Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Procedures for Constraining Robotic Fiber Positioning for Highly Multiplexed Spectroscopic Surveys: The Case of FPS for SDSS-V

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SDSS-V's robotic fiber placement can be constrained by two parameter tables so that the entire survey, roughly 42,000 designs, is planned algorithmically while data quality is guaranteed.

desk verdict Worth a serious referee: the parameter tables and validation statistics are genuinely useful, and the honest reporting outweighs the soft spots, but the abstract overpromises on the PSF fits. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15475 v2 pith:JP2GQ5YY submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.IM

Ilija Medan , Tom Dwelly , Kevin R. Covey , Eleonora Zari , Michael R. Blanton , Joleen K. Carlberg , S. Drew Chojnowski , Alexander Ji
show 7 more authors
Yue Shen John Donor José Sánchez-Gallego Sean Morrison Héctor J. Ibarra-Medel Conor Sayres Keivan G. Stassun
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords roboticfiberpositioningSDSS-VFocalPlaneSystemspectroscopicsurveyplanningobservingconstraintsbrightstaravoidanceoffsetsselectionfunction
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 claims that SDSS-V's robotic fiber positioning can be constrained by two small parameter sets, observing-condition limits (obsmode) and fiber-assignment rules (designmode), chosen so that the survey can assign all roughly 42,000 designs algorithmically without per-design human inspection while still delivering the spectrophotometric quality, sky subtraction, and contamination control each science program needs. The values are set empirically from archival BOSS/eBOSS plate data and FPS commissioning tests, including deliberate fiber offsets from bright stars so that targets brighter than the detector's linearity limit can still be observed. If right, it means a very large, multi-program spectroscopic survey can be scheduled entirely by software, and the same constraint framework transfers to other robotic multiplexed spectrographs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of obsmode and designmode parameter sets, each bound to a data collection scenario. obsmode tells the scheduler when a Design may be observed; designmode tells the assignment software which fibers may be placed where: minimum sky and standard counts, a focal-plane distribution metric computed as the 95th percentile distance from each science fiber to its k-th nearest calibrator, per-band magnitude floors and ceilings, and exclusion radii around bright stars derived from piecewise PSF fits (Moffat core profiles plus linear transition and wing relations). Offsets for bright targets are computed by inverting the PSF magnitude-loss functions, with safety factors of 0.5 in bright time and 1.0 in dark time.

What would settle it

Measure the flux recovered through offset fibers for bright stars over a range of seeing, airmass, and lunar illumination and compare it with the piecewise Moffat-plus-wing prediction; if systematic deviations exceed the 0.5 to 1.0 magnitude safety factor, or if the Moffat parameters must be re-derived again after another season of operations, the claimed survey-wide quality guarantee fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SDSS-V organizes all observations into five data collection scenarios, Bright Time, Dark Plane, Dark Monitoring, Dark RM, and Dark Faint, each with a named obsmode (minimum lunar separation, sky-brightness limit via the Krisciunas-Schaefer $\Delta V$, twilight angle, maximum airmass) and designmode (minimum sky and standard-star fiber counts, their required distribution across the focal plane via a nearest-neighbor metric, per-band magnitude limits, and bright-star exclusion radii). The paper's central empirical claim is that these parameter values, fixed by archival plate tests and commissioning observations, are sufficient to guarantee reduced-data quality across the survey: calibration-fiber counts at the tested levels keep spectrophotometric errors at 0.5 to 3 percent, magnitude limits keep on-chip contamination below the faintest target flux, and the PSF-wing plus Moffat-core models allow safe fiber offsets and bright-star avoidance. The consequence is that the survey planning and validation software can check every Design algorithmically, with more than 99 percent of Designs passing all non-FOV criteria in the zeta-3 plan, so the survey no longer requires the human visual inspection that plug-plate surveys demanded.

