Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 16 cited by

SPHEREx’s Level 1–3 pipeline is the operational system that turns raw telemetry into calibrated all-sky spectral images and photometric catalogs.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 21:17 UTC pith:H2C6B3HR

load-bearing objection Official SPHEREx pipeline paper: real system, public data, clear architecture—but calibration validation lives elsewhere. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.15823 v2 pith:H2C6B3HR submitted 2025-11-19 astro-ph.IM

The SPHEREx Image and Spectrophotometry Processing Pipeline

Rachel Akeson , Gregory P. Dubois-Felsmann , Brendan P. Crill , Andreas L. Faisst , Tamim Fatahi , Candice M. Fazar , Tatiana Goldina , Daniel C. Masters
show 36 more authors
Christina Nelson Roberta Paladini Harry I. Teplitz Gabriela Torrini Phani Velicheti Matthew L. N. Ashby Dan Avner Yoonsoo P. Bach James J. Bock Sean Bruton Sean A. Bryan Tzu-Ching Chang Shuang-Shuang Chen Asantha Cooray Ari J. Cukierman O. Dore C. Darren Dowell Spencer Everett Richard M. Feder Zhaoyu Huai Howard Hui Woong-Seob Jeong Young-Soo Jo Phil M. Korngut Yuna G. Kwon Bomee Lee Gary J. Melnick Giulia Murgia Chi H. Nguyen Milad Pourrahmani Zafar Rustamkulov Volker Tolls Teresa Symons Pao-Yu Wang Yujin Yang Michael Zemcov
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords SPHERExinfrared spectrophotometryall-sky surveydata processing pipelineimage calibrationforced photometryspectral imagingspace mission data products
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper documents the SPHEREx image and spectrophotometry processing pipeline, the software system that converts raw spacecraft telemetry into science-ready data products. It argues that the pipeline, organized into five processing segments (Level 1, Level 2a/b, Level 3a/b), currently produces quick-release calibrated spectral images in 102 wavelength channels and will produce final flux- and wavelength-calibrated images, all-sky spectral cubes, and high-reliability source catalogs. A sympathetic reader should care because SPHEREx’s four all-sky surveys underpin multiple cosmological and Galactic science cases, and the pipeline is the only path from the instrument’s raw slopes to those measurements. The paper’s contribution is a complete, implemented end-to-end system with documented calibrations, data products, and operational cadence, not a single new algorithm.

Core claim

The central claim is that the SPHEREx Level 1–3 pipeline is the operational data-processing system for the mission: it ingests Level 0 slopes and housekeeping telemetry, packages them as engineering-unit images, applies astrometric and photometric calibrations (dark current, flat field, absolute gain, exposure-averaged PSF, zodiacal background model, persistence correction), and outputs calibrated spectral images in MJy/sr plus wavelength-tagged forced-photometry catalogs. The pipeline is presently operated by the mission’s science data center, with quick-release Level 2 images available within 60 days of observation and Level 3 catalogs produced at scale. As of writing, pipeline version 6.4

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the modular Level 1–3 chain, implemented as PipelineTask modules in a task-based middleware framework. The load-bearing calibration step is “Estimate Dark Current and Flat Field” (Section 4.4): for each pixel, it fits the slope of pixel values against a reference flux equal to the median brightness of the pixel’s spectral channel across roughly 1000 images, with one tilt term for solar-elongation-dependent zodiacal light; the slope gives the flat field and the intercept gives the dark current. The other central mechanism is forced photometry at predefined reference positions, a maximum-likelihood forward-model fit using precomputed PSFs and known source positions. T

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated in Section 4.4, is that the sky background in each spectral channel is smooth and stable enough that a pixel’s slope versus the channel’s median flux cleanly separates flat field from dark current; if real background structure or unmodeled stray light breaks that smoothness, every calibrated spectral image inherits a systematic bias.

