Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

A geometric approach to estimate background in astronomical images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A geometric minima estimator recovers astronomical background within 10-14% where 3-sigma clipping fails.

desk verdict Solid minima-sampling background estimator, but the headline 10-14% accuracy is calibrated to one smoothing configuration and needs a mapping for F before it generalizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17566 v1 pith:JZX3DTJU submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GA

Pushpak Pandey , Kanak Saha This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GA
keywords backgroundestimationminimastatisticssteepestdescentPoissonnoiselow-photoncountcrowdedfieldsfaintsourcedetectionsky
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a geometric background estimator for astronomical images: instead of collapsing pixels into a histogram and iteratively clipping outliers, it finds local minima by steepest descent and samples pixels around those minima. The paper argues these minima-dominated samples are far less contaminated by faint sources, so the recovered mean background stays close to the true sky level. In low-photon-count images (mean count $\lambda \approx 0.35$) the method recovers the background within about 10% in sparse fields and 14% in crowded fields, where conventional 3-$\sigma$ clipping underestimates the background by orders of magnitude in sparse fields and overestimates it by roughly 200% in crowded fields. An accurate background matters because an overestimated background suppresses exactly the faint sources that deep surveys target.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the minima distribution of a random field and the identity $P_{\rm min}(x) = N P(x)(1-\Phi(x))^n$, which gives the isomorphic CDF relation $\Phi = 1 - (1 - \Phi_{\rm min})^{1/(n+1)}$ and the linear moment-shift law $\mu = \mu_{\rm min} + K\sigma_{\rm min}$. The operative mechanism in real images is the iterative smoothed-minima search: wide-to-narrow Gaussian smoothing with steepest descent, followed by fixed box sampling at the final minima, which targets source-free regions without collapsing the 2D pixel distribution into a 1D histogram. The quantitative claim is carried by empirically fitted coefficients: $K \approx 2.496$, the Poisson correction $A \approx 0.231$ and $\gamma \approx -0.2085$, and, for the smoothed-field recipe, the mean-shift coefficient $F = 0.213$ with the $\sigma$ offset $\sqrt{\lambda} = \sigma_{\rm min} + 0.1$.

What would settle it

Generate a Poisson background image with known $\lambda$ from 0.03 to 100, with sources injected as in the paper, but run the recipe with a different final kernel and box size (for example $G_2$ FWHM = 6 pixels and $b = 15$ pixels); if the recovered background leaves the paper's 10-14% band, the claimed accuracy is not a general property of the method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a statistical relation between a random field and its local minima: for an $M$-dimensional iid field, the minima PDF is $P_{\rm min}(x) = N P(x)(1-\Phi(x))^n$, and the minima CDF is isomorphic to the parent CDF, so the parent mean can be recovered as $\mu = \mu_{\rm min} + K\sigma_{\rm min}$, with $K \approx 2.496$ for Gaussian fields and a Poisson correction $\lambda \approx \mu_{\rm min} + 2.496\sigma_{\rm min} + A\mu_{\rm min}^{\gamma}$ ($A \approx 0.231$, $\gamma \approx -0.2085$). For images with sources, the paper replaces direct minima sampling with an iterative recipe: smooth with a wide Gaussian kernel (full width at half maximum 15.3 pixels), find minima by steepest descent, then re-find minima through progressively narrower kernels down to 3.5 pixels, and sample $7 \times 7$ pixel boxes around the final minima. On simulated UVIT-like images this recovers the input background within about 10% at $\lambda = 0.348$ in an uncrowded field, within 14% at $\lambda = 0.348$ in a crowded field, within about 10% at $\lambda = 5.8$ in a crowded field, and within 0.65% at $\lambda = 5.8$ uncrowded.