Load-bearing premise

The point-spread function models that set bright-star exclusion radii and fiber offsets were derived from plate-era data taken with a different corrector and from a few test nights, with no quoted uncertainties, so if those PSF shapes do not generalize to real survey conditions, the brightness limits, offsets, and exclusion radii will misplace flux and the data-quality guarantee collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SDSS-V can produce and validate a full survey plan of about 42,000 Designs in roughly 95 CPU hours, with no per-design human inspection.
  • Programs with different science needs can share a field because the dominant program's data collection scenario fixes the constraints for the whole Design, with only mixed-cadence fields allowed to split between dark and bright scenarios.
  • Bright targets down to about $G = 6$ in bright time and $G = 13$ in dark time become observable through offset fibers, while no targets brighter than those thresholds will be observed.
  • The designmode parameters define hard limits of the SDSS-V selection function, so any model of the survey's selection function must incorporate them as strict observability boundaries.
  • The same two-table constraint framework can serve as a template for other robotic-fiber spectroscopic surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the framework is right, the key transferable insight is separating 'when may we observe' from 'where may fibers go', and the empirical calibration step, archival plus commissioning tests, replaces human plate inspection in any multiplexed robotic-fiber survey.
  • A testable extension would turn the sky and standard FOV metrics into a continuous loss function for assignment optimization rather than a pass/fail threshold, potentially recovering more science fibers in crowded fields.
  • The paper's own recalibration of the PSF between the eta and theta survey-plan series implies the quality guarantee depends on periodic re-derivation; one could quantify how often recalibration is needed as a function of season and airmass and fold that into the survey plan.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This paper describes the parameter framework used to constrain robotic fiber positioning for SDSS-V's Focal Plane System (FPS). The authors define five data collection scenarios (Bright Time, Dark Plane, Dark Monitoring, Dark RM, Dark Faint), each with obsmode parameters specifying observing conditions and designmode parameters specifying calibration requirements and fiber assignment restrictions. They explain how each parameter value was chosen, drawing on archival SDSS/eBOSS plate data, FPS commissioning observations, and past survey experience, and they present the PSF modeling work used to implement deliberate fiber offsets for bright targets and bright-star exclusion radii. The paper also describes the software ecosystem (robostrategy, coordio, kaiju, mugatu), reports validation statistics for the zeta-3 survey plan, and discusses cases where constraints are not enforced or are weakly correlated with data quality. The central claim is that these parameters allow algorithmic survey planning that maximizes science output while guaranteeing data quality throughout SDSS-V operations.

