Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 36 references

De-jittering Ariel: an optimized algorithm

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using only the changing shape of the point-spread function, the new algorithm cuts Ariel's one-hour jitter noise from about 214 ppm to 12 ppm, meeting the 20 ppm requirement and approaching the 9 ppm jitter-free floor.

desk verdict A solid, transparent mission-pipeline study whose headline numbers clear Ariel's 20 ppm requirement—but the single-jitter-realization validation and an overclaiming abstract mean the compliance claim is provisional, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12907 v2 pith:W6BJT2MP submitted 2025-04-17 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Andrea Bocchieri , Lorenzo V. Mugnai , Enzo Pascale , Andreas Papageorgiou , Angele Syty , Angelos Tsiaras , Paul Eccleston , Giorgio Savini
show 4 more authors
Giovanna Tinetti Renaud Broquet Patrick Chapman Gianfranco Sechi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords ArielmissionpointingjitterdetrendingAllandeviationtransmissionspectroscopyPSFmomentsphotonnoisespacetelescope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the photometric and spectroscopic damage from Ariel's pointing jitter can be removed almost completely using nothing but the shape of the stellar image as seen in each exposure. If this holds, the mission's 10-100 ppm stability requirement for exoplanet transit spectroscopy is met without any flat-field calibration, because the algorithm auto-calibrates from the science frames themselves. In simulated 10-hour observations of a bright target, the one-hour Allan deviation of the FGS-1 photometer drops from about 214 ppm raw to about 12 ppm after detrending, against a 20 ppm requirement and a 9 ppm jitter-free reference. The residual planet-radius bias propagates to roughly 16 ppm in the transmission spectrum, within the required noise floor. The same detrending keeps the AIRS-Ch0 spectrometer photon-noise limited across its full wavelength range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of low-order moments of the PSF light distribution in each science frame: centroid ($x,y$), widths ($w_x,w_y$), skewnesses ($s_x,s_y$), and kurtoses ($k_x,k_y$). The model is $S_\lambda(t) = f_\lambda(\vec X)\,\phi_\lambda\,\Lambda_\lambda(\vec P,t) + n_\lambda(t)$, where $f_\lambda$ is a linear function of the moments with wavelength-dependent but time-independent coefficients, $\phi_\lambda$ is the incoming signal, and $\Lambda_\lambda$ is the transit light curve. The nuisance coefficients and the transit parameters are fit simultaneously, so the jitter is removed without any flat-field product. Centroids come from an iteratively weighted center-of-gravity estimate, and the spectrometer also registers frames by Fourier-domain cross-correlation before photometry. The moments act as the observable proxy for the time-varying jitter convolution kernel that the non-stationary pointing produces.

What would settle it

Take a second, independent jitter timeline with the same RMS level but different harmonic phases and non-stationary envelope, run the same 128-realization pipeline, and compare the detrended FGS-1 Allan deviation at one hour and the transmission-spectrum bias. If the one-hour Allan deviation exceeds 20 ppm, or the planet-radius bias propagates to more than 20 ppm in the transmission spectrum, the central compliance claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Jitter moves and deforms the point-spread function on a focal plane whose pixels have non-uniform response, which makes the measured flux depend on where the star image sits at each moment. The paper's central claim is that this dependence is captured by low-order moments of the image (centroid position, width, skewness, and kurtosis), so the flux can be detrended by regressing it on those moments while simultaneously fitting the transit. Using a representative jitter timeline and 128 independent noise realizations, the method brings the FGS-1 photometer's one-hour Allan deviation from $213.9 \pm 2.7$ ppm raw to $11.8 \pm 2.7$ ppm detrended, matching the $9.0 \pm 1.9$ ppm jitter-free reference closely enough to meet the 20 ppm requirement at 3-$\sigma$ confidence. For the spectrometer, the detrended noise tracks the reference at every wavelength, and the raw noise is already at the photon floor at red wavelengths. The only detectable flaw is a small systematic shift of $65 \pm 5$ ppm in the retrieved planet radius, which the authors propagate to about 16 ppm in the transmission spectrum and judge compliant with requirements.

