Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

COSMOS-Web: Comprehensive Data Reduction for Wide-Area JWST NIRCam Imaging

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 A custom reduction built on the JWST Calibration Pipeline, with added artifact removal, background subtraction, and Gaia-anchored astrometric alignment, turns the 0.54 deg² COSMOS-Web NIRCam survey into public science-ready mosaics at 5σ…

desk verdict Solid public data-release paper; fix the depth definition before quoting the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03256 v1 pith:BMYCESNM submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GA

Maximilien Franco , Caitlin M. Casey , Anton M. Koekemoer , Daizhong Liu , Micaela B. Bagley , Henry Joy McCracken , Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe , Hollis B. Akins
show 32 more authors
Olivier Ilbert Marko Shuntov Santosh Harish Brant E. Robertson Rafael C. Arango-Toro Andrew J. Battisti Nima Chartab Nicole E. Drakos Andreas L. Faisst Carter Flayhart Ghassem Gozaliasl Michaela Hirschmann Richard Massey Jason Rhodes Zahra Sattari Diana Scognamiglio John R. Weaver Lilan Yang Jorge A. Zavala Edward M. Berman Fabrizio Gentile Steven Gillman Arianna S. Long Georgios Magdis Jacqueline E. McCleary Jed McKinney Bahram Mobasher Louise Paquereau Armin Rest David B. Sanders Sune Toft Si-Yue Yu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GA
keywords JWSTNIRCamdatareductionsurveymosaicsastrometrybackgroundsubtractionartifactremovalgalaxysurveys
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 presents the data reduction methodology for COSMOS-Web, the largest contiguous JWST NIRCam survey of Cycle 1, covering 0.54 deg² with four filters and about 270 hours of exposure. It claims that layering custom artifact removal, background subtraction, and Gaia-anchored astrometric alignment on top of the official JWST Calibration Pipeline produces science-ready mosaics. The stated outcome is public data reaching 5σ depths of 26.7–28.3 AB mag in 0.15" apertures, with median astrometric offsets below 3 mas in RA and 4 mas in Dec and scatter below 14 mas. A careful reader should care because these mosaics are the reference dataset for galaxy evolution studies in the COSMOS field and the reduction recipe is reusable for other wide-area JWST surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a staged reduction chain built around the three stages of the JWST Calibration Pipeline, each extended with custom steps. Stage 1 adds snowball masking via tuned jump-detection parameters and the ShowerMasking tool, wisp templates built by median stacking per detector and filter, amplifier-by-amplifier 1/f noise subtraction, snowblind persistence flagging, and variance-minimized claw subtraction. Stage 2 adds a global sky-background offset fit to the pixel distribution. Stage 3 performs astrometric alignment with JHAT against a newly reprocessed 0.03"/pixel HST F814W mosaic anchored to Gaia-DR3, with long-wavelength F277W aligned first and short-wavelength filters aligned to F277W; then iterative background subtraction with Photutils Background2D, outlier rejection with pixfrac=1, and per-tile resampling at 20, 30, and 60 mas.