Significance. If the claimed guarantee held, this paper would be a valuable reference both for SDSS-V users constructing the survey selection function and for future robotic multi-object spectroscopic surveys. The manuscript's strengths are its explicit tabulation of parameters, the empirical basis for most choices, the honest reporting of constraints that are not enforced or not tightly correlated with data quality (e.g., BOSS FOV metrics in §3.2.2 and Table 5), and its public software artifacts. However, the abstract's 'guarantee' is not fully supported by the evidence: the PSF-based offsets and bright-star exclusion radii, which are load-bearing for data quality, rest on plate-era wing fits and a small number of core fits with no uncertainty quantification, and §4.1.4 shows that a recalibration was needed after operations began. These concerns are correctness risks rather than internal inconsistencies, and they are addressable with additional analysis or a more qualified claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.1, Eqs. (4)–(5); Table 4] The PSF wing model used for bright-star avoidance and offsets is fit to archival BOSS/eBOSS plate data taken with a different corrector and plug-plate system at APO. The paper states that this is expected to be a good approximation for SDSS-V, but no FPS-era verification of the wing shape is presented, and azimuthal structure around bright stars is explicitly ignored. Because §4.2 computes exclusion radii from these wings without a safety factor, a wing bias directly translates into incorrect bright limits for faint fibers. I request either an FPS-era wing check (e.g., using residuals of sky fibers near bright stars in actual FPS data) or a quantitative bound on the wing model error and its propagation into exclusion radii.
  2. [§4.1.2, §4.1.4; Table 4] The Moffat core parameters are fitted to only two APO test nights and one LCO test night, with no quoted uncertainties on FWHM or beta. Section 4.1.4 reports that the initial eta-series model had to be recalibrated using science observations because bright offset targets received too little flux; Table 4 shows the APO bright-time FWHM changing from 1.7" to 0.5" between the eta and theta series, a factor greater than 3. Such a large recalibration demonstrates that the model uncertainty was substantial, and the current values are presented without error bars. Since offsets and exclusion radii are monotonic functions of these parameters, the abstract's guarantee of data quality is stronger than the evidence supports. Please provide uncertainty estimates or a sensitivity analysis showing that residual PSF errors keep offset targets below the bright limits and correctly place faint fibers.
  3. [§4.1.3] Offsets are always applied in the positive RA direction rather than perpendicular to the parallactic angle, in order to avoid collisions. The paper notes that this is 'often close to the desired direction' but does not quantify the chromatic effects from atmospheric differential refraction. For a bright target offset from fiber center, differential refraction over a 15-minute exposure will produce a wavelength-dependent displacement, potentially causing differential light loss that degrades the spectrophotometric accuracy that Dark Monitoring and Dark RM are designed to preserve. I ask for an estimate of the magnitude of this effect over the survey's airmass and exposure-time ranges, or an explicit argument that it is negligible.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the addition of the FPS facilities an increase' should read 'facilitates an increase'.
  2. [§2.3] 'Their is a balance' should be 'There is a balance'.
  3. [§3.2.2] In the description of the FOV metric, 'distance id calculated' should be 'distance is calculated'.
  4. [§4.1.1] The phrase 'within 90” of the a Tycho-2 star' contains a duplicated article; it should be 'the Tycho-2 star'.
  5. [§4.1.2] The sentence 'we do account for these at the time of fiber placement' appears to mean 'we do not account for these', because the text explains that conditions are stochastic and designs are planned ahead of time; please clarify.
  6. [§4.2] 'to unsure the science requirements' should be 'to ensure the science requirements'.
  7. [Table 4 and Figures 14–15] The checkmark symbols indicating whether offsetting was allowed render as blank spaces in the provided text; please verify they appear correctly in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper calibrates empirical constraint parameters and validates designs against those same parameters, but it does not derive a prediction from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation; it specifies empirical constraint parameters for robotic fiber placement. The obsmode and designmode values are justified by archival plate tests, dedicated FPS commissioning observations, and operational recalibration, each of which is an external data source. The PSF wing relations (Eqs. 4-5) are fitted to eBOSS/BOSS CALIBFLUX-SPECTROFLUX residuals, the core Moffat profiles are fitted to dedicated APO/LCO offset tests in Section 4.1.2, and bright-neighbor magnitude limits are fitted to sky-fiber contamination residuals in Section 3.2.4. Mugatu validation checks whether a Design satisfies the designmode parameters, but that is a consistency check, not the evidence that establishes the parameter values. The recalibration in Section 4.1.4 uses science observations to update the Moffat profiles and is described as calibration rather than as an independent prediction. Self-citations to Blanton et al. (2025) and Sayres et al. (2021) point to software descriptions and are not load-bearing circular evidence. The abstract's 'guaranteeing data quality' is a strong engineering claim whose support is partly extrapolated from plate-era PSF wings and a small number of core fits, and the paper honestly notes the residual scatter and the need for recalibration; those are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework is an empirical operating specification, so most values are fitted or hand-picked rather than derived from first principles. The listed free parameters are the main constraint values and PSF coefficients. The axioms capture background assumptions that the archival and commissioning data represent operational conditions and that the calibration metrics are predictive. No physical entities are invented.

