Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

The Hourglass Simulation: A Catalog for the Roman High-Latitude Time-Domain Core Community Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 Hourglass simulation predicts 64,000 transients for Roman survey

desk verdict Hourglass is a genuinely useful planning and training catalog for Roman time-domain work; the headline counts need rate-uncertainty bands, but that does not undercut its main value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05161 v1 pith:VTV77MKZ submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

B. M. Rose , M. Vincenzi , R. Hounsell , H. Qu , L. Aldoroty , D. Scolnic , R. Kessler , P. Macias
show 7 more authors
D. Brout M. Acevedo R. C. Chen S. Gomez E. Peterson D. Rubin M. Sako
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords SurveysCatalogsTimedomainastronomySpacetelescopesAstronomicalsimulationsTypeIasupernovaeCore-collapse
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 Hourglass simulation is built to establish what the Roman Space Telescope's High-Latitude Time-Domain Core Community Survey should actually see: it forwards ten extragalactic transient models through the reference survey design and reports a predicted catalog of about 64,000 transients, 11 million photometric observations, and 500,000 prism spectra. The headline counts are approximately 21,700 Type Ia supernovae, 39,000 core-collapse supernovae, and smaller numbers of superluminous supernovae, tidal disruption events, kilonovae, and pair-instability supernovae, assuming a loose two-epoch S/N>5 detection threshold. A sympathetic reader would care because these numbers define the scale of Roman's time-domain data products years before launch, giving the community a concrete basis to plan analysis pipelines, estimate selection effects for cosmology, and train classification algorithms. As a first demonstration, the paper shows that the SCONE classifier recovers Type Ia supernovae with ~98% precision out to z>2, and it releases the simulated photometry, spectra, and input files for others to use.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a forward-modeling pipeline built on the SNANA simulation library, run through the PIPPIN pipeline manager, which turns rest-frame spectral-temporal energy distribution (SED) models into observed Roman light curves and prism spectra. Each of the ten transient classes is injected using a specific SED library — SALT3-NIR for SNe Ia, Vincenzi et al. (2019) models for core-collapse supernovae, MOSFiT-generated templates for superluminous supernovae, tidal disruption events, ILOTs, and pair-instability supernovae, the Bulla (2019) model for kilonovae, and the ELAsTiCc damped random walk model for AGN — with volumetric rates drawn from the literature and host galaxies from the 3DHST catalog. The pipeline then applies the survey geometry, filter transmissions, exposure times, PSF noise-equivalent areas, read noise, sky noise, and a 0.15 mag zero-point scatter, and retains objects with two epochs above S/N=5.