Load-bearing premise

That the single representative jitter timeline used in all simulations behaves like the real spacecraft's pointing jitter over a 10-hour observation, including its slow rise-and-fall envelope and harmonic content; all noise and bias numbers are computed for that one realization, and the paper does not randomize payload properties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The FGS-1 photometer meets the 20 ppm one-hour stability requirement with 3-sigma confidence, at $11.8 \pm 2.7$ ppm versus a $9.0 \pm 1.9$ ppm jitter-free reference.
  • The AIRS-Ch0 spectrometer stays photon-noise limited across its wavelength range after detrending, and it is already photon-noise limited at red wavelengths even without detrending.
  • The residual systematic bias in the retrieved planet radius is $65 \pm 5$ ppm, propagating to about 16 ppm in the transmission spectrum, below the 20 ppm payload noise floor.
  • De-jittering works without flat-field calibration, so the pipeline auto-calibrates from the science frames and avoids calibration-product biases.
  • For targets fainter than about K = 6.3, photon noise is expected to dominate and jitter detrending becomes less critical, though uncorrected jitter can still bias retrieved radii.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the method uses only in-frame spatial information, a testable extension is to apply it to other Nyquist-sampled exoplanet time-series instruments; the same moment regression should remove pointing-induced systematics wherever the PSF shape changes measurably.
  • The single jitter realization is the main uncontrolled variable: the 65 ppm bias could change sign or amplitude under a different non-stationary envelope or different harmonic phases, so re-running the pipeline on a second prime-contractor realization or on commissioning data would bound this uncertainty.
  • The slight change in the detrended Allan-deviation slope near 2000 s hints at residual correlated noise that the current statistics cannot firmly confirm; if real, it sets a floor on how much longer integrations can improve stability and might motivate adding higher-order moments or flat-field information.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a jitter-detrending algorithm for the Ariel mission, based on fitting low-order spatial moments of the PSF (centroid, width, skewness, kurtosis) to photometric and spectroscopic light curves. Using ExoSim2 simulations of the FGS-1 photometer and AIRS-Ch0 spectrometer, driven by a single 10-hour representative ADS jitter timeline and 128 independent noise realizations, the authors show that the FGS-1 Allan deviation at 1 hour improves from 213.9±2.7 ppm (raw) to 11.8±2.7 ppm (detrended), against a 20 ppm requirement and a 9.0±1.9 ppm jitter-free reference. The detrended Ch0 ADEV tracks the reference across the band. The retrieved planet radius from the detrended FGS-1 light curve is biased by 65±5 ppm, which the authors propagate to a 16 ppm systematic in the transmission spectrum. The paper claims that the algorithm leaves Ariel photon-noise-limited across the entire spectrum and fully compliant with mission requirements, while also acknowledging that the bias may reflect the single jitter realization and non-randomized payload properties.

