7038885

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2026,, 2.0.0 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7038885

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7038885 2026

  8. [8]

    D., Misselt, K

    Decleir, M., Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada147

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ada147 2025

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al

    Gasman, D., Argyriou, I., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245633

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    E., et al

    Gasman, D., Argyriou, I., Morrison, J. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450241

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    R., et al

    Gasman, D., Argyriou, I., Law, D. R., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554055

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    2026,, v1.17.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18736568 6 https://github.com/STScI-MIRI/MRS-PFPC

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2026,, v1.17.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18736568 6 https://github.com/STScI-MIRI/MRS-PFPC

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    D., & Law, D

    Gordon, K. D., & Law, D. R. 2026,, v1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21263454

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G

    Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Brandt, J

    Heap, S. R., Brandt, J. C., Randall, C. E., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 871, doi: 10.1086/133635

    1995 doi

  10. [18]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    R., & Clarke, M

    Law, D. R., & Clarke, M. 2026, AJ, 171, 304, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae589a

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Argyriou, I., Gordon, K

    Law, D. R., Argyriou, I., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9685

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    S., & Adelman, S

    Leckrone, D. S., & Adelman, S. J. 1989, ApJS, 71, 387, doi: 10.1086/191379

    1989 doi

  14. [22]

    2012, A&A, 537, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118142

    Licandro, J., Hargrove, K., Kelley, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118142

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 3706, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3099

    Mashonkina, L., Ryabchikova, T., Alexeeva, S., Sitnova, T., & Zatsarinny, O. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3706, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3099

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    L., & Gordon, K

    Massa, D., Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Gordon, K. D. 2020, ApJ, 891, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f01

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    R., et al

    Patapis, P., Argyriou, I., Law, D. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347339

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Geballe, T

    Pendleton, Y. J., Geballe, T. R., Chu, L. E. U., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc3d

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Salyk, C., Banzatti, A., et al

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Salyk, C., Banzatti, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20f0

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Sip˝ ocz, B

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., G¨ unther, H. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    H., Wright, G

    Rieke, G. H., Wright, G. S., B¨ oker, T., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 584, doi: 10.1086/682252 12Gordon & Law

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293 van der Walt, S., Sch¨ onberger, J

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293 van der Walt, S., Sch¨ onberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453, doi: 10.7717/peerj.453 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Sc...

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2025,, v1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., Van-Lane, P., Wu, K., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2025,, v1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Wagg, T., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04405

    2024

  26. [34]

    2015, PASP, 127, 646, doi: 10.1086/682281

    Wells, M., Pel, J.-W., Glasse, A., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 646, doi: 10.1086/682281

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Rieke, G

    Wright, G. S., Rieke, G. H., Glasse, A., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acbe66

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    T., Marshall, J

    Zeegers, S. T., Marshall, J. P., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add73b

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.