What would settle it

Measure the volumetric SN Ia rate in the 2<z<3 range — for instance with JWST slitless spectroscopy over a modest field — and compare it to the (1+z)^(-0.1) extrapolation used here; a rate significantly below that curve would falsify the predicted ~21,700 SNe Ia and the ~19,000 cosmologically useful subset proportionally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, under the current design-reference survey — a wide tier of 19.04 $deg^{2}$ in R/Z/Y/J, a deep tier of 4.20 $deg^{2}$ in Y/J/H/F, five-day cadence, two-year baseline, with roughly a fifth of the area covered by the R~100 prism — Roman will produce a science-independent time-domain catalog of over 64,000 transients detected at S/N>5 in two epochs. The simulation counts 21,700 Type Ia supernovae (about 19,000 with S/N at maximum above 10, the paper's proxy for cosmologically useful), 39,000 core-collapse supernovae, 1,300 SN1991bg-like events, 1,300 Type Iax supernovae, about 70 superluminous supernovae, 39 tidal disruption events, 35 intermediate-luminosity optical transients, 15 pair-instability supernovae, and 139 active galactic nuclei, with 14 kilonovae recovered from a simulation injected at five times the assumed true rate. The paper further claims these simulations are realistic enough to train machine-learning classifiers, and demonstrates this with a SCONE model that reaches 94% accuracy and 98% precision separating SNe Ia from contaminants; it also presents the first realistic prism spectral time series for non-Ia transients.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted catalog sizes scale linearly with input volumetric rates that are either extrapolated far beyond their measured redshift range (SN Ia and CCSN rates assumed valid to z=3) or uncertain by factors of 2–3 (kilonovae, pair-instability supernovae), so if those rates are wrong the headline counts change proportionally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Roman's High-Latitude Time-Domain survey should deliver roughly an order of magnitude more Type Ia supernovae than current cosmological samples, with most of the ~19,000 cosmologically useful events lying above z=1.
  • Core-collapse supernovae outnumber SNe Ia by almost two to one, making them the dominant source of contamination for photometric SN Ia classification and a key input for contamination studies.
  • Rare transients will be detected in small but meaningful numbers — about 70 SLSNe, 39 TDEs, 15 PISNe, and ~3 kilonovae at the true rate — enough to begin constraining their rates and physics.
  • The released simulated photometry, prism spectra, and input files give the community a testbed for survey optimization, classifier training, and selection-effect modeling before launch.
  • Adopting the newer survey recommendations (larger deep tier, interweaving cadence, pilot and extended surveys) would raise the projected yield by about 25–30%, beyond 100,000 transients.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because every count scales linearly with the assumed volumetric rate, the Hourglass catalog can double as a forecast to be tested: the first year of real Roman data should resolve whether the z=2–3 extrapolation of the SN Ia and CCSN rates holds, and a single Roman kilonova would directly test the factor-of-five scaled injection rate.
  • The 11,000 Å red edge of many SED models means the deep tier's H and F bands are effectively untested for low-redshift objects; extending the SED libraries redward would likely change predicted colors and classification performance in those bands.
  • The same simulation structure could be extended to variable stars, Galactic sources, and rarer exotic transients to build a complete 'everything that varies' catalog for Roman, which would be the natural basis for alert-broker and anomaly-detection development.
  • SCONE's precision drops noticeably beyond z≈2.5, suggesting that the highest-redshift SNe Ia — the most valuable for cosmology — are the hardest to classify photometrically; training on prism spectra or adding host-galaxy information is a natural next test.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents the Hourglass simulation, an end-to-end forward simulation of the extragalactic time-domain catalog expected from the Roman High-Latitude Time-Domain Core Community Survey under the current reference design. The authors combine rest-frame SED templates and volumetric rate functions for ten transient classes (SNe Ia, SNIa-91bg, SNe Iax, CCSNe, SLSNe-I, TDEs, ILOTs, KNe, PISNe, and AGN) with the SNANA/PIPPIN simulation pipeline, a two-tier photometric survey (wide RZYJ, deep YJHF), prism spectroscopy, and a documented WFI noise model. The headline results are predicted catalog yields (approximately 21,700 SNe Ia, 39,000 CCSNe, 70 SLSNe-I, 39 TDEs, 14 KNe at five times the fiducial rate, 15 PISNe, and 139 AGN), a public data release of photometry, prism spectra, and object metadata, and a demonstration that the SCONE convolutional classifier reaches roughly 94% accuracy and 98% precision for photometrically classifying SNe Ia in these simulations.