Load-bearing premise

The 10-14% accuracy claims rest on empirically fitted constants ($A \approx 0.231$, $\gamma \approx -0.2085$, the 0.1 $\sigma$ offset, and especially $F = 0.213$) that are calibrated to one fixed smoothing sequence and box size, with no closed-form mapping for other settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-photon UV images with $\lambda \approx 0.35$ and sparse sources get a background estimate within about 10%, whereas histogram-clipping routines return values orders of magnitude too low.
  • Crowded fields near 500 sources per square arcminute get recovered background within about 14% at low $\lambda$ and about 10% at higher $\lambda$, instead of the roughly 200% and 60% overestimates of clipping-based estimators.
  • Source contamination in the sampled pixels stays one to two orders of magnitude below that of 3-sigma clipping, improving the signal-to-noise of faint sources near the detection limit.
  • The method extends to spatially varying backgrounds by patching the field and interpolating, producing background and rms maps for a 236 square arcminute field in about 30 seconds.
  • The paper proposes the minima routine for wide deep surveys where faint-source density is high, naming Euclid, DESI imaging, and LSST as suitable applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the minima CDF is isomorphic to the parent CDF for any continuous parent distribution, the same moment-correction logic should apply to non-Poisson noise mixtures such as read noise and dark current, provided the coefficients are recalibrated; the paper calibrates only Gaussian and Poisson cases.
  • The fitted coefficients $F$, $A$, and $\gamma$ are measurements rather than derivations, so a closed-form mapping from kernel widths and box size to $F$ would let the method be used without per-instrument recalibration; the paper's Appendix leaves that mapping open.
  • The residual deviation near $\lambda \approx 0.1$ is likely set by integer-count zeros; an exposure-time-aware version of the offset in $\sqrt{\lambda} = \sigma_{\rm min} + 0.1$ would be a direct testable extension for very short exposures.
  • The paper's reported accuracy concerns recovering the mean background; survey decisions depend at least as much on patch-to-patch variance and on correlated noise from artifacts, which the paper lists as an untested limitation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a geometric method for estimating astronomical background levels by identifying local minima via steepest descent and exploiting the statistics of these minima to recover the parent distribution's mean. For IID Gaussian fields the authors derive an analytic recovery relation μ = μ_min + 2.496 σ_min (Eq. 16) and verify it numerically. For Poisson noise they add an empirical power-law correction (Eq. 18). For crowded and low-count fields they propose a multi-resolution recipe: locate minima on a heavily smoothed image, track them through progressively narrower kernels, and sample boxes around the final minima on the original image; the sampled mean is corrected by an empirical relation (Eq. 24). The method is tested on simulated Poisson fields and UVIT-like images with injected Sérsic sources, reporting recovery within 10% (uncrowded, λ=0.348) and 14% (crowded) of the input background, while SExtractor's background shows much larger deviations. A background-map extension and several limitations are discussed.