What would settle it

Measure the positions of bright, compact sources in the final mosaics against Gaia-DR3 astrometry across the full 0.54 deg² field and look for coherent, position-dependent residuals larger than a few mas; if such a pattern appears, the absolute astrometric accuracy is worse than claimed. A simpler check is to compare the reprocessed F814W mosaic alone to Gaia-DR3 for large-scale distortion before trusting the NIRCam alignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the combination of the official JWST Calibration Pipeline with custom improvements—snowball and wisp masking, 1/f noise removal, persistence flagging, claw-artifact subtraction, global background offsets, statistical bad-pixel flagging, JHAT alignment to a reprocessed HST F814W reference, iterative background subtraction, and tuned outlier rejection—yields high-fidelity science-ready mosaics of the full survey. The paper reports 5σ depths of 26.7–28.3 AB mag in 0.15" apertures depending on filter and exposure count, median astrometric offsets below 3 mas in RA and 4 mas in Dec relative to the reference catalog, a median absolute deviation below 14 mas across the field, and inter-filter astrometric agreement better than 1 mas with MAD up to about 12 mas. These products are public and split into 20 tiles at 30 mas and 60 mas pixel scales.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed sub-14 mas astrometric accuracy assumes the newly reprocessed HST F814W reference mosaic is accurately aligned to Gaia-DR3 with no large-scale distortions; if that reference frame has systematic errors, the NIRCam alignment inherits them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The public mosaics give the community a 0.54 deg², four-filter NIRCam dataset ready for photometry and morphology without additional reprocessing.
  • The sub-14 mas astrometric scatter supports secure cross-matching with HST, ground-based, and future survey catalogs in the COSMOS field.
  • The depth uniformity (standard deviation below 0.04 AB mag at fixed exposure count) allows homogeneous source selection across the full footprint.
  • The documented recipe of custom steps layered on the official pipeline can be applied to other large NIRCam mosaics encountering the same artifacts.
  • The 20-tile layout with 2-arcmin overlaps means sources near tile boundaries can be measured seamlessly without splitting artifacts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the wisp templates are built from detector-plane-fixed features, other NIRCam surveys on the same detectors could reuse these templates rather than build their own, a transfer the paper does not claim.
  • The absolute astrometry ultimately inherits any large-scale distortion in the reprocessed F814W mosaic; a direct NIRCam-to-Gaia cross-check of bright sources would independently confirm the <14 mas MAD claim.
  • The reported depths are Gaussian-fit aperture fluxes without aperture correction, so multi-filter colors from these mosaics will need consistent aperture corrections before scientific interpretation.
  • Observations span three epochs reduced with different pipeline versions; comparing astrometric and photometric scatter in overlap regions between epochs would test for epoch-dependent systematics.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents the data reduction methodology for the COSMOS-Web JWST/NIRCam survey, covering 0.54 deg^2 in F115W, F150W, F277W, and F444W. The authors describe a pipeline that combines the official JWST Calibration Pipeline with custom steps for snowball and wisp removal, 1/f and persistence corrections, claw artifact subtraction, bad-pixel screening, background subtraction, outlier rejection, and astrometric alignment via JHAT against a newly constructed HST/F814W reference mosaic tied to Gaia-DR3. The final mosaics are tiled into 20 products at multiple pixel scales and made public. The central quantitative claims are 5-sigma depths of 26.7-28.3 AB mag in 0.15" radius apertures and astrometric residuals with median offsets below 3-4 mas and MAD below 14 mas relative to the reference catalog.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable methods and data-release paper for the largest contiguous JWST NIRCam survey to date. The paper is strong in its documentation of practical processing choices, its public release of mosaics and masks, and its external anchorings: astrometry tied to Gaia-DR3 through the HST reference mosaic, and depth comparisons to DREaM simulations and nominal JWST performance. The custom artifact treatments (wisps, claws, persistence, snowballs) are described in enough detail to be reproduced by other large-survey teams. However, the central depth definition contains an internal inconsistency that directly affects the headline numbers, and the astrometric validation is partially circular because the reported residuals are measured against the same catalog used for alignment. These issues need to be resolved before the quantitative claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 4] The depth measurement as written is internally inconsistent. The text states that the flux distribution from 100,000 random 0.15"-radius apertures was fitted with a Gaussian and 'the full width at half maximum (FWHM) was multiplied by the desired significance level (here, 5σ)'. For a Gaussian, FWHM = 2.355σ, so the literal recipe corresponds to an 11.8σ threshold, which would make the reported 5σ depths deeper than a true 5σ limit by 2.5 log10(11.8/5) ≈ 0.93 mag. If the authors actually multiplied the fitted Gaussian sigma by 5, the text must be corrected; if they literally used FWHM×5, the table and abstract depths are overestimated by nearly a magnitude. Because the abstract's headline depth range (26.7-28.3 AB mag) is precisely this quantity, this must be fixed and the depths re-derived or explicitly validated, for example with source-injection tests or ETC predictions. The qualitative agreement with DREaM simulations and nominal in-flight performance does not disambiguate the definition.
  2. [Sections 3.4.2 and 4.3, Tables 5-7] The astrometric offsets in Tables 5 and 7 are residuals of NIRCam detections relative to the JHAT reference catalog that was itself used to align the long-wavelength images in Section 3.4.2. These residuals therefore do not independently validate the absolute astrometric frame; they measure the scatter around the alignment solution. The absolute accuracy inherits from the newly constructed HST/F814W mosaic's tie to Gaia-DR3. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, provide an independent check of the absolute frame (e.g., direct comparison of a subset of NIRCam sources to Gaia-DR3 positions, or comparison with an external high-accuracy catalog in the field). The current wording in Section 4.3 ('absolute astrometry') overstates what the shown residuals demonstrate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract reports depths of 26.7-28.3 AB mag, Table 4 lists a maximum of 28.34, and the Conclusion states 26.7-28.2. The numbers should be made consistent after the depth definition is corrected.
  2. [Table 6] The last row of Table 6 is labeled 'F150W - F150W', but it should presumably be 'F150W - F115W' to complete the set of pairwise filter comparisons; as printed, it compares a filter with itself.
  3. [Section 4.2] The statement that 'the depth remains uniform across the survey footprint, with a standard deviation below 0.04 AB magnitudes' is not supported by any figure or table in the paper; please add the supporting measurement or cite where it can be found.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The abstract says '0.15" apertures' while the text specifies '0.15" radius apertures.' The aperture is a radius, not a diameter, so the abstract should say '0.15" radius apertures' to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Figure 6 caption] The caption contains 'bad in ¿20% of the exposures'; the '¿' should be '>'.
  6. [Various] There are several typographical issues throughout: 'T able' in Table 1 and elsewhere, 'L W' for 'LW', and 'F aisst' for 'Faisst'. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild partial circularity in astrometric validation: offsets are residuals against the same catalog used for alignment; depth and external Gaia tie keep the core claims independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4.2 and Section 4.3 / Table 5 and Table 7]
    "For the astrometric alignment process, we constructed a reference catalog ... Across all tiles, both the average and median offsets relative to the reference catalog remain below 3 mas in RA and 4 mas in Dec, with the Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) staying below 14 mas ... The L W observations were directly aligned using the reference catalog, whereas an intermediary catalog based on the F277W filter observations was employed to align the SW exposures."