Significance. If the adopted rates and SED models are accepted, this is a valuable community planning resource. Its strengths include a public data release with input files and catalog products, built on the well-tested SNANA and PIPPIN infrastructure, a forward-propagated simulation with no parameters fit to the output, and unusually transparent documentation of the survey geometry, instrument characteristics, and selection cuts. The paper also provides the first public simulated Roman prism spectral time series for several non-Ia classes, which is useful for pipeline development. The central weakness is that the headline yields are point predictions that inherit large, explicitly acknowledged input-rate uncertainties without any propagation, so the catalog cannot currently separate rate-driven variations from survey-design effects. The SCONE classifier results are a useful in silico benchmark, not a prediction of real-data performance, and the paper mostly frames them appropriately.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Table 1, §3.2] The headline yields in Table 4 are quoted as point values even though several input rates carry large, explicitly acknowledged uncertainties and are extrapolated beyond their measured ranges. Section 2.1.1 assumes the Strolger et al. (2020) SN Ia rate is valid to z=3 even though the majority of the 21,700 simulated SNe Ia lie at z>1 where that source reports significant uncertainty; Section 2.1.8 simulates KNe at five times the Abbott et al. (2021) rate, whose stated uncertainty is a factor of about three (up to four); Section 2.1.9 adopts a PISN rate that at z=1 is nearly twice the Pan et al. (2012) value. Section 4 acknowledges that "all of these results are highly dependent on the assumed rates," but Table 4 and the released catalog contain no uncertainty bands or sensitivity variants. Because the yields are linearly proportional to the adopted volumetric rates, users cannot separate rate-driven variation from survey-design effects. I request a sensitivity analysis (for example, rerunning with the upper and lower rate bounds for SNe Ia, KNe, and PISNe) and propagation of those bounds into Table 4 and the abstract's headline numbers.
  2. [§2.2, §3, Table 4] Several non-Ia SED models (CCSN, SLSN-I, TDE, ILOT, and PISN) have a rest-frame red edge of 11,000 Å (Table 1), while the Roman prism is transmissive to 18,000 Å and the deep tier includes H and F filters. The paper notes the J-band consequence in Section 2.2, but the abstract's claim of "the first realistic simulations of non-Type Ia supernovae spectral-time series data" is stronger than what these truncated SEDs can support, since at low redshift the reddest prism bins and the H/F photometry are not actually simulated for those classes. Please either extend the SEDs into the near-infrared (as was done for SNe Ia and SNIa-91bg), or explicitly quantify which fraction of objects and which wavelength bins are affected, and soften the "realistic" claim accordingly.
  3. [§2.2, §3, Table 4] The host-galaxy catalog limits the simulation to z<3, and the paper states that "significantly higher redshift PISN and SLSN will be visible" and that Hourglass only captures the low-redshift tail of these populations. Nevertheless, Table 4 lists PISN (15) and SLSN-I (70) as detected counts without flagging them as truncated lower limits in the table itself. Since Moriya et al. (2022) estimate on the order of 100 PISN at z>5, the z=3 cutoff is not a negligible edge effect for exactly the classes that appear in the abstract as "possibly pair-instability supernovae." Please mark these entries as lower limits and, if feasible, add an estimate of the unmodeled high-redshift contribution.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] There is a missing space in "theRoman High-Latitude Time-Domain Core Community Survey" in the abstract.
  2. [§2.1.10] The AGN volumetric rate is written as "1.0−3 Mpc−3"; this appears to be a formatting error for 1.0×10^-3 Mpc^-3 and should be corrected.
  3. [§2.1.9] The phrase "A volumetric rate for PISN presented stated in Briel et al. (2022)" contains a doubled verb; please revise.
  4. [Table 5] The column description for "mw_ebv" contains the typo "ling-of-sight" instead of "line-of-sight."
  5. [§2.2 and Abstract] The detection threshold is described as "two observations with S/N >5" in Section 2.2 but as "a S/N at max of >5" in the abstract; please clarify whether the requirement is two single-epoch detections at any phase, two detections near peak, or something else.
  6. [Figure 9] The horizontal axis of Figure 9 ends at z=2.5, while the text discusses a drop-off at z>2.5 and the simulation extends to z≈3; extending the axis would make the claimed high-redshift degradation visible.
  7. [§3.3] The SCONE precision and recall are measured on a test set generated with the same simulation machinery used for training. This is a legitimate in silico validation, but the caption and text should more prominently state that these numbers quantify simulation-to-simulation transfer, not expected performance on real Roman data.
  8. [Table 3] The header "ZPAVG" is a nonstandard abbreviation; consider defining it in the table caption or using the explicit expression from Equation (8).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Hourglass is a forward simulation; catalog yields are propagated from external rates, SED models, and a stated survey design, with the paper itself flagging the main rate uncertainties.

full rationale

The Hourglass catalog is produced by a forward chain: rest-frame SED templates and volumetric rates (Sections 2.1.1–2.1.10, Table 1) are redshifted, integrated through Roman filter and prism throughput curves, and passed through a noise model and a fixed S/N > 5 detection threshold (Sections 2.2–2.3). No parameter is fit to the catalog outputs, and the headline counts in Table 4 are not used as inputs anywhere in the simulation. The rate assumptions come from external measurements (Strolger et al. 2020, 2015; Prajs et al. 2017; Kochanek 2016; van Velzen 2018; Abbott et al. 2021; Briel et al. 2022), and the paper explicitly flags their uncertainty: SN Ia rates are extrapolated to z = 3 (Section 2.1.1), CCSN rates to z = 3 (Section 2.1.4), kilonovae are simulated at five times the Abbott et al. rate with a stated factor-of-~3 uncertainty (Section 2.1.8), and the PISN rate is roughly twice the Pan et al. value at z = 1 (Section 2.1.9). Section 4 states: 'All of these results are highly dependent on the assumed rates.' The survey design is taken from the authors' own reference-survey papers (Rose et al. 2021; Hounsell et al. 2023), but this is an explicitly stated modeling input rather than a result derived from the simulation, and the paper notes that the observational strategy is not finalized. The SCONE classification test (Section 3.3) trains and evaluates on the same simulated catalog; this is an in silico validation presented as such ('we train and test the binary classification of SCONE'), so it does not make the catalog derivation circular. The paper is self-contained as a forward simulation; the main caveats are rate-driven sensitivity and in-sample classifier validation, which are uncertainty and methodology concerns, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on externally measured rates, SED models, and a specific survey design, plus several extrapolations. No new physical entities are introduced. The main caveat is the propagation of rate and model uncertainties into the final counts, which the paper discusses qualitatively but does not quantify formally.

