pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17882 · v1 · pith:RDZCTYAPnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Assessing the Impact of Source Confusion for GREX-PLUS based on Deep JWST NIRCam Imaging

Yoshiaki Ono , Akio K. Inoue , Yuma Sugahara , Takeshi Hashigaya , Fumihide Iwamuro , Taiki Bessho , Yuji Ikeda , Matthew L. N. Ashby
show 4 more authors
Yuichi Harikane Jarron Leisenring Takao Nakagawa Howard A. Smith
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 10:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords source confusionGREX-PLUSJWSTNIRCamfaint galaxieslimiting magnitudedetection completenessnumber counts
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations using JWST data show that source confusion will reduce the efficiency of deeper exposures for the GREX-PLUS telescope but still permit statistical studies of faint galaxies.

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

The paper simulates future observations with the proposed GREX-PLUS infrared space telescope by taking existing deep JWST images and blurring them to match the expected GREX-PLUS point spread function and ghosting effects. It measures how much fainter the effective detection limits become because of added noise from unresolved galaxies and the spread of light from bright objects. The results indicate that longer exposure times continue to reach fainter limits down to roughly 27th magnitude, although gains slow down at the deepest levels. After correcting for missed or blended sources, the counts of galaxies match those from the original JWST data. This implies that surveys with GREX-PLUS can still be used to study populations of faint galaxies if planners adjust for the reduced returns on extra observing time.

Core claim

By constructing simulated GREX-PLUS images through convolution of JWST NIRCam data with the instrument's PSF plus ghost kernel at two resolution cases, the analysis shows that limiting magnitudes from random aperture photometry are shallower than in the original data, with the gap widening for deeper inputs due to elevated background fluctuations from unresolved faint sources and extended wings. Limiting magnitudes improve with integration time to about 27 mag without a plateau at the planned survey depth, though the rate of improvement decreases at longer times. Monte Carlo simulations reveal that confusion blending lowers detection completeness even well above the nominal depth, yet after

What carries the argument

Convolution of deep JWST NIRCam imaging data with the modeled GREX-PLUS PSF+ghost kernel to create simulated images for assessing source confusion effects on limiting magnitudes and completeness.

If this is right

  • Statistical studies of faint galaxies remain feasible with GREX-PLUS.
  • Survey planning should account for less efficient depth improvement with longer integrations due to source confusion.
  • Confusion-induced blending reduces completeness even at magnitudes brighter than the 5-sigma limit.
  • Completeness-corrected number counts agree with those from JWST data down to the detection limit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Optimizing exposure times rather than maximizing them could improve overall survey efficiency.
  • The convolution approach might be applied to evaluate confusion in other proposed wide-field infrared surveys.
  • Accounting for these effects in advance could refine the design of deep fields for GREX-PLUS.

Load-bearing premise

Convolving the existing JWST NIRCam images with the GREX-PLUS PSF and ghost kernel produces images that faithfully represent the actual future observations including the effects of unresolved faint sources.

