Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Optical Counterparts to X-ray sources in LSST DP1

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim is that a five-catalog X-ray sample crossmatched to Rubin's first Data Preview yields reliable optical counterparts for a majority of X-ray sources, with 1295 of 2136 E-CDF-S Object matches above 90% reliability.

desk verdict Useful first-look X-ray/optical crossmatch against LSST DP1 with standard methods and honest caveats; the circular convex-hull footprint inflates the headline match fractions, but the catalog and the E-CDF-S reliability results hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14400 v2 pith:QTECQ5WG submitted 2025-07-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Yuankun (David) Wang , Eric C. Bellm , Robert I. Hynes , Yue Zhao , Poshak Gandhi , Liliana Rivera Sandoval , Sandro Campos , Neven Caplar
show 3 more authors
Melissa DeLucchi Konstantin Malanchev Tobin M. Wainer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords X-raysourceidentificationopticalcounterpartscrossmatchLSSTDataPreview1reliabilitychancecoincidenceStetsonJvariabilityactivegalacticnuclei
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

This paper attempts to establish that the first science-grade data from the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, the LSST Data Preview 1 (DP1), can already produce reliable optical identifications for X-ray sources, and to test whether time-domain variability strengthens those identifications. The authors combine five X-ray catalogs (Chandra, XMM-Newton slew and serendipitous, Swift, eROSITA) over six DP1 fields, match 2314 of 3830 X-ray sources to deep coadd Objects, and raise the tally to 2566 (about 67%) by adding Objects detected only on difference images. The reliability of the matches, computed from local background density and source-counterpart separation, is high in the deep E-CDF-S field (1295 of 2136 Object matches above 90%) and lower in the other fields, with the two crowded stellar fields requiring the difference-image catalog. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first demonstration that the LSST data products, before the main survey begins, can support a core multiwavelength science task, and it defines what the full-survey crossmatch will have to overcome.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a chance-coincidence reliability estimator applied to the closest DP1 Object inside each X-ray source's 95% error circle: the expected number of background objects within that separation is $Y = \pi d^2 N$, with $N$ the local source density measured in an annulus between the $4\sigma$ and $8\sigma$ error radii, and reliability is $\Pr(0,Y) = e^{-Y}$. Around this estimator the paper builds a pipeline: five X-ray catalogs are de-duplicated by 95% error-circle overlap, the surviving sources are crossmatched with the lsdb hierarchical tiling tool to the DP1 Object table (up to ten candidates within $15''$), and a second crossmatch to the difference-image DiaObject table recovers counterparts in crowded fields where coadd deblending fails. The same machinery, with a matched control sample offset by $30''$ in declination, provides the field-object comparison used for the Stetson $J$ variability analysis, defined via visit-level forced photometry as $J = N^{-1}\sum_i \mathrm{sgn}(P_i)\sqrt{|P_i|}$ with $P_i = \delta_i^2 - 1$.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of the 1344 matches labeled at least 90% reliable and check each against an independent high-resolution catalog (for example HST imaging in the 47 Tuc and Fornax dSph fields, or spectroscopic identifications in E-CDF-S). If the fraction of true counterparts in that sample is statistically below 90%, the completeness assumption behind the reliability estimator is refuted; the paper's own caution about crowded fields predicts that the fraction will be lower there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a crossmatch of a de-duplicated, five-catalog X-ray sample to LSST DP1 yields a reliable optical counterpart for most X-ray sources, with performance governed by X-ray positional accuracy and local optical density. In the paper's own accounting, 2314 of 3830 in-footprint X-ray sources have at least one Object within their 95% error radius, and 2566 have either an Object or a DiaObject match; the E-CDF-S field contributes 1295 high-reliability (≥90%) Object matches out of 2136, while EDF-S and the two science-validation fields reach only 21–25% high-reliability fractions. Most counterparts are fainter than the limits of Gaia, SDSS, and PanSTARRS, many known matches are active galaxies, and no strong new compact-object candidates are found in the X-ray-to-optical flux-ratio versus color diagram. The Stetson J variability index shows no correlation with match reliability and at most weak evidence that X-ray counterparts are more variable than field objects over the seconds-to-days timescales sampled by DP1.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the DP1 Object catalog is complete enough that counting nearby objects measures the true background density; the paper itself warns that where completeness fails, in crowded fields like 47 Tuc and Fornax dSph, the reported reliabilities are falsely high.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Applying the same procedure to the full LSST survey should identify optical counterparts for most of the roughly one million cataloged X-ray sources, since DP1 already recovers counterparts fainter than the Gaia, SDSS, and PanSTARRS detection limits (78%, 45%, and 27% of matches, respectively).
  • Difference-image detections are indispensable in dense fields: including DiaObjects raises the matched fraction in 47 Tuc and Fornax dSph from 19 and 32 sources to 101 and 91, respectively.
  • The E-CDF-S validation against the prior deep-field catalog of Luo et al. (2017) recovers 777 of 1055 X-ray sources within $2\sigma$, showing that the DP1-based crossmatch can reproduce and extend earlier high-quality identifications.
  • The null variability result implies that short-timescale ($\sim$seconds to days) Stetson $J$ will not be a useful counterpart discriminator in LSST commissioning data; the longer variability timescales probed by the full survey remain the open test.
  • The 1344 high-reliability matches, together with 1264 X-ray sources with no optical detection, form a compact target list for follow-up classification of active galaxies and for searches for accreting compact objects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension the paper leaves implicit is to use the high-reliability E-CDF-S subset as a supervised training set for probabilistic cross-identification models on the eROSITA all-sky catalog, since the paper notes such models require unambiguous matches to derive their photometric priors.
  • An injected-source experiment—planting synthetic X-ray sources with known optical counterparts and checking recovery—would calibrate exactly how much the completeness assumption inflates reliabilities in crowded fields, which the paper's caution identifies as the main systematic.
  • The variability null result is consistent with a timescale mismatch rather than the absence of a physical effect; re-running the Stetson $J$ analysis on the multi-year light curves of the full survey, or on AGN with known long timescales, could still confirm the hypothesis that X-ray counterparts are optically variable.
  • The authors' suggestion that future machine-learning crossmatchers need the local magnitude and sky-density distributions as a function of position implies a survey-strategy consequence: the full LSST footprint, with its wide range of stellar densities, is precisely the dataset needed to train such models, not just to apply them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper crossmatches a combined catalog of X-ray sources from five X-ray surveys (CSC2.1, 4XMMDR14, XMMSL3, 2SXPS, eRASS1) to the LSST Data Preview 1 (DP1) Object and DiaObject catalogs in six fields. The authors compute a geometric chance-coincidence reliability for each Object match, compare their E-CDF-S results to Luo et al. (2017), calculate a Stetson J variability index, and use X-ray-to-optical flux ratios and Gaia-transformed colors to search for compact-object candidates. They report 2314 of 3830 X-ray sources with Object matches, 2566 of 3830 with an Object or DiaObject match, and 1344 matches with reliability at or above 90%, with the majority of these in E-CDF-S. The paper includes public code for the crossmatch and identifies several limitations of the DP1 data in crowded fields.