free parameters (3)
  • Volumetric rate functions R(z) for each transient class = SN Ia: 2.4e-5(1+z)^1.55 (z<1), 7.5e-5(1+z)^-0.1 (z>=1); KN: 3.2e-7 plus 5x simulation scale
    These are adopted from literature, not fitted here, but the catalog yields are directly proportional to them. The KN rate is artificially scaled by 5x in the simulation to overcome Poisson noise, making it a hand-set parameter for the simulated catalog.
  • Fractional rates for subclasses (SNIa-91bg, SN Iax, ILOT) = 15% of SN Ia rate; 30% of SN Ia rate; 6% of CCSN rate
    These fractions are taken from literature, but they directly set the simulated counts of these subclasses.
  • Zero-point scatter = 0.15 mag rms
    Adopted to approximate field-of-view variations; affects the noise model and therefore detection counts.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Omega_M=0.3, h=0.7
    Used for converting volumetric rates and luminosities to observed fluxes and redshifts; stated in Section 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Input SN Ia and CCSN volumetric rates measured at z<2 are valid when extrapolated to z=3
    Stated in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.4; no rate measurements exist above z=2.
  • domain assumption SED models are accurate over their stated wavelength ranges, including the red-edge cutoff at 11,000 Angstrom for several transient types
    The CCSN, SLSN, TDE, ILOT, and PISN models stop at 11,000 Angstrom, affecting red-band photometry at low redshift; noted in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The Rose et al. (2021) reference survey design is representative of the eventual Roman survey
    The catalog forecast is specific to this design; the paper notes ROTAC recommendations would increase yields by 25-30%, so counts are tied to this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Hourglass Simulation: A Catalog for the Roman High-Latitude Time-Domain Core Community Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VTV77MKZ

@misc{pith2026250605161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Hourglass Simulation: A Catalog for the Roman High-Latitude Time-Domain Core Community Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VTV77MKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05161}
}
abstract