What would settle it

Obtaining actual GREX-PLUS observations and finding that the measured limiting magnitudes or completeness levels deviate substantially from those predicted by the convolved simulations would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17882 by Akio K. Inoue, Fumihide Iwamuro, Howard A. Smith, Jarron Leisenring, Matthew L. N. Ashby, Taiki Bessho, Takao Nakagawa, Takeshi Hashigaya, Yoshiaki Ono, Yuichi Harikane, Yuji Ikeda, Yuma Sugahara.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Images of the PSF and ghost calculated based on the GREX-PLUS optical model. The top row shows the case with PSF FWHM = 0. ′′9, where only pointing uncertainty is included, while the bottom row are the case with PSF FWHM = 1. ′′2, where both pointing and optical uncertainties are included. In each row, the panels from left to right denote the PSF image, the ghost image, and the combined PSF+ghost image. Al… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radial profiles of the PSF and ghost calculated from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic light paths for the nominal light path transmitted through the filter and detector (Nominal path), and the three dominant ghost-producing paths caused by reflections at the front and back surfaces of the filter and at the detector surface (Path 1 – Path 3). The relevant surfaces are labeled as i = 1 (Filter front), i = 2 (Filter back), and i = 3 (Detector entrance surface), with transmission and … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example simulated GREX-PLUS images created from a subregion of the JADES GOODS-S field. From left to right, the panels show the original JWST NIRCam F356W image, the simulated GREX-PLUS image generated by convolving the NIRCam image with the PSF+ghost kernel for the case with PSF FWHM = 0. ′′9, the simulated GREX-PLUS image generated in the same manner for the case with PSF FWHM = 1. ′′2, and, for comparis… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Number counts of sources with aperture magnitudes brighter than the 5σ limit, detected in the simulated GREX-PLUS images and in the original JWST images. These number counts are not corrected for detection incompleteness. Red open triangles denote the results from the simulated GREX-PLUS images, and blue circles are those from the JWST images. The left panels show the GLASS field and the right panels are t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relation between the input and output total magnitudes for injected PSF sources in the simulated GREX-PLUS images. The left panels correspond to the GLASS field and the right panels to the CEERS field. The top panels show the case with PSF FWHM = 0. ′′9, and the bottom panels are PSF FWHM = 1. ′′2. Small dots represent individual injected sources: pink dots indicate sources with aperture magnitudes brighte… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detection completeness as a function of input total magnitude. Black circles indicate the completeness estimated from our Monte Carlo simulations based on the simulated GREX-PLUS images. Black triangles indicate the completeness derived from the Spitzer SEDS images (Ashby et al. 2013). The left panels denote the GLASS field and the right panels are the CEERS field. The top panels correspond to the case wit… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the 5σ limiting magnitudes measured from the simulated GREX-PLUS images and the original JWST images. The left panel corresponds to the case in which the convolution kernel used to generate the simulated GREX-PLUS images has PSF FWHM = 0. ′′9, while the right panel shows the case with PSF FWHM = 1. ′′2. To ensure a direct comparison, the JWST limiting magnitudes on the horizontal axes are mea… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The 5σ limiting magnitudes measured in simulated GREX-PLUS images as a function of the GREX-PLUS integration time required to reach the corre￾sponding depth, estimated by scaling the integration times of the underlying JWST images. The left panel shows the case in which the images are convolved with a PSF+ghost kernel with PSF FWHM = 0. ′′9, while the right panel shows the case with PSF FWHM = 1. ′′2. The … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Number counts corrected for the output total magnitude offset and detection completeness based on the Monte Carlo simulations. The left panels correspond to the GLASS field and the right panels to the CEERS field. The top panels denote the case with PSF FWHM = 0. ′′9, and the bottom panels are PSF FWHM = 1. ′′2. Red filled circles indicate the number counts measured from the simulated GREX-PLUS images aft… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the effects of source confusion expected in observations with GREX-PLUS, a JAXA L-class space infrared telescope mission candidate with a wide-field infrared camera covering 2-8 um with a field of view of 0.50 deg$^2$. For the deep imaging band near 4 um, we calculate the GREX-PLUS PSF and ghost based on the latest optical design, and consider two representative imaging performance cases with PSF FWHM values of 0.9 and 1.2 arcsec. We construct simulated GREX-PLUS images at different depths by convolving JWST NIRCam imaging data from JADES, GLASS, CEERS, and COSMOS-Web with the PSF+ghost kernel. Comparing the limiting magnitudes estimated from random aperture photometry using the same aperture sizes, we find that the simulated GREX-PLUS images are shallower than the original JWST images, with larger deviations for deeper original JWST images. This likely reflects unresolved faint sources and extended PSF+ghost wings from bright sources, which elevate background fluctuations in blank regions. Nevertheless, the limiting magnitudes continue to improve with increasing integration time down to ~27 mag, without a clear plateau at depths comparable to the planned GREX-PLUS deep survey, although the improvement becomes progressively less efficient toward longer integrations. Based on Monte Carlo simulations, we estimate detection completeness and correct the number counts for magnitude bias and incompleteness, finding that confusion-induced blending can reduce the completeness even at magnitudes well above the nominal 5-sigma depth. The completeness-corrected number counts agree well with the JWST-based number counts down to around the detection limit. Overall, our results suggest that statistical studies of faint galaxies remain feasible for GREX-PLUS; however, survey planning should account for less efficient depth improvement toward longer integrations due to source confusion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates source confusion for GREX-PLUS by simulating images via convolution of JWST NIRCam data from JADES, GLASS, CEERS, and COSMOS-Web with the modeled GREX-PLUS PSF+ghost kernel for FWHM of 0.9 and 1.2 arcsec. It finds simulated images are shallower than JWST, with larger deviations for deeper fields due to unresolved faint sources and PSF wings. Limiting magnitudes improve to ~27 mag without plateau but with decreasing efficiency at longer integrations. Monte Carlo simulations estimate completeness, correct number counts, which agree with JWST counts. Conclusion: statistical studies of faint galaxies feasible for GREX-PLUS but survey planning should account for less efficient depth gains due to confusion.