    The reported 'absolute astrometry' residuals use the same reference catalog that JHAT fit the WCS to in Section 3.4.2; the paper states that long-wavelength images 'were directly aligned using the reference catalog' and SW images via an F277W intermediary. The median/MAD offsets in Tables 5/7 are therefore residuals of the alignment solution, not an independent check of absolute accuracy; small residual medians are partly guaranteed once the fit absorbs global offsets. The Gaia-DR3 tie of the F814W reference mosaic is external, so this is partial rather than complete circularity, but the validation metric as presented is statistically forced.

full rationale

The core depth claim is not circular: it is a direct measurement on the final mosaics via 100,000 random apertures, with no parameter fitted to produce a pre-ordained result. The FWHM-times-5 recipe in Section 4.2 is internally inconsistent for a Gaussian (FWHM = 2.355σ, so the quoted thresholds would be 11.8σ rather than 5σ), but that is a correctness/calibration concern, not a reduction of output to input. The astrometric validation is partially circular as described above, because the offsets are residuals relative to the same reference catalog used for alignment; however, the load-bearing absolute frame is anchored to Gaia-DR3 through the reprocessed HST/F814W mosaic, which is external to this paper's fitted values. Self-citations (Casey et al. 2023, Koekemoer et al. 2011, Rest et al. 2023) supply survey design, reference-frame methodology, and the JHAT tool, but none imports the paper's own conclusions as an unverified premise. Internal self-calibration steps (wisp templates, claw models, background fits) are built from the same images, but they are artifact-removal procedures with no headline claim attached, so they do not rise to circular predictions. Overall the paper's central deliverables remain externally anchored, with one non-independent astrometric check; hence a low score of 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are data-reduction tuning choices, not physical constants. The main domain assumptions are standard for JWST data reduction and are anchored to external reference data where possible.