We present a simulation of the time-domain catalog for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope's High-Latitude Time-Domain Core Community Survey. This simulation, called the Hourglass simulation, uses the most up-to-date spectral energy distribution models and rate measurements for ten extra-galactic time-domain sources. We simulate these models through the design reference Roman Space Telescope survey: four filters per tier, a five day cadence, over two years, a wide tier of 19 deg$^2$ and a deep tier of 4.2 deg$^2$, with $\sim$20% of those areas also covered with prism observations. We find that a science-independent Roman time-domain catalog, assuming a S/N at max of >5, would have approximately 21,000 Type Ia supernovae, 40,000 core-collapse supernovae, around 70 superluminous supernovae, $\sim$35 tidal disruption events, 3 kilonovae, and possibly pair-instability supernovae. In total, Hourglass has over 64,000 transient objects, 11 million photometric observations, and 500,000 spectra. Additionally, Hourglass is a useful data set to train machine learning classification algorithms. We show that SCONE is able to photometrically classify Type Ia supernovae with high precision ($\sim$95%) to a z > 2. Finally, we present the first realistic simulations of non-Type Ia supernovae spectral-time series data from Roman's prism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (left) The filter transmission and detector response functions used for these simulations. Curves are taken from the Roman project technical resources. (right) The prism’s resolution (per 2 pixels) as a function of wavelength. The prism is transmissive from 7,500–18,000 ˚A. The minimum two-pixel dispersion is ∼80 around 14,000 ˚A. Except for the blue edge, most of the wavelengths have an R ≤ 100. z = 3. In particula… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Redshift distribution of recovered transients. The (left) panel shows the redshift distributions for high-volume transients such as CCSNe and SNe Ia, as well as for the fainter SN-Ia-like objects (SNe Iax and SNIa-91bg). The (right) panel shows the redshift distribution of rarer transient events, including SLSNe, TDEs, ILOTs, KNe, and PISNe. These distributions are more uncertain due to the limited data used in rate… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Peak AB-magnitude (in Roman Y -band) versus redshift for all ten time-domain classes. Contours are at 2.75, 15.87, 50, 84.13, and 97.25 percentiles. The standard-candle nature of SN Ia can be seen in the first figure. Additionally, the extreme brightness of SLSN-I is visible in the middle frame. From this plot, it is clear that SLSN-I will be visible at redshifts of z > 3. There is an artificial cut off at z = 0.08 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: S/N vs. AB-magnitude at peak luminosity for SNe Ia in both Y- and J-bands. S/N = 5 is marked with a horizontal line. The left panel shows values taken from the wide tier where Y- and J-band each have 100 s exposures. The right panel shows data taken from the deep tier …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Light curves of the median S/N events per type. The long-lived transients, SLSNe and PISNe, have very well sampled light curves. Fast transients are also well sampled, however, the KN detections have measurements around peak, but very little light-curve information. We…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Roman SN Ia sample compared to the recent cosmology sample of the Dark Energy Survey. DES has over 1,500 supernovae in its cosmological sameple with very few at z > 1. However, we expect Roman to have nearly 19,000 SN Ia with the majority above z > 1. For this pape…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A spectral time series from the Roman WFI Prism, presented in the observer’s frame. This is a z = 0.636 SN Ia observed in the wide tier (900 s exposures). This results in 9 observations from phase -8 to 26 days [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Confusion matrix for the photometric classifier SCONE. We train the binary classification to distinguish be￾tween cosmologically useful SNe Ia and contaminates. Con￾taminates are labeled as CCSN but also contains SNIa-91bg and SN Iax objects. SCONE gets a high recall (…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Simulation Based Inference Approach to Modelling of Type Ia Supernova Populations

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

    A simulation-based inference pipeline (Stjörnumál) fits SN Ia dust and intrinsic scatter models to DES 5-year data, enabling fast Bayesian model comparison across seven SN Ia population models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2024, 527, 11970

    Aamer, A., Nicholl, M., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2024, 527, 11970

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, 913, L7

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    1967, 18, 379

    Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, 18, 379

    work page 1967

  4. [4]

    M., Eldridge, J

    Briel, M. M., Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Stevance, H. F., & Chrimes, A. A. 2022, 514, 1315

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Casertano, S. 2022, Determining the Best-Fitting Slope and Its Uncertainity for up-the-Ramp Sampled Images with Unevenly Distributed Resultants, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Technical Reports, 38 pp

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    C., & Vinko, J

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., & Vinko, J. 2012, 746, 121

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, 743, 114 16 The Roman Supernova Cosmology Project Infrastructure Team

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    2011, A&A, 529, L4, http://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201116723

    Chotard, N., Gangler, E., Aldering, G., et al. 2011, A&A, 529, L4, http://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201116723

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116723 2011

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    2012, 491, 228

    Cooke, J., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, 491, 228

    2012

  2. [10]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, 979, 250

    2025

  3. [11]

    E., Villasenor, B., Robertson, B

    Drakos, N. E., Villasenor, B., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2022, 926, 194

    2022

  4. [12]

    V., Richmond, M

    Filippenko, A. V., Richmond, M. W., Branch, D., et al. 1992, AJ, 104, 1543, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ #abs/1992AJ....104.1543F/abstract

    1992

  5. [13]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, 111, 63

    1999

  6. [14]

    J., Challis, P

    Foley, R. J., Challis, P. J., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 57, http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/767/i=1/a=57? key=crossref.be847ca54941021d2dbe7cb5b7ddacc5

    2013

  7. [15]

    Gal-Yam, A., & Leonard, D. C. 2009, 458, 865

    2009

  8. [16]

    2023, Implementation of Unevenly Spaced Resultants in Pandeia, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Technical Reports, 8 pp

    Gomez, S. 2023, Implementation of Unevenly Spaced Resultants in Pandeia, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope Technical Reports, 8 pp

    2023

  9. [17]

    2019, 881, 87 Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Perrett, K., Sullivan, M., et al