What would settle it

Compare two flat-field solutions derived from two disjoint sets of roughly 1000 images covering the same detector pixels at different solar elongations; if the difference is statistically significant in a way that tracks zodiacal brightness, the single-tilt assumption fails. Alternatively, check closure: the same sky position observed in overlapping surveys should give the same calibrated flux, and any residual that scales with the modeled zodiacal background is evidence of the bias.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Quick-release calibrated spectral images for all 102 channels are already public and refreshed within 60 days of observation, so community science can begin before final releases.
  • If the pipeline performs as described, the Year 1 and Year 2 reprocessings will deliver 102 all-sky spectral cubes and a high-reliability source catalog of sources with SNR > 10 in at least five channels, enabling 3D galaxy mapping and ice/water surveys.
  • Because Level 3 photometry is forced at reference-catalog positions, the same instrument data become per-object spectra, and repeated surveys will yield variability estimates for bright sources in native channels and fainter sources in roughly ten reference bands.
  • The pipeline’s calibration products (dark current, flat field, absolute gain, PSF, solid-angle pixel map) are publicly archived with versioned provenance, allowing users to reproduce calibrations and track changes between releases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The flat-field/dark-current scheme ties every calibrated image to the assumption that the celestial background is spectrally smooth within each channel; any real spectral structure in zodiacal light or stray light at the percent level will be absorbed into the flat field and reappear as a systematic error in science images. This is testable by comparing flat fields derived from disjoint image sets
  • The same forced-photometry machinery exposed in the archive’s user tool means the pipeline’s methods, not just its catalogs, become usable for targets outside the reference catalog, effectively extending the survey to serendipitous objects.
  • The stated future work (fixed distortion from many images, intersubpixel response, masking of ghosts and crosstalk) implies that the current quick-release products contain known residual artifacts; early scientific users should treat the pipeline as one that is actively converging rather than final.
  • The operational split between on-premises processing and a remote high-performance computing site for Level 3 demonstrates a distributed computing pattern that could be reused by other all-sky spectral missions, though the paper does not quantify cost or performance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper describes the SPHEREx Level 1–3 image and spectrophotometry processing pipeline: the ingest of Level 0 telemetry, the modules that convert slopes to engineering units (Level 1), apply astrometric, photometric, and instrument calibrations to produce calibrated spectral images (Level 2), and perform forced photometry to build spectrophotometric catalogs (Level 3). It also documents data products, calibration files, archive tools, operations, and future upgrades. The central claim is that this pipeline is the operational system that produces the public, IRSA-delivered, flux- and wavelength-calibrated spectral images and catalogs, with quick-release products already issued (QR1/QR2, DOIs given). The paper is explicitly a high-level architecture description; implementation details and module validations are said to reside in a separately maintained Explanatory Supplement.