Significance. If the headline numbers hold, the algorithm is a useful, physically motivated contribution to the Ariel data-reduction pipeline: it builds on established Spitzer-style pixel-level decorrelation, uses public simulation tools (ExoSim2, PAOS), and its comparison against a jitter-free reference with 128 noise realizations is a sound way to separate random from systematic residuals. The manuscript is transparent about many of its limitations, including the single jitter timeline and the exclusion of detector and astrophysical effects. However, the central mission-level compliance and photon-noise-limited claims go beyond what the evidence supports: the performance is evaluated on one jitter/payload draw, the detrending parameters are tuned on the same data, and the propagation of the Rp bias into the transmission spectrum is not fully reconciled with the 20 ppm noise floor. These issues are fixable by rewording the abstract and conclusions and by adding targeted robustness checks, so the paper is suitable for major revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.4, Sec. 2.1, Sec. 3.2] The mission-level compliance claim rests on a single ADS jitter timeline. Sec. 2.4 states that all 128 noise realizations use the same jitter timeline and that payload properties are not randomized, and Sec. 2.1 removes the 2 mas/hr linear drift before injection; Sec. 3.2 attributes the 65±5 ppm Rp bias to 'only one possible realization' of residual systematics. The reported 11.8±2.7 ppm FGS-1 ADEV, the claimed 3-sigma margin against 20 ppm, and the 16 ppm systematic in the transmission spectrum are therefore one draw from an uncharacterized distribution over jitter phase, harmonic content, RMS envelope, and payload parameters. A concrete test would be to repeat the 128-realization analysis on at least one additional jitter realization and to randomize PRNU/IPRF parameters; until then, the abstract's 'fully compliant with mission requirements' should be qualified as holding for the representative realization studied here.
  2. [Sec. 2.3] The detrending parameters are tuned and evaluated on the same data. The IWCoG Gaussian width factor is 'empirically found to maximize the correlation between the moments and the signal' (Sec. 2.3), and the nuisance coefficients c_k in Eq. (2) are fitted to the same light curves whose residuals are scored in Sec. 3.1. The 128 independent noise realizations protect the random-noise component, but they do not protect against overfitting to the single jitter pattern, since all realizations share the same time-dependent moments. A cross-validation split (fitting nuisance parameters on one half of the timeline and evaluating ADEV on the other, or re-tuning the width factor on a separate jitter realization) would demonstrate that the de-jittering algorithm, rather than the tuning, is responsible for the reported performance.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The statement 'The equivalent uncertainty on the transmission spectrum is 15 ppm (random) and 16 ppm (systematic). The combined effect is below the required noise floor of the payload (20 ppm)' is arithmetically inconsistent if 'combined' is a quadrature sum, since sqrt(15^2+16^2) ≈ 22 ppm. If the intended meaning is that each component is separately below 20 ppm, that should be stated explicitly and the 'combined effect below 20 ppm' wording removed. This matters because the compliance conclusion in Sec. 3.2 and the abstract depends on this number.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 2] The abstract's claim that performance 'remains photon noise-limited across the entire Ariel spectrum' is not supported by the paper's own numbers: Fig. 3 shows a 15–30% excess over the jitter-free reference at 1 hr (11.8±2.7 ppm versus 9.0±1.9 ppm), and Sec. 3.2 reports a 65±5 ppm bias in Rp. In addition, the analysis covers only FGS-1 and AIRS-Ch0 (Sec. 2), not VISPhot, FGS-2, NIRSpec, or AIRS-Ch1, so 'across the entire Ariel spectrum' is an extrapolation. I recommend rewording the abstract to state that the algorithm reduces jitter noise close to the photon-noise reference for the two tested channels, with a residual excess and a bias that are small relative to requirements.
  5. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4] The exclusion of bad pixels, glitches, detector non-linearity, stellar activity, realistic stellar spectra, and limb darkening is asserted to have 'negligible impact on the reduction quality' (Sec. 2.1), and the same effects are deferred to future work in Sec. 4. Since the paper makes a mission-compliance claim, this assumption is load-bearing. At minimum, the authors should either demonstrate insensitivity to a subset of these effects (for example, by adding limb darkening and a realistic stellar spectrum) or explicitly delimit the compliance claim to the idealized setting of this preliminary study.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The text refers to 'Figure 3, yellow curve' when discussing residual correlations, but Fig. 3 contains no yellow series; the detrended curve is green and the white-noise expectation is gray.
  2. [Figs. 4–7] The wavelength axis labels read 'Wavelength [ m]' and should be 'Wavelength [µm]'.
  3. [Sec. 2.2] The aperture is first described as sized to contain 95% of the signal and then as optimized to empirically maximize SNR; these two criteria may not coincide, so the effective criterion should be clarified.
  4. [Software and Data Availability] The paper does not include a data or code availability statement; given that ExoSim2 and PAOS are public, a brief statement on the availability of simulation configurations would aid reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The claim that the 20 ppm requirement is achieved with 3-sigma confidence relies on 11.8+3×2.7 ≈ 19.9 ppm, which is a marginal margin; the paper should state this explicitly rather than implying a comfortable margin.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor in-sample fitting: nuisance coefficients and IWCoG width are tuned on the same simulated light curves, but a jitter-free reference and 128 noise realizations keep the central comparison grounded.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3 (Eq. 3 and IWCoG weighting); Section 3.1 (ADEV of detrended residuals)]
    "The observed photometric and spectroscopic light curves are then fit with the model of Equation 3. ... The free parameters are ck,Rp/Rs,a/Rs,i,t 0, with all other parameters fixed to their true values. ... The weighting function used is a Gaussian that is 2√2 wider than the best Gaussian fit to the PSF cross sections. This widening factor has been empirically found to maximize the correlation between the moments and the signal and can be adjusted in the future if needed."