free parameters (8)
  • Moffat core PSF FWHM and beta values = FWHM 0.57 to 0.70 arcsec, beta 1.66 to 1.90 across iota-series designmodes
    Fit to offset test observations at APO and LCO in Section 4.1.2 and Table 4; revised multiple times during the survey.
  • PSF wing and transition relation coefficients = Core exponents 1/0.6 and 1/0.8 with scales 1.75 and 1.5; transition 4.5 + 0.25r; wings 8.2 + 0.05r
    Empirical fits to eBOSS/BOSS median excess flux versus separation in Section 4.1.1, chosen because they seemed to bound the data.
  • Offset safety factor = 1.0 for dark time, 0.5 for bright time
    Chosen by inspecting LCO test results in Section 4.1.2: a safety factor of 0.5 still left many targets brighter than the limit, while 1.5 made targets too faint.
  • Calibrator minimum counts = BOSS skies 50 (80 for Dark Faint), BOSS standards 5 to 70, APOGEE skies 35 (0 for |b|>20), APOGEE standards 15
    Set from eBOSS masking tests and APOGEE-1/2 commissioning experience in Section 3.2.1 and Table 3.
  • FOV metric distances d = 75, 85, 95, 130 and 230 mm depending on instrument and scenario
    Chosen near the 50th percentile of random assignment simulations of calibrator distributions in Section 3.2.2.
  • Magnitude limits for targets and standards = BOSS bright limits 12.7 to 16, standard faint limit r=18; APOGEE bright limit H=7, standard faint limit H=13
    Taken from SDSS/MaNGA saturation limits, contamination tests on plate and FPS data, and APOGEE commissioning in Section 3.2.4.
  • obsmode parameters = min lunar separation 15 to 35 degrees, min deltaV KS91 -3.0 to -0.5, min twilight angle 8 to 15 degrees, max airmass…
    Mostly inherited from previous SDSS surveys; min deltaV values were found by locating where the pipeline fails or where archival data are good, as described in Section 3.1 and Table 2.
  • APOGEE standard goodness coefficients = Slope -13.33, offset 0.25 and 9 in Eq. 1
    Fit to telluric residual trends as a function of standard brightness and color in Section 3.2.3 and Figure 7.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BOSS/eBOSS plug-plate era data are a good proxy for FPS SDSS-V observations when setting calibrator numbers and PSF wings.
    Used throughout Sections 3.2.1 and 4.1.1; the authors acknowledge the corrector and system differ but expect the approximation to hold.
  • domain assumption CALIBFLUX predicts SPECTROFLUX to within 0-1% for faint spectra after the CALIBFLUX<2.5 nMgy cut.
    Needed to attribute excess flux to bright Tycho-2 neighbors in Section 4.1.1; a 2-4% global bias was found and mitigated by the cut.
  • domain assumption A Moffat profile convolved with the circular fiber aperture describes the FPS core PSF at both observatories.
    Adopted in Section 4.1.2 to model magnitude loss versus offset; no competing PSF model is tested.
  • domain assumption The k-th nearest calibrator distance metric captures the calibration quality relevant to reductions.
    Defined in Section 3.2.2; the paper later finds it is weakly correlated with BOSS spectrophotometry and does not enforce it for BOSS.
  • domain assumption Stochastic observing conditions such as seeing and transparency cannot be planned for and can be tolerated via real-time SNR checks.
    Stated in Section 3.1, which limits what obsmode constraints can guarantee.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Procedures for Constraining Robotic Fiber Positioning for Highly Multiplexed Spectroscopic Surveys: The Case of FPS for SDSS-V." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JP2GQ5YY

@misc{pith2026250615475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Procedures for Constraining Robotic Fiber Positioning for Highly Multiplexed Spectroscopic Surveys: The Case of FPS for SDSS-V},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JP2GQ5YY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15475}
}
read the original abstract