    Gomez, S., Berger, E., Nicholl, M., et al. 2019, 881, 87 Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Perrett, K., Sullivan, M., et al. 2011, 727, 107 Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Hsiao, E. Y., Pignata, G., et al. 2014, 795, 142

    2019

  10. [18]

    R., Rest, A., et al

    Graur, O., Zurek, D. R., Rest, A., et al. 2017, arXiv:1711.01275, http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01275

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, 236, 6

    2018

  12. [20]

    2010, A&A, 523, A7, http://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014468

    Guy, J., Sullivan, M., Conley, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A7, http://www.aanda.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014468

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020

  14. [22]

    2020, JOSS, 5, 2122, https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02122

    Hinton, S., & Brout, D. 2020, JOSS, 5, 2122, https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02122

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    J., et al

    Hounsell, R., Scolnic, D., Foley, R. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 23, http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01747

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.02670

    Hounsell, R., Scolnic, D., Brout, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.02670

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4160265/

    2007

  18. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 164, https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad344c

    Inayoshi, K., Kashiyama, K., Li, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 164, https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad344c

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Jha, S. W. 2017, arXiv:1707.01110, http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01110

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2001, Nature Methods, arXiv:1907.10121, http://www.scipy.org/

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001, Nature Methods, arXiv:1907.10121, http://www.scipy.org/

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2010, 717, 245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, 717, 245

    2010

  22. [30]

    2017, 551, 80

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, 551, 80

    2017

  23. [31]

    E., & Heger, A

    Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2011, 734, 102

    2011

  24. [32]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 56, http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/836/i=1/a=56?key= crossref.d0bddb5607f63ec4347f7e1b0143aef5

    Kessler, R., & Scolnic, D. 2017, ApJ, 836, 56, http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/836/i=1/a=56?key= crossref.d0bddb5607f63ec4347f7e1b0143aef5

    2017

  25. [33]

    P., Cinabro, D., et al

    Kessler, R., Bernstein, J. P., Cinabro, D., et al. 2009b, PASP, 121, 1028, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/605984

    doi

  26. [34]

    2019, PASP, 131, 094501, https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/ab26f1

    Kessler, R., Narayan, G., Avelino, A., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 094501, https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/ab26f1

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2016, 461, 371

    2016

  28. [36]

    M., & Hirschi, R

    Kozyreva, A., Kromer, M., Noebauer, U. M., & Hirschi, R. 2018, 479, 3106

    2018

  29. [37]

    V., Chornock, R., et al

    Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., et al. 2003, 115, 453

    2003

  30. [38]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 2887, https: //academic.oup.com/mnras/article/520/2/2887/7010761

    Lokken, M., Gagliano, A., Narayan, G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 2887, https: //academic.oup.com/mnras/article/520/2/2887/7010761

    2023

  31. [39]

    2014, Annu

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 52, 415, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/ 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Rest, A., et al

    McCrum, M., Smartt, S. J., Rest, A., et al. 2015, 448, 1206

    2015

  33. [41]

    2010, Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python, http://conference.scipy.org/ proceedings/scipy2010/mckinney.html

    McKinney, W. 2010, Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python, http://conference.scipy.org/ proceedings/scipy2010/mckinney.html

    2010

  34. [42]

    A., Cao, Y., Piro, A

    Miller, A. A., Cao, Y., Piro, A. L., et al. 2017, arXiv:1708.07124, http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07124

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2019, 872, 151

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, 872, 151

    2019

  36. [44]

    J., Quimby, R

    Moriya, T. J., Quimby, R. M., & Robertson, B. E. 2022, 925, 211

    2022

  37. [45]

    J., Bennett, C., et al

    Mosby, G., Rauscher, B. J., Bennett, C., et al. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 046001

    2020

  38. [46]

    2017, 850, 55 Observations Time Allocation Committee, R., & Community Survey Definition Committees, C

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, 850, 55 Observations Time Allocation Committee, R., & Community Survey Definition Committees, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10574

    2017

  39. [47]

    OpenUniverse, Collaboration, T. L. D. E. S., Team, T. R. H. P. I., Team, T. R. R. P. I., & Team, T. R. S. C. P. I. 2025, MNRAS, submitted

    2025

  40. [48]