Significance. If the central numbers are robust, this is one of the first systematic X-ray-to-optical association exercises on LSST DP1 and provides a useful template for LSST-era crossmatching. The authors combine five public X-ray catalogs, use the LSDB framework, release their code, and are appropriately cautious about Object completeness in crowded fields. The comparison to Luo et al. (2017) and the use of a transformed Gaia color cut to place the Rodriguez (2024) X-ray Main Sequence are useful contributions. However, the headline matched fractions and the high-reliability subset depend on a convex-hull footprint approximation and on assumptions about background-density measurement that are currently not validated; these issues must be addressed before the catalog can be considered a reliable community resource.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3] The DP1 observed footprint is defined as the convex hull of all matched Objects, and 651 X-ray sources outside that hull are then discarded as not observed. This is circular: the hull is constructed from the matches themselves, so any region in which no X-ray source has an Object match (for example, field outskirts or low-density gaps) is automatically excluded from the 'observed footprint.' The paper does not validate the hull against the actual DP1 coverage masks, even though the skymap-based tract/patch selection of Section 2.1 is available. Because the final denominator of 3830 sources directly controls the headline fractions (2314/3830 and 2566/3830) and the high-reliability subset, the convex-hull choice is load-bearing. The authors should recompute the footprint using the actual DP1 coverage (union of tracts/patches or exposure masks) and re-derive the sample sizes and matched fractions; until then, the reported matched fraction should be regarded as an upper limit.
  2. [Section 2.4 (Eqs. 1-2)] The local background density N is measured by counting Objects in an annulus with inner radius 4σ and outer radius 8σ around each counterpart, with no correction for portions of the annulus that fall outside the observed footprint or in coverage gaps. Near field edges, or near the non-convex boundaries of the true footprint, the effective area of the annulus is smaller than the nominal area, so the expected number of background sources Y is underestimated and the reliability e^{-Y} is overestimated. This boundary bias is distinct from, and additional to, the crowded-field Object-completeness caveat acknowledged in Section 3.2. I recommend masking the annulus with the actual coverage map, or restricting the reliability calculation to sources whose annuli are fully contained in the footprint, and reporting how many matches are affected.
  3. [Sections 3.2, 4.4, and 5] The statement in Section 5 that '2566 out of 3830, or roughly 67% of our X-ray sources have a match in one of the DP1 catalogs' includes 252 sources matched only in the DiaObject catalog, for which no reliability is computed. The reliability framework of Section 2.4 applies only to the 2314 Object matches, and among those only 1344 reach the ≥90% threshold. The text should therefore distinguish 'has a candidate optical counterpart' from 'has a reliable optical counterpart,' and the DiaObject-only subset should be either assigned a reliability or explicitly flagged as unvetted. As written, the emphasis on the majority of X-ray sources being identified overstates what the reliability analysis actually supports.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The low-ecliptic-latitude field is called 'SV_37_7' in the text of Section 2.2 but 'SV_38_7' in the abstract, Figure 2, and Table 3; please harmonize the field name throughout.
  2. [Section 3.1] The breakdown of matches by field and instrument is said to be 'given in Table 3,' but Table 3 lists visit counts by filter; the match breakdown is actually in Table 4. Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Section 2.5 (Eq. 5)] The Stetson J index defined in Eq. (5) uses single-band residuals, which is an adaptation of the usual Stetson index that pairs observations across epochs or bands. Please state explicitly that this is a single-band variant so that readers do not compare the values directly with standard multi-band Stetson J measurements.
  4. [Section 2.4] The 'reliability' computed in Eq. (2) is a geometric chance-coincidence probability, not the posterior probability that the Object is the correct counterpart; the text should explicitly state that no photometric or color priors enter the calculation.
  5. [Section 4.1] In the comparison with Luo et al. (2017), it would be helpful to state explicitly whether the quoted 2σ and 3σ radii are those of Luo et al. or those derived from the combined catalog used here, since the matching criteria differ between the catalogs.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Convex-hull footprint selection defines the DP1 sample using the matches, so the headline matched fraction is partly built from its own outcome.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3, crossmatch to Object table, footprint definition (paragraph beginning 'To further eliminate these sources')]
    "To further eliminate these sources, we find the convex hull of all matches in a field. We then assume that sources interior to the convex hull were observed as a part of DP1 and are therefore optical nondetections. This eliminates 651 of the X-ray sources and leaves us with a final total of 3830 X-ray sources in the footprint of DP1."