free parameters (5)
  • Jump detection parameters = expand factor=2.2, max jump to flag neighbors=300, min jump to flag neighbors=15, min jump area=15
    Chosen by exploration to optimize snowball removal in NIRCam data (Section 3.2.1).
  • Bad pixel flagging threshold = 20% of exposures
    Empirically determined to identify consistently defective pixels without picking up transient flags (Section 3.4.1).
  • pixfrac = 1.0
    Selected for uniform sub-pixel coverage given the low exposure overlap (Section 3.4.4).
  • Wisp template smoothing and scaling = Gaussian sigma=2 pixels; scaling factor minimized variance
    Chosen to optimize wisp subtraction without adding noise (Section 3.2.2).
  • Claw smoothing and scaling = Gaussian sigma=6 pixels; scaling factor in [0,2] minimizing variance
    Determined for claw subtraction in affected data (Section 3.2.5).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption JWST NIRCam detectors and CRDS calibration reference files are accurate for flat-fielding and photometric calibration.
    Relied upon in Stage 2 processing (Sections 3.1 and 3.3).
  • domain assumption The HST/F814W reference mosaic reprocessed to Gaia-DR3 provides an absolute astrometric reference with negligible large-scale distortions.
    Basis of JHAT alignment in Section 3.4.2.
  • domain assumption Gaussian fitting of random aperture flux distributions provides unbiased 5-sigma depth estimates.
    Used for Table 4 depths (Section 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of COSMOS-Web: Comprehensive Data Reduction for Wide-Area JWST NIRCam Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BMYCESNM

@misc{pith2026250603256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: COSMOS-Web: Comprehensive Data Reduction for Wide-Area JWST NIRCam Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BMYCESNM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03256}
}
read the original abstract

We present the data reduction methodology used for the COSMOS-Web survey JWST NIRCam data. Covering 0.54 deg^2 with four broadband filters (F115W, F150W, F277W, F444W) and a total exposure time of approximately 270 hours, COSMOS-Web represents the largest contiguous field surveyed during JWST Cycle 1, posing unique data reduction challenges due to its extensive scale. By combining the official JWST Calibration Pipeline with custom improvements for noise removal, background subtraction, and astrometric alignment, we achieve high fidelity science-ready mosaics. We detail the systematic approach employed in the three stages of the JWST Calibration Pipeline. The data, collected in three epochs from January 2023 to January 2024, encompass 152 visits and have been processed into 20 mosaic tiles to optimize computational efficiency and data processing. The final data products achieve 5 sigma depths of 26.7-28.3 AB mag in 0.15" apertures. The processed and calibrated datasets are made available to the public.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03256 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exposure map presenting the COSMOS-Web NIRCam observation pattern design, depicting NIRCam SW filter observations in blue with MIRI parallels in green. NIRCam LW coverage is largely identical to SW, although slightly simpler by virtue of larger detectors. Observation tiles for April 2023 and January 2024 are marked in black and red, respectively, while the initial dataset from January 2023 is highlighted in darker b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effective coverage achieved by the COSMOS-Web survey using the NIRCam filters, illustrating the spatial distribution of observations. In the left panel, the coverage in the F277W filter is displayed, which also corresponds to the coverage achieved with the F115W filter. The right panel shows the survey’s extent in the F444W filter, which aligns with the coverage in the F150W filter. The first epoch of observations, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the wisp correction process for the B4 detector of the F150W filter. The leftmost image displays the original wisp template for the detector. The second from the left shows the wisp template after background removal, as detailed in Section 3.2.2. The middle-right image represents the rate image prior to the correction of 1/f noise and wisps. Finally, the rightmost image demonstrates the rate image fo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Zoom-in on module B of the F150W filter for a calibrated image before any correction. The 4 detectors are shown in the image, with a more pronounced claw shape for detector B1. The technique for subtracting these claws is presented in Section 3.2.5 and illustrated in …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different steps for claw subtraction. The claws were isolated from the image (top-left), then smoothed (top￾right), then subtracted from the original image (bottom-left), minimizing variance to obtain the final image (bottom-right). This step was implemented using the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For each module and detector, this figure illustrates the percentage of pixels exhibiting a non-zero value in the Data Quality (DQ) array across all calibrated files from April 2023. Pixels were flagged in the following of the data reduction process when the proportion…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Diagnostic plots illustrating the astrometric alignment in COSMOS-Web. Results for other individual tiles are provided in the Appendix, while aggregate results for all tiles are detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the background subtraction process applied to the final pre-mosaic images (*crf.fits files). The left image displays one of the final images before mosaic assembly, serving as the initial state for background subtraction. The middle image depicts the ex…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Four-color (F115W, F150W, F277W, F444W) image of the NIRCam COSMOS-Web mosaic with 2 progressive ”zoom-in”s inside a random region in this field. A full resolution version of this image can be found in the same repository as the data release. The color image was made u…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of the distortion map for the tile B6. Each arrow represents a sliding median including on average 35 galaxies, with an overlap of 40 percent between neighbor￾ing arrows. This section addresses further features and anomalies identified in the NIRCam data, whic…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Examples of various artifacts remaining in the COSMOS-Web imaging. a) Dragon’s Breath Type II, b) ghost star, c) persistence and hot pixel (right arrow), d) scattered light artifacts close to a bright star. These features, described in Section 4.4, are currently under…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Through Thick and Thin: The Cosmic Evolution of Disk Scale Height