One crucial aspect of planning any large scale astronomical survey is constructing an observing strategy that maximizes reduced data quality. This is especially important for surveys that are rather heterogeneous and broad-ranging in their science goals. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey V (SDSS-V), which now utilizes the Focal Plane System (FPS) to robotically place fibers that feed the spectrographs, certainly meets these criteria. The addition of the FPS facilities an increase in survey efficiency, number of targets and target diversity, but also means the positions of fibers must be constrained to allow for simultaneous observations of sometimes competing programs. The constraints on the positions of the fibers are clearly driven by properties of the science targets e.g., the type of target, brightness of the target, position of the target relative to others in the field, etc. The parameters used to describe these constraints will also depend on the intended science goal of the observation, which will vary with the types of objects requested for the particular observation and the planned sky conditions for the observation. In this work, we detail the SDSS-V data collection scenarios, which consist of sets of parameters that serve as the framework for constraining fiber placements. The numerical values of these parameters were set based on either past experiences or from a series of new tests, which we describe in detail here. These parameters allow a survey like SDSS-V to be algorithmically planned to maximize the science output, while guaranteeing data quality throughout its operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the reduced spectrum of an object (Spec) when using the number of standards (Nsph) and skies (Nsky) in the legend relative to the spectrum of the object when using all of the calibrators (Spec0). The sample shown is for plate-MJD 7339-57428. The left panel is for the 67 brightest galaxies (mr < 20) on the plate and the right panel is the faintest galaxies (mr > 20). vary significantly for fibers on opp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The model normalizing factor applied to account for telluric lines for two different scenarios. The left panel is for a larger number of APOGEE telluric standards well distributed across the FOV and the right panel is for a small number of standards not well distributed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of random selections of 15 APOGEE fibers in the FPS, where the 15 fibers selected represent fibers assigned to calibrators and are shown as the blue dots. The above examples show the best (left panel), typical (center panel) and worst (right panel) selection out of 1000 random selections when considering the 95th percentile of the distance from unassigned fibers to the 3rd closest assigned fiber. view with … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative distribution of the 95th percentile of the distance from unassigned fibers to the 3rd closest as￾signed fiber for 1000 random selections of 15 APOGEE fibers in the FPS. Examples of some of these random selections, and the values of their metrics, are also sh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The standard deviation in the r-band |CALIBFLUX–SPECTROFLUX| vs. rp as calculated for the stds FOV metric for BOSS Designs in Bright Time (green), Dark Plane (red stars) or Dark RM (blue ×) observed at APO and LCO for MJD> 60654. Here, CALIBFLUX is the predicted flux i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Difference between telluric features determined for individual stars in a Field and the smooth spatial fit determined from all stars in the Field, as a function of brightness and color of the individual stars. Worse fits are observed for fainter and redder sources. 8. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Layout of the focal plane for the FPS system used by SDSS-V. The layout shown is as-built for APO; the LCO layout is nearly identical. The X and Y axes are position in the focal plane, with the boresight at X = Y = 0 mm. We show each positioner as an annulus describing…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mean value of stds FOV for APOGEE (top panel) and stds FOV for BOSS (bottom panel) in Bright Time for the current survey plan for SDSS-V. In both plots, Fields colored in blue mean on average the Designs pass our FOV metric. Overall, ∼ 97% of APO Designs and ∼ 99% …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Median residual spectral flux for sky fibers (averaged over the SDSS g, r and i bandpasses), as a function of the magnitude of the brightest on chip neighbor (estimated from the observed spectroflux). The left panel shows the trend for DR19 (SDSS Collaboration et al. …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Median difference between excess magni￾tude of eBOSS/BOSS spectra (derived from SPECTROFLUX − CALIBFLUX) and the magnitude of the nearby Tycho-2 source, versus angular distance to the Tycho-2 source. For separa￾tions < 10” no quality cuts are applied due to low number…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Magnitude loss versus fiber offset for an SDSS-V FPS test Design at APO taken on MJD=59755 (left panel) and MJD=59760 (right panel). In both plots the lines shows the model prediction for the magnitude loss as a function of offset, where the model is a Moffat profile …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Magnitude loss versus fiber offset for an SDSS-V FPS test Design at LCO taken on MJD=60124 (data points). In the plot, the lines shows the model prediction for the magnitude loss as a function of offset for APO (dashed line) and LCO (solid line), where the model is a …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: SDSS r-band magnitude estimated from the spectrum versus true r-band magnitude offset test at LCO taken on MJD=60124. Each panel shows the offsets calculated with a different value of the safety factor; a constant value added to the desired magnitude loss when calcula…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The median SNRp Nexp vs. Gaia G magnitude for offset targets in the eta series of the survey plan (left panel) and the theta series (right panel). During the eta series, very bright offset targets were receiving insufficient signal, indicating the offset function was …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Cumulative distribution and histogram for rp in stds FOV metric for BOSS all Bright Time Designs in the zeta-3 version of the survey plan. The red dashed line shows the d value for the Bright Time stds FOV metric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Twentieth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: First All-Sky BOSS Spectra, eROSITA-SDSS-V Mapper Coordinated Observations, and a Preview of the Local Volume Mapper