    The headline detrended ADEV (11.8 ppm at 1 hr) and Rp bias (65±5 ppm) are measured from residuals of a model whose nuisance coefficients ck are fit to the same light curves (Eq. 2–3), so any component linearly correlated with the chosen moments is removed by construction. In addition, the IWCoG Gaussian width is empirically tuned to maximize moment-signal correlation on this same dataset, so the reported residuals are partly in-sample. The jitter-free reference and 128 independent noise realizations provide a control that prevents the result from being purely definitional, but the absolute compliance numbers are not out-of-sample predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an end-to-end simulation comparison, not a derivation whose output equals its input. The detrended ADEV and Rp bias are obtained after fitting the nuisance coefficients ck to the same light curves, which makes the absolute residuals partly in-sample; however, the jitter-free reference is processed with the same reduction, and the 128 independent noise realizations provide a genuine control, so the raw/detrended/reference comparison retains independent content. The IWCoG weighting width is a single scalar tuned on the same dataset, a mild in-sample optimization rather than a constructional identity. The single ADS jitter realization is an explicit generalization and robustness limitation, acknowledged by the authors, not a circular step. The self-citation [2] supporting stress-tests on worse jitter models is not load-bearing for the algorithm's mathematical content, and no equation reduces to its own input; no predicted quantity is simply a fitted parameter renamed. Overall circularity is therefore minor, not structural.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The performance and bias results depend on a proprietary single jitter realization, an empirically tuned weighting function, and a linear moment model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Detrending coefficients c0..c8 per spectral bin = Fitted per wavelength bin and per realization
    Nuisance parameters in Eq. (2); the core regression coefficients that absorb jitter.
  • Gaussian weighting function width factor (photometer) = 2*sqrt(2) times the best-fit PSF width
    Empirically found to maximize correlation between moments and signal; tuned on these simulations (Sec 2.3).
  • Gaussian weighting function width factor (spectrometer) = sqrt(2) times the best-fit PSF width
    Same empirical tuning as photometer, for cross-dispersion moment estimation (Sec 2.3).
  • Photometric aperture size = FGS-1: 95% enclosed signal ellipse; Ch0: 12x1 pixel rectangle
    Apertures optimized to empirically maximize SNR on the same simulated data (Sec 2.2).
  • Number of bright spectral bins for moment estimation = 5
    Hand-chosen subset with highest SNR to estimate jitter moments; a future weighted estimate is noted (Sec 2.3).
  • Mid-transit placement = Hour 5
    Empirically verified as worst case relative to the single jitter timeline (Sec 2.1).
  • Slow linear drift removal = 2 mas/hr removed before injection
    Removed because deterministic and expected to be small or absent; changes the jitter realization that is tested (Sec 2.1).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The ADS-provided jitter time series is a representative realization of Ariel pointing jitter, including non-stationary RMS, harmonic cryocooler lines, and friction jumps.
    All simulations share this single jitter timeline; representativeness is asserted, not demonstrated with multiple realizations (Sec 2.1, 2.4).
  • domain assumption The linear nuisance model f_lambda = c0 + sum ck Xk in Eq. (2) is adequate for the jitter amplitudes considered.
    Justified only by 'for sufficiently small jitter'; no validation against higher-order terms (Sec 2.3).
  • domain assumption Ariel focal planes are critically sampled so that Fourier sub-pixel registration introduces no artifacts and IPRF effects cancel under linear shifts.
    Basis for registration and for neglecting IPRF under jitter; stated in Sec 1 and Sec 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Unmodeled effects (bad pixels, glitches, detector non-linearity, stellar activity, realistic spectra, limb darkening) have negligible impact on the reduction-quality conclusions.
    Explicitly deferred to future work in Sec 4; the compliance claim depends on their negligibility within the current scope.
  • standard math 128 noise realizations sharing one jitter timeline are sufficient to estimate parameter uncertainties and noise statistics.
    Provides Monte Carlo uncertainties for random noise, but the systematic bias is estimated from a single jitter realization (Sec 2.4).
  • standard math The batman transit model with a flat transmission spectrum and no limb darkening correctly represents the injected astrophysical signal.
    Used both to generate and to fit the light curves; no limb darkening eases interpretation (Sec 2.1, 2.3).
  • domain assumption A Planck function at the star's effective temperature adequately approximates the stellar spectral irradiance.
    Stated in Sec 2.1 as a simplification for the bright HD 209458-like target.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of De-jittering Ariel: an optimized algorithm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6BJT2MP