Significance. The central idea of using 2D spatially selected minima to avoid source contamination is a genuine methodological contribution, and the analytic Gaussian result (K≈2.496) provides a clean, numerically checked asymptotic baseline. The contamination-fraction comparison (Fig. 8) convincingly demonstrates that the minima sampler collects 1–2 orders of magnitude less source flux than SExtractor's 3σ-clipping over the tested range, which is the paper's most promising result. The paper honestly lists important limitations (λ≲0.1 failure, crowded-field degradation, diffuse-object caveats). However, the headline 10% and 14% accuracies are currently calibrated for a single smoothing/box configuration and a specific simulated source model, and a sign error in Eq. (15) affects the printed Gaussian derivation. With these issues addressed, the method could be a useful tool for low-count UV surveys.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (15)] The printed formula for σ_min contains a sign error. For the minimum of N=9 IID Gaussians, the variance is σ_min^2 = 18 σ^2 ∫_0^1 [Erf^{-1}(2Φ−1)]^2 (1−Φ)^8 dΦ − (μ−μ_min)^2, whereas Eq. (15) as written puts a minus sign before the 18, making the right-hand side negative for a non-negative integrand and producing an imaginary σ_min. This is load-bearing for the central recovery constant K=C/D: the reported numerical values C_gaussian=1.48501 and D_gaussian=0.59779 cannot follow from the printed formula. Please correct the sign and confirm the derivation.
  2. [Appendix A and Eq. (22)] The quantitative recovery relations used for the source-free and crowded-field tests are μ−μ_min = (0.213±0.002)σ (Eq. 22) and λ_recovery = μ_min + 0.213(σ_min + 0.1) (Eq. 24), with the constant 0.213 fitted for one configuration: G1 FWHM=15.3 px, G2 FWHM=3.5 px, b=7 px. Appendix A shows only qualitative dependencies of F on G1, G2, and b (Figs. 11–12) and gives no closed-form mapping or tabulated values. Consequently the abstract's 'within 10%' and 'within 14%' claims are properties of this single calibration, not of the geometric minima method as presented. A user applying the stated '5–10× PSF' prescription at a different pixel scale or PSF cannot compute F and has no accuracy guarantee. Please provide at least a fitted formula or lookup table for F(G1,G2,b) over the tested ranges, or explicitly restrict the claimed accuracy to the tested configuration.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eq. (25)] The background recovery equation includes a source contamination term Sc, but the paper states that Sc 'cannot be estimated independently of the background.' The implementation therefore does not correct for Sc; it only attempts to minimize it by sampling near minima. The claimed 10–14% accuracies in Table 1 are for a specific simulated source model (Gaussian PSF, SNR 0.7–7, one source-count value for each crowding level) with no independent estimate of Sc. Since the Discussion acknowledges that the source distribution and PSF 'could have a significant impact' on background estimation, the paper should either provide a method to estimate or bound Sc, or revise the claims to state they are validation results for the simulation setup, not universal accuracy guarantees.
  4. [Section 4.4 and Table 1] The text states the Minima routine recovers B_MS = 1.03×10^-4 cps/pixel for the 500-source, texp=3000 s image (figure 10a), while Table 1 lists 1.05×10^-4; the corresponding deviations are ~11% and 9.32% from the input 1.16×10^-4, so the abstract's 'within 10%' claim is sensitive to this discrepancy. Additionally, each entry in Table 1 appears to be a single realization (or a single averaged value) with no repeated-trial statistics, uncertainties, or scatter; the reader cannot assess whether the 10–14% figures are robust. Please reconcile the printed values and report mean ± scatter over multiple realizations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (14)] The integral contains a stray '(Φ)' after Erf^{-1}(2Φ−1); it should read ∫_0^1 Erf^{-1}(2Φ−1) (1−Φ)^8 dΦ.
  2. [Section 4.3, after Figure 7] The text 'images containing 500, 2000 and 4000 thousand sources' should read '4000 sources'; similarly, the phrase in Section 3 '300 to 3600 (69 to 828 sources/arcminutes²)' should clarify the units of source density.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (23)] The offset 0.1 is not dimensionless; the paper notes it becomes 0.1/texp for cps units, but the units should be stated explicitly in the equation itself.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5] The claims of 'within 10%' for low-photon-count images should be accompanied by the λ≳0.1 applicability restriction stated in Section 5, since the paper itself says the method is not confident below λ~0.1.
  5. [References] The bibliography lists Saha et al. 2024a and 2024b with the same arXiv identifier (arXiv:2408.03629); please verify the citations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic minima relations are derived independently, and the headline recovery figures are tested on separately generated source-injected images.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Section 2 derives the minima distribution from the parent probability distribution via Equation (1), obtains the isomorphic CDF relation in Equation (3), and computes the Gaussian mean-shift coefficient K = 2.496 analytically from Equations (14)-(16). The Poisson corrections (A ≈ 0.231, γ ≈ -0.2085 in Equation 18) and the Section 4 empirical coefficients (F = 0.213 in Equation 22 and the 0.1 offset in Equation 23) are fitted to simulated Poisson fields, but the paper explicitly labels them as empirical relations rather than first-principles derivations. The headline claims of 10% and 14% recovery come from separately generated source-injected and UVIT-like images with known input backgrounds, not from the same fields used for the fitting, so those tests are external benchmarks rather than forced restatements of the calibration. The unestimated source-contamination term Sc in Equation (25) is a stated limitation and generalizability concern, but it does not make the recovery circular. Load-bearing citations are to standard algorithms and data sources, not to a self-referential uniqueness or existence claim. Therefore the paper's derivation and validation do not reduce to their own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its reliance on empirical constants (A, γ, 0.1, F) fitted to simulated fields is the main ledger cost; the Gaussian mean-shift relation is analytic and independent.