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    DR20 releases over three million BOSS spectra (first southern-hemisphere SDSS-V optical data), 169 LVM integral-field tiles over six targets, and eighteen value-added catalogs.

  2. A Probabilistic Framework for Population Studies of the Solar Neighborhood: Application to SDSS-V and Gaia

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new probabilistic pipeline characterizes SDSS-V Solar Neighborhood Census selection effects against Gaia and infers subpopulation probabilities across the HR diagram from incomplete spectroscopy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 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, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  3. [3]

    R., Carlberg, J

    Blanton, M. R., Carlberg, J. K., Dwelly, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.21328, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21328

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.21328 2025

  4. [4]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Bolton, A. S., Schlegel, D. J., Aubourg, ´E., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144 2012

  5. [5]

    S., & Vaughan, A

    Bowen, I. S., & Vaughan, A. H., J. 1973, ApOpt, 12, 1430, doi: 10.1364/AO.12.001430

    doi:10.1364/ao.12.001430 1973

  6. [6]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 2013

  7. [7]

    S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W

    Dawson, K. S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 44, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/44 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5117 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2016

  8. [8]

    R., Covey, K., et al

    Donor, J., Blanton, M. R., Covey, K., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13101, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VIII, ed. J. Ibsen & G. Chiozzi, 1310146, doi: 10.1117/12.3020292

    doi:10.1117/12.3020292 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

    Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832756

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

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

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3111

    Infante-Sainz, R., Trujillo, I., & Rom´ an, J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3111

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Dalton, G

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad557

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.03234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.03234

    2017 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    A., Rix, H.-W., Aerts, C., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Rix, H.-W., Aerts, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06989, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.06989 27

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Krisciunas, K., & Schaefer, B. E. 1991, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 103, 1033, doi: 10.1086/132921

    1991 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1209.3114, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1209.3114

    Merloni, A., Predehl, P., Becker, W., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1209.3114, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1209.3114

    2012 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    L., Holtzman, J

    Nidever, D. L., Holtzman, J. A., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/173

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Derwent, M

    Pogge, R. W., Derwent, M. A., O’Brien, T. P., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J

    2020

  14. [22]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 1144781, doi: 10.1117/12.2561113

    doi

  15. [23]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Blanton, M

    Sayres, C., S´ anchez-Gallego, J. R., Blanton, M. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd0f2 SDSS Collaboration, Adamane Pallathadka, G.,

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093

    Aghakhanloo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 32

    2013

  19. [27]

    H., Bernardi, M., et al

    Stoughton, C., Lupton, R. H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485, doi: 10.1086/324741

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tamura, N., Takato, N., Shimono, A., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    2016

  21. [29]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99081M, doi: 10.1117/12.2232103

    doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    C., Hearty, F

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 055001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    A., et al

    Yan, R., Tremonti, C., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/8

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3ebc

    Yan, R., Chen, Y., Lazarz, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3ebc

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Frinchaboy, P

    Zasowski, G., Johnson, J. A., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/81

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Chojnowski, S

    Zasowski, G., Cohen, R. E., Chojnowski, S. D., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8df9

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.