Significance. This provides useful input for GREX-PLUS survey design, showing confusion impacts but does not preclude deep studies. Strengths include use of real multi-field JWST data and Monte Carlo completeness estimates for empirical assessment of blending effects.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods (simulation construction)] The central simulation convolves existing JWST NIRCam imaging data, which imposes a detection threshold and thus excludes galaxies fainter than the JWST limit. While the abstract notes that deviations are likely due to 'unresolved faint sources', there is no explicit correction, extrapolation of the faint-end number counts, or additional simulation component to account for this population. This omission means the measured background fluctuations and completeness estimates are lower bounds, which could lead to an overestimation of the achievable depth improvement and affect the conclusion that no plateau occurs at planned survey depths.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract provides no quantitative uncertainties or error bars on the reported limiting magnitudes, differences, or the ~27 mag value, making it difficult to assess the statistical significance of the findings.
  2. [Abstract] Validation of the PSF+ghost model against actual on-sky data is not mentioned, which would increase confidence in the convolution kernel's fidelity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the limitations of our simulation approach. We respond to the major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central simulation convolves existing JWST NIRCam imaging data, which imposes a detection threshold and thus excludes galaxies fainter than the JWST limit. While the abstract notes that deviations are likely due to 'unresolved faint sources', there is no explicit correction, extrapolation of the faint-end number counts, or additional simulation component to account for this population. This omission means the measured background fluctuations and completeness estimates are lower bounds, which could lead to an overestimation of the achievable depth improvement and affect the conclusion that no plateau occurs at planned survey depths.

    Authors: We agree that convolving real JWST data imposes a detection threshold, so our estimated background fluctuations from confusion represent lower bounds; the unresolved population below the JWST limit is not included. The abstract already flags unresolved faint sources as a likely contributor to the observed deviations, but we did not include an explicit extrapolation or additional faint-source component. To address this, we will revise the manuscript by adding a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section that estimates the additional variance using a power-law extrapolation of the faint-end number counts from the literature (e.g., based on deeper JWST or HST constraints). We will also update the Discussion to note that this extra noise would make the depth gains slightly less efficient than reported, while still confirming that no plateau is reached at the planned GREX-PLUS survey depths. These changes will make the conclusions more conservative without altering the overall finding that statistical studies of faint galaxies remain feasible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's derivation relies on external JWST NIRCam datasets (JADES, GLASS, CEERS, COSMOS-Web) convolved with a PSF+ghost kernel computed from the GREX-PLUS optical design. Limiting magnitudes are measured directly via random aperture photometry on the simulated images, and completeness is obtained from standard Monte Carlo source-injection simulations. No parameters are fitted inside the paper to the reported limiting magnitudes or number counts and then reused as predictions; no self-citations provide load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes; and no equations reduce the outputs to the inputs by construction. The results are empirical measurements against external benchmarks and remain self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The simulation depends on two chosen PSF widths and the assumption that JWST data capture the relevant faint-source population; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • PSF FWHM = 0.9 arcsec and 1.2 arcsec
    Two representative values (0.9 and 1.2 arcsec) selected from the latest optical design for the deep imaging band.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption JWST NIRCam images from the listed surveys accurately represent the sky source distribution and noise properties for GREX-PLUS confusion simulation
    Used directly as input for convolution to create simulated images.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5928 in / 1344 out tokens · 34903 ms · 2026-05-20T10:08:56.931506+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Adamo, A., Atek, H., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2025, Nature Astron omy, 9, 1134