free parameters (5)
  • A, gamma (Poisson power-law correction) = A ≈ 0.231, γ ≈ -0.2085
    Fitted numerically to simulated source-free Poisson fields to correct the minima moments to the parent mean (Eq. 18).
  • Poisson sigma offset = 0.1
    Empirically fitted in Eq. 23: sqrt(λ) = σmin + 0.1, from simulated Poisson fields.
  • Mean-shift coefficient F = 0.213 ± 0.002
    Empirically fitted in Eq. 22 for Gaussian fields with fixed smoothing kernels G1 FWHM=15.3 px, G2 FWHM=3.5 px, box size b=7 px; it varies with these parameters.
  • Smoothing kernels and box size (G1, G2, b) = G1 FWHM=15.3 px, G2 FWHM=3.5 px, b=7 px
    Chosen by hand for the UVIT-like tests; the mean-shift coefficient F depends on these choices.
  • Source-masking clipping thresholds = 3-sigma on max flux and segment area
    Used in the Section 3.1 source-masking step; threshold values are chosen a priori.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Background pixels are IID draws from a single continuous (or Poisson) distribution within a patch.
    The minima-distribution derivation (Section 2) assumes an IID random field; the paper applies it to real images with sources and correlated noise, a stated limitation.
  • standard math The order-statistics formula P_min = (n+1) P(x) (1-Φ(x))^n holds for continuous distributions with independent neighbors.
    This is a standard result for the minimum of n+1 IID variables, used in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Local minima of the smoothed image are reliable indicators of source-free regions.
    The Section 4 recipe assumes that minima in Gaussiansmoothed images avoid sources well enough for background sampling.
  • domain assumption Sources are localized clumps that can be masked via maxima segmentation; very diffuse objects were not considered.
    Section 3.1 and the discussion in Section 5 state that arcminute-scale diffuse objects may be mistaken for background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A geometric approach to estimate background in astronomical images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZX3DTJU

@misc{pith2026241117566,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A geometric approach to estimate background in astronomical images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZX3DTJU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17566}
}
abstract

Estimating the true background in an astronomical image is fundamental to detecting faint sources. In a typical low-photon count astronomical image, such as in the far and near-ultraviolet wavelength range, conventional methods relying on the 3-sigma clipping and median or mode estimation often fail to capture the true background level accurately. As a consequence, differentiating true sources from noise peaks remains a challenging task. Additionally, in such images, effectively identifying and excluding faint sources during the background estimation process remains crucial, as undetected faint sources could contaminate the background. This results in overestimating the true background and obscuring the detection of very faint sources. To tackle this problem, we introduce a geometric approach based on the method of steepest descent to identify local minima in an astronomical image. The proposed algorithm based on the minima statistics effectively reduces the confusion between sources and background in the image; thereby ensuring a better background estimation and enhancing the reliability of faint source detection. Our algorithm performs well compared to conventional methods in estimating the background even in crowded field images. In low-photon count, less crowded images, our algorithm recovers the background within 10\%, while traditional methods drastically underestimate it by a few orders of magnitude. In crowded fields, the conventional methods overestimates the background by $\sim 200\%$ whereas our algorithm recovers the true background within $\sim 14\%$. We provide a simple prescription to create a background map using our algorithm and discuss its application in large astronomical surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17566 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) shows a section of 100 × 100 sample of the generated 2d Gaussian random field with µ = 7 and σ = 2 with the detected minima pixels marked with cyan dots. (b) shows the histogram of all pixels(Parent Sample) and another histogram of detected minima pixels(Minima Sample), plotted together with the theoretical Gaussian distribution(N[7, σ = 2]), and the numerically calculated minima distribution(Minima PDF) calcula… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a)Generated Poisson Random Variable field example, with its pixel histogram as an inset figure, and the parameter λ mentioned in the top left corner (b) Numerically calculated Correction factor for the Poisson minima relation in equation 18, with the power law approximation which holds for µmin ≳ 0.3 (c) Recovered λ from generated Poisson random fields using equation 18 and recovery is compared with the mean backgr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A simplified flowchart showing the process of maxima-based masking of regions with sources 3.2. Test Results and limitations The test results are presented as a relative deviation plot in figure 4, where the y-axis represents the rela￾tive absolute deviation (equation 19) of recovered back￾ground in the generated image from the input back￾ground. Relative absolute deviation = |(λinput − λrecovered| λinput (19) From … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) A sample Poissonian image with point sources injected as per the method described in section 3. (b) SNR distribution of the injected sources of one of the generated images. While the mean background and standard deviation of the images change in tests, the flux of …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A simplified flowchart showing the process of minima-based background sampling, with the detected min￾ima in the intermediate stage smoothed images (I2 and I3 ) shown by red points and the sampling boxes marked by pur￾ple in the second-to-last step. NOTE: The transitio…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) We show the least square fitted linear relation between σmin, calculated from sampled pixels from Poisson images and √ λ. (b) The fitted relation between µmin and input λ in the Poisson images. test this, we run the Minima routine on these generated images with bac…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Here we show a sample of generated Image with sources (a) a 100×100 pixel(∼ 41×41 arcsecond2 ) section of 300×300 pixel canvas where 500 Point Sources are uniformly distributed with a finite Gaussian psf (b) shows the same sources in (a) lying on a noisy background. (c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Checking the contamination fraction in our generated images. from top to bottom, we increase the number of sources going from relatively uncrowded to very crowded. And from left to right, we increase the mean background(λ), which goes from the low count Poisson to the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sample generated UVIT-like images. (a)Background and noise free 2.085×2.085 arcminute2 (300×300 pixels2 ) Field with ∼ 500 sources (∼ 125 per square arcminute ). (b) and (c) shows the same field as (a) with exposure times of 3000 and 50,000 seconds, respectively, at a …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) The pixel histograms of simulated images with texp = 3000 seconds (figure 9 b and e). (b)The pixel histograms of simulated images with texp = 50000 seconds (figure 9 c and f). Poisson distributions of background are shown in grey with the input mean background (B˜…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Sigma ratio(ξr) vs sampling boxsize(b) with fixed FWHM of G = 16.5 pixels (cyan-blue) and G = 2.35 pixels (orange). (b) calculated mean shift coefficient vs. sampling box size with fixed FWHM of G = 16.5 pixels (cyan-blue) and G = 2.35 pixels (orange). (c) mean sh…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Sigma ratio(σmin/σ) vs sampling boxsize(b) with fixed FWHM of G1 = 15.3 and G2 = 3.5 pixels. (b) calculated mean shift coefficient vs sampling boxsize with fixed FWHM of G1 = 15.3 and G2 = 3.5 pixels.(c) mean shift coefficient’s dependence on the final smoothing k…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/1