Significance. If the described system indeed delivers the calibrated all-sky spectrophotometric dataset, this is a foundational reference for SPHEREx users and for future pipeline-architecture work. Strengths include the use of a mature middleware framework (Rubin Butler/PipelineTask), the concrete operational details (Kafka ingest, DAPHNE+, TACC processing), and the existence of public quick-release products with DOIs, which demonstrate that the system is real and running. The paper is honest about its scope and points to a living Explanatory Supplement for module-level implementation details. However, the manuscript itself contains almost no quantitative validation of the products it promises, and the few numbers it does quote (astrometric precision, flat-field/dark self-calibration behavior) are presented without supporting statistics or external checks. For an instrument/pipeline paper this is a common and acceptable division of labor, but the central claim 'flux- and wavelength-calibrated data products' needs to be either demonstrated here or explicitly tied to validation results that can be inspected.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4, 'Estimate Dark Current and Flat Field'] The central flux-calibration claim rests on the self-calibration described here. Fitting each pixel's slope against the per-channel median brightness with only a single solar-elongation tilt assumes the background is spectrally smooth and stable over the ~1000 images used. Any channel-correlated background structure (Galactic cirrus with PAH features, molecular absorption, imperfect zodiacal-light subtraction, stray-light gradients, or the optical ghosts listed in §8) will be absorbed into the fitted slope and bias the flat field and dark current. Because this calibration is applied to every pixel in every Level 2 image, the bias propagates into all spectral images, forced photometry, and catalogs. The manuscript presents no residual diagnostic, closure test, or external comparison for this module. The authors should either include such validation, or cite with quantitative evidence wher
  2. [§4.2, 'Estimate Fine Astrometry'] The claimed 'median astrometric alignment precision of images with a FINAST flag equal to zero reaches 0.1–0.4" on average' is a load-bearing quantitative result for astrometric calibration, but it is presented without the number of images used, the definition of 'alignment precision' (relative to what reference solution?), the scatter or distribution, or the selection criteria for the FINAST flag. A single range with no supporting statistic cannot be evaluated. Please provide the sample size, the metric definition, and either the distribution or a direct reference to a release-specific validation in the Explanatory Supplement.
  3. [§4.2/§4.4, Level 2 quality assessment and absolute gain] The Level 2 data-quality gate described in §4.2 ('pass at least half of the module tests', FINAST=0) checks internal consistency but does not by itself establish photometric accuracy. The Estimate Absolute Gain Matrix module in §4.4 combines 'many thousands of measurements' of primary calibrator stars, but the manuscript gives no residuals, no comparison to independent flux standards, and no repeatability or survey-to-survey closure. For an abstract that promises 'flux- and wavelength-calibrated data products', some quantitative validation of the photometric calibration should appear in this paper or be explicitly cited with results, for example calibrator-flux repeatability, comparison with 2MASS/WISE, or consistency between overlapping observations.
  4. [§8, 'Future Development Plans'] Several effects listed as future work — frame-edge ghosts, substrate crosstalk, optical ghosts from the beam splitter, and moon glow from large-angle response — are stated to be known in Level 2 images. If they are not currently masked or corrected in the released QR1/QR2 products, they constitute exactly the type of structured background that the flat-field/dark self-calibration in §4.4 can absorb, producing a systematic bias in calibrated spectral images. The paper should state explicitly whether these effects are presently included in the bad-pixel mask or remain unmodeled in the public data, and, if the latter, quantify their expected impact on the calibration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are several typographical errors and nonstandard Unicode ligatures, e.g., 'efficiency/efficient' in §1 and §2, 'Insitute' in the affiliations, and 'sufficiently/sufficient' in §3.2 and §4.4. A copyedit pass is recommended.
  2. [§5.1, 'Dark Current' product] The Dark Current calibration product is described as 'one of the outputs of the Estimate Absolute Gain Matrix module', but §4.4 defines it as an output of the Estimate Dark Current and Flat Field module. This cross-reference appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  3. [Table 2] The High Reliability Source Catalog is listed as 120 TB total data volume. This is larger than the 95 TB all-sky cubes and two-thirds the size of the 190 TB spectral images; if correct, it should be justified, but it seems likely to be a typo or missing unit qualifier.
  4. [References] There are formatting inconsistencies in the reference list, including 'Fazar, C.. et al. 2025' with a double period, and several 'in prep.'/'submitted' entries that are not dated. In particular, the paper relies on several in-preparation references (e.g., Ashby 2026, Hui 2025, Yang 2025, Fazar 2025) for calibration and catalog details; this is unavoidable for a mission paper but makes it harder for the reader to verify the claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Architecture paper with no derivation; internal self-calibration loop is standard practice and not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This is a pipeline/infrastructure description, not a derivation of scientific results, so the circularity patterns (self-definitional predictions, fitted-input-called-prediction, uniqueness imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation) do not apply. The paper describes a processing chain whose calibration steps are anchored by independent external references: Gaia astrometry via astrometry.net and scamp, primary calibrator stars with known spectra for the absolute gain matrix, and published zodiacal-light models (Kelsall et al. 1998; Tsumura et al. 2013). The internal calibrations (flat field, dark current, PSF, persistence) are estimated from science images and then applied back to those images; this is a standard self-calibration loop and is not a logical circularity because the paper does not claim to validate those products using the same expressions that define them. The flat-field/dark estimate does assume a spectrally smooth celestial background with only a single tilt for solar-elongation-dependent zodiacal light, and the paper explicitly lists unmodeled stray light, optical ghosts, and moon glow as future work; those are model-risk and external-validation concerns, not circularity. Self-citations to same-team papers (Fazar et al. on persistence, Crill et al. on zodiacal modeling, Bock et al. on mission overview) appear throughout, but they are descriptive references rather than load-bearing reductions that make an input equivalent to an output. No equation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness claim reduces by construction to the paper's own inputs, so the honest finding is no significant circularity. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The pipeline's outputs rest on a set of fitted calibration products and modeling assumptions. These are standard for astronomical pipelines, but they are not independently supplied in this paper; readers must trust the team's lab and flight calibrations.