@misc{pith2026250412907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: De-jittering Ariel: an optimized algorithm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6BJT2MP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12907}
}
read the original abstract

The European Space Agency's Ariel mission, scheduled for launch in 2029, aims to conduct the first large-scale survey of atmospheric spectra of transiting exoplanets. Ariel achieves the high photometric stability on transit timescales required to detect the spectroscopic signatures of chemical elements with a payload design optimized for transit photometry that either eliminates known systematics or allows for their removal during data processing without significantly degrading or biasing the detection. Jitter in the spacecraft's line of sight is a source of disturbance when measuring the spectra of exoplanet atmospheres. We describe an improved algorithm for de-jittering Ariel observations simulated in the time domain. We opt for an approach based on the spatial information on the Point Spread Function (PSF) distortion from jitter to detrend the optical signals. The jitter model is based on representative simulations from Airbus Defence and Space, the prime contractor for the Ariel service module. We investigate the precision and biases of the retrieved atmospheric spectra from the jitter-detrended observations. At long wavelengths, the photometric stability of the Ariel spectrometer is already dominated by photon noise. Our algorithm effectively de-jitters both photometric and spectroscopic data, ensuring that the performance remains photon noise-limited across the entire Ariel spectrum, fully compliant with mission requirements. This work contributes to the development of the data reduction pipeline for Ariel, aligning with its scientific goals, and may also benefit other astronomical telescopes and instrumentation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Experimental Astronomy 46(1), 135–209 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

    Tinetti, G., Drossart, P., Eccleston, P., al.: A chemical survey of exoplanets with ARIEL. Experimental Astronomy 46(1), 135–209 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

    doi:10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x 2018

  2. [2]

    arXiv e-prints, 2104–04824 (2021) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv

    Tinetti, G., Eccleston, P., Haswell, C., al.: Ariel: Enabling planetary science across light-years. arXiv e-prints, 2104–04824 (2021) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2104.04824 arXiv:2104.04824 [astro-ph.IM]

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.04824 2021

  3. [3]

    In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Perrin, M.D

    Pace, E., Tozzi, A., Abreu, M.A., al.: The telescope assembly of the Ariel space mission. In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Perrin, M.D. (eds.) Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 12180, p. 1218011 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1117/1...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629432 2022

  4. [4]

    In: Romaniuk, R.S., Linczuk, M

    Rataj, M., Wawer, P., Skup, K., al.: Design of fine guidance system (FGS) for ARIEL mission. In: Romaniuk, R.S., Linczuk, M. (eds.) Photonics Applications in Astronomy, Communications, Industry, and High-Energy Physics Experiments

    work page

  5. [5]

    In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Perrin, M.D

    Martignac, J., Amiaux, J., Berth´ e, M., al.: AIRS: ARIEL IR spectrometer status. In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Perrin, M.D. (eds.) Space Telescopes and Instru- mentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. Society of Photo-Optical 23 Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 12180, p. 1218012 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2628920