    2012, 422, 2701 The Hourglass Simulation 17

    Pan, T., Kasen, D., & Loeb, A. 2012, 422, 2701 The Hourglass Simulation 17

    2012

  41. [49]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Jones, D. O., Kenworthy, W. D., et al. 2022, 939, 11

    2022

  42. [50]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Engesser, M., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, 971, L32

    2024

  43. [51]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Coulter, D. A., Siebert, M. R., et al. 2025, 981, L9 PLAsTiCC Modelers. 2022, Libraries & Recommended Citations for Using PLAsTiCC Models, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6672739, doi:10.5281/zenodo.6672739

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    2021a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.04456

    Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., & Scolnic, D. 2021a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.04456

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    2017, 464, 3568

    Prajs, S., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., et al. 2017, 464, 3568

    2017

  46. [54]

    2021, AJ, 162, 67, https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac0824

    Qu, H., Sako, M., M¨ oller, A., & Doux, C. 2021, AJ, 162, 67, https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac0824

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Yuan, F., Akerlof, C., & Wheeler, J

    Quimby, R. M., Yuan, F., Akerlof, C., & Wheeler, J. C. 2013, 431, 912

    2013

  48. [56]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Quimby, R. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2011, 474, 487, http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature10095

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

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

    Rose, B. M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al. 2021, arXiv:2111.03081, arXiv:2111.03081, http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.03081

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    L., et al

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

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12098 S´ anchez, B

    Rubin, D., Aldering, G., Betoule, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12098 S´ anchez, B. O., Brout, D., Vincenzi, M., et al. 2024, The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Light Curves and 5-Year Data Release, http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05046, arXiv:2406.05046

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    F., Trakhtenbrot, B., Schawinski, K., et al

    Sartori, L. F., Trakhtenbrot, B., Schawinski, K., et al. 2019, 883, 139

    2019

  53. [61]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103, http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/737/i=2/a=103?key= crossref.ac2fc76228f37d377c90dc70a3690b53

    2011

  54. [62]

    2024, 683, A223

    Schulze, S., Fransson, C., Kozyreva, A., et al. 2024, 683, A223

    2024

  55. [63]

    2021, arXiv:2112.03863, http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03863

    Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Carr, A., et al. 2021, arXiv:2112.03863, http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.03863

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61

    Shen, Y. 2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 61

    2013

  57. [65]

    2015, arXiv:1503.03757, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150303757S

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv:1503.03757, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150303757S

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 140, https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a97

    Graur, O. 2020, ApJ, 890, 140, https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a97

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    A., et al

    Strolger, L.-G., Dahlen, T., Rodney, S. A., et al. 2015, 813, 93 The PLAsTiCC team, Allam, Tarek, Jr., Bahmanyar, A., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.00001 Van Der Wel, A., Franx, M., Van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. ...

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A., Berger, E., Metzger, B

    Villar, V. A., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., & Guillochon, J. 2017, 849, 70

    2017

  61. [69]

    E., et al

    Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., Firth, R. E., et al. 2019, 489, 5802

    2019

  62. [70]

    2021, 505, 2819

    Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., Graur, O., et al. 2021, 505, 2819

    2021

  63. [71]

    2024, The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Cosmological Analysis and Systematic Uncertainties, http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02945, arXiv:2401.02945

    Vincenzi, M., Brout, D., Armstrong, P., et al. 2024, The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Cosmological Analysis and Systematic Uncertainties, http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02945, arXiv:2401.02945

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    X., Scolnic, D., Troxel, M

    Wang, K. X., Scolnic, D., Troxel, M. A., et al. 2023, 523, 3874

    2023

  65. [73]

    2020, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.592845

    Waskom, M., Botvinnik, O., Ostblom, J., et al. 2020, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.592845

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    K., Schawinski, K., Caplar, N., et al

    Weigel, A. K., Schawinski, K., Caplar, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 134, https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa803b

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stab1943, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/ 10.1093/mnras/stab1943/6318383

    Wiseman, P., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stab1943, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/ 10.1093/mnras/stab1943/6318383

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    IIP” or “Ic

    Wood-Vasey, W. M., Miknaitis, G., Stubbs, C. W., et al. 2007, 666, 694 18 The Roman Supernova Cosmology Project Infrastructure Team T able 5.Description of hourglass objects.parquet Column Name Description Name Units Type cid Candidate ID · · · integer field Field name · · · s...

    2007

Pith tools

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