    Akhlaghi, M., & Ichikawa, T. 2015, ApJS, 220, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/1

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/1 2015

  2. [2]

    1993, MNRAS, 265, 641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.3.641 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Almoznino, E., Loinger, F., & Brosch, N. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.3.641 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/265.3.641 1993

  3. [3]

    Berry, D. S. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 22, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.11.004

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2014.11.004 2015

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    2019, A&A, 621, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834312

    Borlaff, A., Trujillo, I., Rom´ an, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834312

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834312 2019

  6. [6]

    Boulanger, F., Cox, P., & Jones, A. P. 2000, in Infrared Space Astronomy, Today and Tomorrow, ed. F. Casoli, J. Lequeux, & F. David, Vol. 70, 251

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 752, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L5

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/l5 2012

  8. [8]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13269, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13269 Euclid Collaboration, Borlaff, A

    Dhiwar, S., Saha, K., Maulick, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13269, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13269 Euclid Collaboration, Borlaff, A. S., G´ omez-Alvarez, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141935

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    P., Brown, T

    Gardner, J. P., Brown, T. M., & Ferguson, H. C. 2000, ApJL, 542, L79, doi: 10.1086/312930

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Tandon, S

    Ghosh, S. K., Tandon, S. N., Singh, S. K., et al. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43, 77, doi: 10.1007/s12036-022-09842-7

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Howell, S. B. 2006, Handbook of CCD Astronomy, Vol. 5

    2006

  5. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 6310, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1692

    Ikeda, R., Morishita, T., Tsukui, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6310, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1692

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    1997, ARA&A, 35, 267, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.267 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Impey, C., & Bothun, G. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 267, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.267 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    1997 doi

  7. [15]

    Jacoby, G. H., ed. 1990, CCDs in astronomy : proceedings of a conference held in Tuscon, Arizona, 6-8 September 1989, Vol. 8

    1990

  8. [16]

    J., & Tyson, J

    Ji, I., Hasan, I., Schmidt, S. J., & Tyson, J. A. 2018, PASP, 130, 084504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aac4ed

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Jones, R. C. 1958, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1917-1983), 48, 934 17