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2628920 2022

  6. [6]

    Experimen- tal Astronomy, 2501–12809 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-024-09976-2 arXiv:2501.12809 [astro-ph.IM]

    Mugnai, L.V., Bocchieri, A., Pascale, E., al.: ExoSim 2: the new Exo- planet Observation Simulator applied to the Ariel space mission. Experimen- tal Astronomy, 2501–12809 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-024-09976-2 arXiv:2501.12809 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    ExoSim: the Exoplanet Observation Simulator

    Sarkar, S., Pascale, E., Papageorgiou, A., al.: ExoSim: the Exoplanet Observation Simulator. Experimental Astronomy 51(2), 287–317 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10686-020-09690-9 arXiv:2002.03739 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Rauscher, B.J., Fox, O., Ferruit, P., al.: Detectors for the James Webb Space Telescope Near-Infrared Spectrograph. I. Readout Mode, Noise Model, and Cali- bration Considerations. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 119(857), 768–786 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1086/520887 arXiv:0706.2344 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Astrophys

    Charbonneau, D., Allen, L.E., Megeath, S.T., al.: Detection of Thermal Emission from an Extrasolar Planet. Astrophys. J. 626(1), 523–529 (2005) https://doi.org/ 10.1086/429991 arXiv:astro-ph/0503457 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Astrophys

    Charbonneau, D., Knutson, H.A., Barman, T., al.: The Broadband Infrared Emis- sion Spectrum of the Exoplanet HD 189733b. Astrophys. J. 686(2), 1341–1348 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1086/591635 arXiv:0802.0845 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Astro- phys

    Knutson, H.A., Charbonneau, D., Burrows, A., al.: Detection of A Temperature Inversion in the Broadband Infrared Emission Spectrum of TrES-4. Astro- phys. J. 691(1), 866–874 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/866 arXiv:0810.0021 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ballard, S., Charbonneau, D., Deming, D., al.: A Search for a Sub-Earth-Sized Companion to GJ 436 and a Novel Method to Calibrate Warm Spitzer IRAC Observations. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 122(897), 1341 (2010) https://doi.org/10. 1086/657159 arXiv:1009.0755 [astro-ph.EP]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Astrophys

    Stevenson, K.B., Harrington, J., Fortney, J.J., al.: Transit and Eclipse Analyses of the Exoplanet HD 149026b Using BLISS Mapping. Astrophys. J. 754(2), 136 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/136 arXiv:1108.2057 [astro- ph.EP]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gibson, N.P., Aigrain, S., Roberts, S., al.: A Gaussian process framework for modelling instrumental systematics: application to transmission spectroscopy. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 419(3), 2683–2694 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2011.19915.x arXiv:1109.3251 [ast...

    2012

  7. [15]

    Astrophys

    Deming, D., Knutson, H., Kammer, J., al.: Spitzer Secondary Eclipses of 24 the Dense, Modestly-irradiated, Giant Exoplanet HAT-P-20b Using Pixel- level Decorrelation. Astrophys. J. 805(2), 132 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/805/2/132 arXiv:1411.7404 [astro-ph.EP]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Astrophys

    Morello, G., Waldmann, I.P., Tinetti, G., al.: A New Look at Spitzer Pri- mary Transit Observations of the Exoplanet HD 189733b. Astrophys. J. 786(1), 22 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/22 arXiv:1403.2874 [astro- ph.EP]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Astrophys

    Morello, G., Waldmann, I.P., Tinetti, G., al.: Revisiting Spitzer Transit Observa- tions with Independent Component Analysis: New Results for the GJ 436 System. Astrophys. J. 802(2), 117 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/117 arXiv:1501.05866 [astro-ph.EP]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Nature 452(7185), 329–331 (2008) https://doi.org/10

    Swain, M.R., Vasisht, G., Tinetti, G.: The presence of methane in the atmosphere of an extrasolar planet. Nature 452(7185), 329–331 (2008) https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature06823

    2008

  11. [19]