free parameters (4)
  • Flat field and dark current per pixel = not disclosed
    Fit from ~1000 images by regressing pixel flux on median channel background (Section 4.4, Estimate Dark Current and Flat Field).
  • Absolute gain function per spectral dimension = not disclosed
    Fit from primary calibrator stars and multiplied by inverse flat field to form the absolute gain matrix (Section 4.4).
  • Exposure-averaged PSF per zone (121 zones per band) = not disclosed
    Constructed by stacking >1000 stars per zone at 10x oversampling and deconvolving the pixel response (Section 4.4).
  • Persistence model parameters = not disclosed
    Parameterized analytic model cited to Fazar et al. 2025; estimates residual flux from cumulative exposure (Section 4.2).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Background is spectrally smooth within each spectral channel (after a single solar-elongation tilt correction)
    Central to flat-field/dark estimation; if zodiacal light or stray light has spectral structure beyond the modeled tilt, the calibration is biased. Location: Section 4.4.
  • domain assumption The SPHEREx Reference Catalog is complete and accurate for forced-photometry targets
    Level 3 photometry is prior-based; missing or wrong source positions are not recovered by the pipeline. Location: Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
  • domain assumption Zodiacal light model represents the diffuse sky at SPHEREx wavelengths
    Get Zodi Model attaches an empirical Kelsall/Tsumura-based estimate; used in background subtraction for photometry. Location: Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption Laboratory non-linearity corrections remain valid in flight
    Correct Non-linearity module applies lab parameters to all pixels; any change with temperature or aging biases flux. Location: Section 4.2.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15107 in / 12256 out tokens · 128505 ms · 2026-08-03T21:17:07.346625+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we describe the SPHEREx image and spectrophotometry data processing pipeline, an infrastructure and software system designed to produce calibrated spectral images and photometric measurements for NASA's SPHEREx mission. SPHEREx is carrying out a series of four all-sky spectrophotometric surveys at 6.15 arcsecond resolution in 102 spectral channels spanning 0.75 to 5 microns. The pipeline which will deliver the flux- and wavelength-calibrated data products deriving from these surveys has been developed and is operated by the SPHEREx Science Data Center at Caltech/IPAC in collaboration with the SPHEREx Science Team. Here we describe the framework and modules used in the pipeline, along with the data products, which are available at the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.15823 by Andreas L. Faisst, Ari J. Cukierman, Asantha Cooray, Bomee Lee, Brendan P. Crill, Candice M. Fazar, C. Darren Dowell, Chi H. Nguyen, Christina Nelson, Dan Avner, Daniel C. Masters, Gabriela Torrini, Gary J. Melnick, Giulia Murgia, Gregory P. Dubois-Felsmann, Harry I. Teplitz, Howard Hui, James J. Bock, Matthew L. N. Ashby, Michael Zemcov, Milad Pourrahmani, O. Dore, Pao-Yu Wang, Phani Velicheti, Phil M. Korngut, Rachel Akeson, Richard M. Feder, Roberta Paladini, Sean A. Bryan, Sean Bruton, Shuang-Shuang Chen, Spencer Everett, Tamim Fatahi, Tatiana Goldina, Teresa Symons, Tzu-Ching Chang, Volker Tolls, Woong-Seob Jeong, Yoonsoo P. Bach, Young-soo Jo, Yujin Yang, Yuna G. Kwon, Zafar Rustamkulov, Zhaoyu Huai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The high-level flow diagram for the SPHEREx science processing pipeline The Rubin data access framework (known as the “Butler”) provides abstractions that isolate the scientific code in the pipelines from a number of common concrete details (T. Jenness et al. 2019). The Butler handles the following tasks: interfacing with underlying storage systems (Posix and cloud storage), file and directory naming, seri… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 16 Pith papers

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

  1. Hidden Monsters with SPHEREx I: A goldmine for heavily reddened quasars at cosmic noon

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 accept novelty 7.0

    SPHEREx data confirm 77 new luminous heavily reddened quasars at 1.5<z<3.9 that are hot-dust poor relative to unobscured quasars, supporting a blow-out feedback phase.