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Ashby, M. L. N., Willner, S. P ., Fazio, G. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 80

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Ashby, M. L. N., Caputi, K. I., Cowley, W., et al. 2018, ApJS, 2 37, 39 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P ., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip ˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 6 IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Obser vatory, which is operated by the Association of U...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393 Béthermin, M., Bolatto, A

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393 Béthermin, M., Bolatto, A. D., Boulanger, F., et al. 2024, A& A, 692, A52

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A &A, 690, A288

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, Ap J, 954, 31

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    E., et al

    Chary, R., Casertano, S., Dickinson, M. E., et al. 2004, ApJS , 154, 80

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Condon, J. J. 1974, ApJ, 188, 279 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, ApJS , 277, 4

    work page 1974

  9. [9]

    2000, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Seri es, V ol

    Diolaiti, E., Bendinelli, O., Bonaccini, D., et al. 2000, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Seri es, V ol. 4007, Adaptive Optical Systems Technology, ed. P . L. Wizinowich,879–888

    work page 2000

  10. [10]

    2003, ApJ, 585, 617

    Dole, H., Lagache, G., & Puget, J.-L. 2003, ApJ, 585, 617

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    H., Lagache, G., et al

    Dole, H., Rieke, G. H., Lagache, G., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 93

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2025 , ApJS, 281, 50

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

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

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2026, ApJ S, 283, 6

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    Ellis, R. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.16948

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    G., Hora, J

    Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 10

    work page 2004

  16. [16]

    1989, ApJ, 344, 35

    Franceschini, A., Toffolatti, L., Danese, L., & de Zotti, G. 1989, ApJ, 344, 35

    work page 1989

  17. [17]

    1991, A&AS, 89, 285

    Franceschini, A., Toffolatti, L., Mazzei, P ., Danese, L., & de Zotti, G. 1991, A&AS, 89, 285

    work page 1991

  18. [18]

    M., Koekemoer, A

    Franco, M., Casey, C. M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2026, ApJ, 9 99, 200

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    T., Huynh, M

    Frayer, D. T., Huynh, M. T., Chary, R., et al. 2006, ApJL, 647, L9

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    P ., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P ., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, Space Sci. Rev., 123, 485

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    P ., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P ., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 1 35, 068001

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 200 4, ApJL, 600, L93 GREX-PLUS Science Team, :, Inoue, A. K., et al. 2023, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2304.08104

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    C., Giavalisco, M., et al

    Guo, Y ., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 2 07, 24

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    N., Johnson, B

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, A pJ, 964, 71

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5

    Harikane, Y ., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Helou, G., & Beichman, C. A. 1990, in Liege International Ast rophysical

    work page 1990

  28. [28]

    Hogg, D. W. 2001, AJ, 121, 1207

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    K., Kaneda, H., Y amada, T., et al

    Inoue, A. K., Kaneda, H., Y amada, T., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, a nd Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 121801I

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    K., Y amamura, I., Suzuki, T., et al

    Inoue, A. K., Y amamura, I., Suzuki, T., et al. 2024, in Societ y of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Seri es, V ol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infra red, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 130920Y

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    P ., Lee, H

    Jeong, W.-S., Pearson, C. P ., Lee, H. M., Pak, S., & Nakagawa, T. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 281

    work page 2006

  33. [33]