    astro-ph.GA 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Disk scale heights at fixed stellar mass rise from 0.56 kpc at z=3.25 to 0.84 kpc at z=1.25, then fall to 0.67 kpc at z=0.25, implying early thick-disk progenitors were dense, hot, intermediate-thickness disks.

  2. JWST+ALMA reveal the ISM kinematics and stellar structure of MAMBO-9, a merging pair of DSFGs in an overdense environment at $z=5.85$

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ALMA and JWST resolve two merging dusty galaxies at z=5.85, measure a 1:5 mass ratio, find star formation hidden in A_V>10 clouds, and infer metal-rich gas inside a possible protocluster.

  3. Physical properties of galaxies and the UV Luminosity Function from $z\sim6$ to $z\sim14$ in COSMOS-Web

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 3,099-galaxy JWST sample at z~6-14 shows a bright-end UV luminosity function excess at z~9-12 relative to evolving Schechter-function predictions, with non-evolving blue UV slopes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J., Conselice, C

    Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Ferreira, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4755, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3347

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3347 2023

  2. [2]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef21 2023

  3. [3]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  4. [4]

    COSMOS-Web: A history of galaxy migrations over the stellar mass-star formation rate plane

    Arango-Toro, R. C., Ilbert, O., Ciesla, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05375, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05375

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.05375 2024

  5. [5]

    B., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 2023

  6. [6]

    A., Rieke, M., Eisenstein, D., et al

    Beichman, C. A., Rieke, M., Eisenstein, D., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. C. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, H. A. MacEwen, & J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., 84422N, doi: 10.1117/12.925447

    doi:10.1117/12.925447 2012

  7. [7]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  8. [8]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.9.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7577320

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.9.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7577320

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7577320 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    G., Ellis, R

    Capak, P., Abraham, R. G., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 284, doi: 10.1086/518424 20Franco et al

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Akins, H

    Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Shuntov, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, ApJL, 938, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0

    Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/22

    Coe, D., Umetsu, K., Zitrin, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/22

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, snowblind: Version 0.2.1, 0.2.1

    Davies, J. 2024, snowblind: Version 0.2.1, 0.2.1. https://github.com/mpi-astronomy/snowblind