  2. Hidden Monsters with SPHEREx I: A goldmine for heavily reddened quasars at cosmic noon

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Confirmation of 77 new heavily reddened quasars at 1.5 < z < 3.9 with high luminosities and extinctions, showing they are deficient in hot and warm dust relative to blue quasars and supporting a blow-out feedback phase.

  3. Persephone's Torch: A 15th Magnitude Quadruply-Lensed Quasar From the Couch Discovered with SPHEREx and the LBT

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 accept novelty 7.0

    Spectroscopic and imaging confirmation of the brightest known quadruply-lensed quasar J1330-0905 at z=2.22 with Einstein radius ~0.45 arcsec and predicted magnification ~56.

  4. A Multimodal Approach to Star--Galaxy Separation using SPHEREx Spectrophotometry and DESI Legacy Survey Imaging

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Contrastive alignment of SPHEREx spectra with DESI Legacy images improves star-galaxy separation, lifting image-only stellar purity from 76% to 93% and forecasting sub-percent SPHEREx contamination at p>0.7.

  5. Comparing the Near-infrared Spectral Energy Distributions from Different Stellar Population Synthesis Models with SPHEREx Observations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Four stellar-population models overpredict the 2.4–5 μm stellar continuum of quiescent compact galaxies by 0.1–0.3 mag, with the biggest excess at intermediate ages (1–5 Gyr).

  6. A UV-to-Near-infrared QSO Composite Spectrum from the SPHEREx All-Sky Survey

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    A UV-to-NIR composite spectrum of ~61,000 SDSS type-1 QSOs from SPHEREx yields α_ν ≈ −0.10 (optical) and −1.46 (NIR), luminosity-dependent slopes consistent with a receding torus, Case-B line ratios, and an anti-Baldw...

  7. Robust Photometry for Roman High-Latitude Imaging Survey Cosmology Using Roman and Rubin Imaging

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    slimfarmer recovers Roman/Rubin colors to tens of millimag on simulations and demonstrates that correlated-noise treatment and joint multi-object fitting are required to control blending-induced photo-z systematics.

  8. An intrinsic decline of accretion activity in GRS 1915+105

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Deep X-ray, radio, and infrared non-detections of GRS 1915+105 imply an intrinsic decline in accretion activity rather than enhanced obscuration, likely driven by 2023-2024 outflows clearing the inner disc.

  9. A SPHEREx Pipeline and Spectral Library for Ultracool Dwarfs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new SPHEREx-based spectral library doubles the sample of ultracool dwarfs with 0.75-5.0 micron spectrophotometry to 7402 objects and provides automated typing tools.

  10. A SPHEREx Pipeline and Spectral Library for Ultracool Dwarfs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A tailored SPHEREx pipeline and public spectral library more than doubles the number of ultracool dwarfs with 0.75-5 micron spectrophotometry to 7402 total.

  11. SPHEREx mapping of diffuse PAH and H II emission in the Galactic plane

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    SPHEREx maps of 3.3-µm PAH and Brα emission show systematic PAH depletion inside ionized regions across the Galactic plane, with ionizing radiation as a dominant driver of abundance variations.

  12. Changing-Look AGNs from DESI. VI. Host Galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Host galaxies of 105 changing-look AGNs are predominantly quiescent and similar to matched extended quasars, with a modest post-starburst excess; narrow lines stay stable across the transitions.

  13. AT 2025abao: The fourth luminous red nova in M 31

    astro-ph.SR 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    AT 2025abao is the fourth LRN in M31, showing a plateau light curve, canonical spectroscopic evolution from hot continuum with Balmer lines to cool molecular bands, and an AGB progenitor whose IR SED is reported for t...

  14. SPHEREx 0.75 to 5 $\mu$m Spectra for a Sequence of Nearby Brown Dwarfs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0

    SPHEREx spectra of 37 field brown dwarfs show atmospheric models struggle with J/H/K peaks and 4um window especially at L/T transition, with data preferring weak-mixing Elf Owl models.