    Schwartz, J.C., Cowan, N.B.: Knot a Bad Idea: Testing BLISS Map- ping for Spitzer Space Telescope Photometry. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 129(971), 014001 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/129/971/014001 arXiv:1607.01013 [astro-ph.EP]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ingalls, J.G., Krick, J.E., Carey, S.J., al.: Repeatability and Accuracy of Exo- planet Eclipse Depths Measured with Post-cryogenic Spitzer. Astron. J. 152(2), 44 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/44 arXiv:1601.05101 [astro- ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Barron, N., Borysow, M., Beyerlein, K., al.: Subpixel Response Measurement of Near-Infrared Detectors. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 119(854), 466–475 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1086/517620 arXiv:astro-ph/0611339 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Experimental Astronomy40(2- 3), 601–619 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-015-9471-0 arXiv:1406.3984 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pascale, E., Waldmann, I.P., MacTavish, C.J., al.: EChOSim: The Exoplanet Characterisation Observatory software simulator. Experimental Astronomy40(2- 3), 601–619 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-015-9471-0 arXiv:1406.3984 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Per- rin, M.D

    Bocchieri, A., Mugnai, L.V., Pascale, E.: PAOS: a fast, modern, and reliable Python package for physical optics studies. In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Per- rin, M.D. (eds.) Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. Society of Photo-Opt...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Kreidberg, L.: batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 127(957), 1161 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1086/683602 arXiv:1507.08285 [astro-ph.EP] 25

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Optics Letters 33(2), 156 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1364/ OL.33.000156

    Guizar-Sicairos, M., Thurman, S.T., Fienup, J.R.: Efficient subpixel image reg- istration algorithms. Optics Letters 33(2), 156 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1364/ OL.33.000156

    2008

  18. [26]

    Astrophys

    Mandel, K., Agol, E.: Analytic Light Curves for Planetary Transit Searches. Astrophys. J. Lett. 580(2), 171–175 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1086/345520 arXiv:astro-ph/0210099 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  19. [27]

    In: Korotkova, O

    Akondi, V., Roopashree, M.B., Budihala, R.P.: Improved iteratively weighted centroiding for accurate spot detection in laser guide star based Shack Hart- mann sensor. In: Korotkova, O. (ed.) Atmospheric and Oceanic Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves IV. Society of Photo-Opti...

    2010

  20. [28]

    Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 33(4), 434–443 (2013)

    Akondi, V., Vohnsen, B.: Myopic aberrations: impact of centroiding noise in h artmann s hack wavefront sensing. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 33(4), 434–443 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Allan, D.W.: Should the classical variance be used as a basic measure in standards metrology? IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation Measurement 36, 646–654 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.1987.6312761

    1987

  22. [30]

    Nature 585(7825), 357–362 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-020-2649-2 arXiv:2006.10256 [cs.MS]

    Harris, C.R., Millman, K.J., van der Walt, S.J., al.: Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585(7825), 357–362 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-020-2649-2 arXiv:2006.10256 [cs.MS]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Computing in Science and Engineering 9(3), 90–95 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    Hunter, J.D.: Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Computing in Science and Engineering 9(3), 90–95 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Zenodo (2023)

    Collette, A., Kluyver, T., Caswell, T.A., al.: h5py/h5py: 3.8.0-aarch64-wheels. Zenodo (2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.594310

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Zenodo (2024)

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., al.: scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.12.0. Zenodo (2024). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.595738

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Special Publica- tion (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (2008)

    Riley, W., Howe, D.: Handbook of Frequency Stability Analysis. Special Publica- tion (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (2008). https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get pdf.cfm?pub id=50505

    2008

  27. [35]

    Gyroscopy and Navigation 7, 1–17 (2016) https://doi.org/10

    Allan, D.: Historicity, strengths, and weaknesses of allan variances and their gen- eral applications. Gyroscopy and Navigation 7, 1–17 (2016) https://doi.org/10. 1134/S2075108716010028 26

    2016

  28. [2019]

    11176, p

    Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 11176, p. 111763 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2536800

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.