    2024

  10. [18]

    E., Villasenor, B., Robertson, B

    Drakos, N. E., Villasenor, B., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46fb

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Abraham, R

    Dunlop, J. S., Abraham, R. G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic

    2021

  12. [20]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    L., Yang, L., Brinch, M., et al

    Faisst, A. L., Yang, L., Brinch, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada566

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Haro, P. A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbbd3

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    B., Casey, C

    Franco, M., Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6a Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Akins, H

    Gentile, F., Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad738a

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.03532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03532

    Huertas-Company, M., Shuntov, M., Dong, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.03532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03532

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 1236, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1236

    Ilbert, O., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1236, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1236

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196, doi: 10.1086/520086

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Ilbert, O., et al

    Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    S., et al

    Lambrides, E., Chiaberge, M., Long, A. S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad11ee

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Rieke, M., Misselt, K., & Robberto, M

    Leisenring, J. M., Rieke, M., Misselt, K., & Robberto, M. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9915, High

    2016

  25. [33]

    Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VII, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 99152N, doi: 10.1117/12.2233917

    doi

  26. [34]

    Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.06244, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.06244

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al

    McCracken, H. J., Milvang-Jensen, B., Dunlop, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219507

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Cooper, O

    McKinney, J., Manning, S. M., Cooper, O. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf614

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, A&A, 687, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348095

    Mercier, W., Shuntov, M., Gavazzi, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348095

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18

    Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    2025, A&A, 693, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452090

    Napolitano, L., Castellano, M., Pentericci, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452090

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08777, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08777

    Nightingale, J., Mahler, G., McCleary, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08777, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.08777

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    J., et al

    Paquereau, L., Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11674, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11674

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, Detection and Flagging of Showers and Snowballs in JWST, Technical Report JWST-STScI-008545

    Regan, M. 2023, Detection and Flagging of Showers and Snowballs in JWST, Technical Report JWST-STScI-008545

    2023

  36. [44]

    2023, arminrest/jhat: The JWST HST Alignment Tool (JHAT), v2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    Rest, A., Pierel, J., Correnti, M., et al. 2023, arminrest/jhat: The JWST HST Alignment Tool (JHAT), v2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    H., Wright, G

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

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Kelly, D., & Horner, S

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D., & Horner, S. 2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5904, Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments XI, ed. J. B. Heaney & L. G. Burriesci, 1–8, doi: 10.1117/12.615554

    2005 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Baum, S

    Rieke, M. J., Baum, S. A., Beichman, C. A., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4850, IR Space Telescopes and Instruments, ed. J. C. Mather, 478–485, doi: 10.1117/12.489103

    2003 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 028001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293 21

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293 21

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Robotham, A. S. G., D’Silva, J. C. J., Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 085003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acea42

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, AJ, 160, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb811

    Schlawin, E., Leisenring, J., Misselt, K., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb811

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    2025, A&A, 695, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    Shuntov, M., Ilbert, O., Toft, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452570

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    D., Mainieri, V., Ding, X., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Mainieri, V., Ding, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef4

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Zavodny, M., Rahmer, G., & Bonati, M

    Smith, R. M., Zavodny, M., Rahmer, G., & Bonati, M. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7021, High

    2008

  48. [56]

    Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy III, ed. D. A. Dorn & A. D. Holland, 70210J, doi: 10.1117/12.789372

    doi

  49. [57]

    P., Topping, M

    Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., Endsley, R., & Tang, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17078, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17078

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    P., et al

    Whitler, L., Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3535

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Wright, D., Goodson, G

    Wright, G. S., Wright, D., Goodson, G. B., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 595, doi: 10.1086/682253 All Authors and Affiliations Maximilien Franco ,1, 2 Caitlin M. Casey ,3, 2, 4 Anton M. Koekemoer ,5 Daizhong Liu ,6 Micaela B. Bagley ,2 Henry Joy McCracken ,7 Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe ,8 ...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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