  15. The SPHEREx View of Galaxy Clusters: A Simulation-based Validation of the Forced Photometry Pipeline for Extended Sources

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Simulations show SPHEREx photometry is generally unbiased but source blending drives outliers; with brightness selection, photometric redshifts reach σ_NMAD ≈ 0.003-0.01 and cluster redshifts are recovered to |Δz|/(1+...

  16. Blue Straggler Stars in Berkeley 18: A Multiwavelength Study of Their Physical Properties and Dynamical Evolution

    astro-ph.SR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Multiwavelength study identifies 24 BSS candidates in Berkeley 18, derives their properties via SEDs, and infers binary evolution as the dominant channel from low dynamical interaction indicators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 14 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ashby, M. et al. 2026 in prep. Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2026

  2. [2]

    2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, Vol. 351, 112

    2006

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    Bock, J. et al. 2025 submitted

    2025

  5. [5]

    2024,, 2.0.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024,, 2.0.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.13989456 2024

  6. [6]

    Bryan, S. et al. 2025 submitted

    2025

  7. [7]

    P., Bach, Y

    Crill, B. P., Bach, Y. P., Bryan, S. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.24856. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24856

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    2025,, v1.0.8 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15052855 Doré, O., Werner, M

    Dahlen, D. 2025,, v1.0.8 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15052855 Doré, O., Werner, M. W., Ashby, M., et al. 2016, https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07039 Doré, O., Werner, M. W., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2018, https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05489

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    M., Dowell, C

    Fazar, C. M., Dowell, C. D., Crill, B. P., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 011208, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.1.011208

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.11.1.011208 2025

  10. [10]

    Fazar, C.. et al. 2025 in prep

    2025

  11. [11]

    2018, JCAP, 2018, 054, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/054

    Lucchi, A. 2018, JCAP, 2018, 054, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/054

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/054 2018

  12. [12]

    J., Cheng, Y.-T., et al

    Huai, Z., Bock, J. J., Cheng, Y.-T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.01410, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.01410

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01410 2025

  13. [13]

    Jenness, T., Bosch, J., Salnikov, A., & Dubois-Felsmann, G. P. 2019, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VI, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 1070706, doi: 10.1117/12.2312175

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2312175 2019

  14. [14]

    F., Lust, N

    Jenness, T., Bosch, J. F., Lust, N. B., et al. 2022, in Proc

    2022

  15. [15]

    12189, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VII, ed

    SPIE, Vol. 12189, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VII, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 1218911, doi: 10.1117/12.2629434

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629434

  16. [16]

    L., Franz, B

    Kelsall, T., Weiland, J. L., Franz, B. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 44, doi: 10.1086/306380

    doi:10.1086/306380 1998

  17. [17]

    Korngut, P. et al. 2025 in prep

    2025

  18. [18]

    W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 2010

  19. [19]

    W., & Mykytyn, D

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., & Mykytyn, D. 2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1604.008 Le Graët, J., Secroun, A., Barbier, R., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12191, X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy X, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 121911M, doi: 10.1117/12.2628974

    doi:10.1117/12.2628974 2016

  20. [20]

    H., Korngut, P., Dowell, C

    Nguyen, C. H., Korngut, P., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 276, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad97bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad97bd 2025

  21. [21]

    2007, WFC3 ISR, 12

    Robberto, M. 2007, WFC3 ISR, 12

    2007

  22. [22]

    Sax, M. J. 2018, in Encyclopedia of Big Data Technologies, ed. S. Sakr & A. Y. Zomaya (Cham: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_196-1

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63962-8_196-1 2018

  23. [23]

    2013, PASJ, 65, 119, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.6.119

    Tsumura, K., Matsumoto, T., Matsuura, S., et al. 2013, PASJ, 65, 119, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.6.119

    doi:10.1093/pasj/65.6.119 2013

  24. [24]

    R., Kauffmann, O

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078 2022

  25. [25]

    R., McMurtry, C

    Zengilowski, G. R., McMurtry, C. W., Pipher, J. L., et al. 2020, in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IX, Vol. 11454, SPIE, 616–633

    2020