    M., et al

    Jeong, W.-S., Pak, S., Lee, H. M., et al. 2003, PASJ, 55, 717

    work page 2003

  34. [34]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis So ftware and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne, R. I. Jedrzejewski, & R. N. Hook, 489

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    2005, A&A, 430, 343

    Kiss, C., Klaas, U., & Lemke, D. 2005, A&A, 430, 343

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    G., Papovich, C., Grogin, N

    Laidler, V . G., Papovich, C., Grogin, N. A., et al. 2007, PASP , 119, 1325

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    T., Packham, C., Rosario, D

    Leist, M. T., Packham, C., Rosario, D. J. V ., et al. 2024, AJ, 1 67, 96

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    2013, A&A, 553, A 132

    Magnelli, B., Popesso, P ., Berta, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A 132

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    2024, A&A, 690, A2 16 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (2026), Vol

    Mascia, S., Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A2 16 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (2026), Vol. 00, No. 0

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    2006, PASJ, 58, 673

    Matsuhara, H., Wada, T., Matsuura, S., et al. 2006, PASJ, 58, 673

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    2025, Contemporary Physics, 66, 116

    Matthee, J. 2025, Contemporary Physics, 66, 116

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    W., Feinberg, L

    McElwain, M. W., Feinberg, L. D., Perrin, M. D., et al. 2023, P ASP, 135, 058001

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    C., et al

    Merlin, E., Fontana, A., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2015, A&A, 58 2, A15

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    T., Schulz, B., Levenson, L., et al

    Nguyen, H. T., Schulz, B., Levenson, L., et al. 2010, A&A, 518 , L5

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

    work page 1983

  46. [46]

    2004, ApJS, 154, 70

    Papovich, C., Dole, H., Egami, E., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 70

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 20

    Paris, D., Merlin, E., Fontana, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 20

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    H., Y oung, E

    Rieke, G. H., Y oung, E. T., & Gautier, T. N. 1995, Space Sci. Re v., 74, 17

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    H., Y oung, E

    Rieke, G. H., Y oung, E. T., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2004, Ap JS, 154, 25

    work page 2004

  50. [50]

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

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D., & Horner, S. 2005, in Society of Photo - Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Seri es, V ol. 5904, Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments XI, ed. J. B. Hean ey & L. G. Burriesci, 1–8

    work page 2005

  51. [51]

    2016, Phys

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023c, PASP, 13 5, 028001 Roman Observations Time Allocation Committee et al. 2025, a rXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10574

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    E., Whitaker, K

    Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    T., Helou, G., & Werner, M

    Soifer, B. T., Helou, G., & Werner, M. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 201

    work page 2008

  54. [54]

    P ., Topping, M

    Stark, D. P ., Topping, M. W., Endsley, R., & Tang, M. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, V olume 4, V ol. 4, 453–499

    work page 2026

  55. [55]

    Stetson, P . B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191

    work page 1987

  56. [56]

    T., & Ishii, T

    Takeuchi, T. T., & Ishii, T. T. 2004, ApJ, 604, 40

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical InstrumentationEngineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical InstrumentationEngineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    work page 1986

  58. [58]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confere nce Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confere nce Series, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II , ed. R. J

    work page 1993

  59. [59]

    2023, High-level science products prod uced by the GLASS-JWST team, doi:10.17909/KW3C-N857

    Treu, T., & Paris, D. 2023, High-level science products prod uced by the GLASS-JWST team, doi:10.17909/KW3C-N857

    work page doi:10.17909/kw3c-n857 2023

  60. [60]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 110 Väisänen, P ., Tollestrup, E

    Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 110 Väisänen, P ., Tollestrup, E. V ., & Fazio, G. G. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1241

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P ., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Natu re Methods, 17, 261

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    J., Vulcani, B., Treu, T., et al

    Watson, P . J., Vulcani, B., Treu, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A225

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    W., Roellig, T

    Werner, M. W., Roellig, T. L., Low, F. J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 15 4, 1

    work page 2004