    1958

  10. [18]

    S., Hasan, I., & Tyson, J

    Kelvin, L. S., Hasan, I., & Tyson, J. A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad180

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2015, ApJL, 807, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L2

    Koda, J., Yagi, M., Yamanoi, H., & Komiyama, Y. 2015, ApJL, 807, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L2

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Kormendy, J., & Bahcall, J. N. 1974, AJ, 79, 671, doi: 10.1086/111595

    1974 doi

  13. [21]

    K., et al

    Leinert, C., Bowyer, S., Haikala, L. K., et al. 1998, A&AS, 127, 1, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998105

    1998 doi

  14. [22]

    I., Starck, J.-L., & Kilbinger, M

    Liaudat, T. I., Starck, J.-L., & Kilbinger, M. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1158213, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1158213

    2023

  15. [23]

    2000, MNRAS, 312, L9, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03268.x

    Madau, P., & Pozzetti, L. 2000, MNRAS, 312, L9, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03268.x

    2000

  16. [24]

    1959, Proceedings of the Physical Society, 74, 233, doi: 10.1088/0370-1328/74/3/301

    Mandel, L. 1959, Proceedings of the Physical Society, 74, 233, doi: 10.1088/0370-1328/74/3/301

    1959 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Spavone, M., et al

    Martin, G., Bazkiaei, A. E., Spavone, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1003

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, AJ, 156, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad0f0

    Matsumoto, T., Tsumura, K., Matsuoka, Y., & Pyo, J. 2018, AJ, 156, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad0f0

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca7c4

    Mondal, C., Saha, K., Bhattacharya, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca7c4

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, ApJS, 213, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/32 O’Donoghue, D

    Murthy, J. 2014, ApJS, 213, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/32 O’Donoghue, D. 1995, Baltic Astronomy, 4, 519, doi: 10.1515/astro-1995-0411

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1139

    Pahwa, I., & Saha, K. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4657, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1139

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2008, A&A, 481, 575, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079279

    Patat, F. 2008, A&A, 481, 575, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079279

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    1996, PASP, 108, 699, doi: 10.1086/133788

    Racine, R. 1996, PASP, 108, 699, doi: 10.1086/133788

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    I., Gardner, J

    Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H. I., Gardner, J. P., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/31

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 59, doi: 10.1007/s12036-021-09715-5

    Saha, K., Dhiwar, S., Barway, S., Narayan, C., & Tandon, S. 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 59, doi: 10.1007/s12036-021-09715-5

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03629, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03629 —

    Saha, K., Maulick, S., Pandey, P., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03629, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03629 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03629, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03629

    doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2014, A&A, 567, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423429

    Sandin, C. 2014, A&A, 567, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423429

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    1918, Annalen der Physik, 362, 541, doi: 10.1002/andp.19183622304

    Schottky, W. 1918, Annalen der Physik, 362, 541, doi: 10.1002/andp.19183622304

    1918 doi

  29. [37]

    T., Harding, P., & Mihos, J

    Slater, C. T., Harding, P., & Mihos, J. C. 2009, PASP, 121, 1267, doi: 10.1086/648457

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191, doi: 10.1086/131977

    1987 doi

  31. [39]

    Tyson, J. A. 1984, PASP, 96, 566, doi: 10.1086/131382 V¨ ais¨ anen, P., Tollestrup, E. V., & Fazio, G. G. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1241, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04566.x van Dokkum, P. G., Abraham, R., Merritt, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L45, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L45

    1984

  32. [40]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Kaviraj, S., Collins, C

    Watkins, A. E., Kaviraj, S., Collins, C. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4289, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae236

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    K., Donas, J., Arnouts, S., et al

    Xu, C. K., Donas, J., Arnouts, S., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L11, doi: 10.1086/425252

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, L20, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu073

    Yue, B., Ferrara, A., Vanzella, E., & Salvaterra, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443, L20, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu073

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, ApJS, 257, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2607 18 APPENDIX A

    Zaritsky, D., Donnerstein, R., Karunakaran, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2607 18 APPENDIX A. THE MEAN SHIFT COEFFICIENT AND SIGMA RATIO FOR GAUSSIAN RANDOM FIELDS To estimate background using the smoothed image minima in section 4, we introduce the ...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.