    The 'DP1 footprint' is defined as the convex hull of the matched Objects, i.e., of the very associations whose success rate the paper later reports (2314/3830 in the abstract; 2566/3830 in Section 5). By construction every matched X-ray source lies inside the hull, while X-ray sources outside the hull are discarded as 'not in the observed footprint' without checking the actual DP1 coverage masks. The denominator 3830 is therefore a function of the match list, not an independent measure of the observed population; unmatched sources in field outskirts or low-density regions are preferentially excluded, so the reported matched fraction is biased upward by construction. The paper does not validate the hull against the true coverage and does not list this selection among the limitations.

full rationale

The main catalog construction and reliability estimates are otherwise independent: the reliability calculation (Eqs. 1-2) uses the standard background-density method, the color cut is imported from external works (Rodriguez 2024; Gwyn 2024), and the E-CDF-S comparison against Luo et al. (2017) provides an external benchmark. The self-citations (Caplar et al. 2025 for lsdb; Malanchev et al. 2025; Wainer et al. 2025) are tooling or supporting context, not load-bearing derivations. The one genuine construction issue is the convex-hull footprint: because the hull is computed from the matched Objects, the denominator of the reported match fractions is not independent of the matches. This affects the aggregate statistics but does not invalidate the per-object reliability estimates or the value-added catalog, so the paper retains substantial independent content. Score 4 reflects a partial, self-definitional circularity rather than a fully forced result.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters fitted to data and no invented physical entities. The analysis relies on standard statistical methods plus a few domain assumptions, most notably Object completeness and the convex-hull footprint proxy, both of which are at least partially flagged by the authors. The psfFlux-as-optical-flux assumption is not flagged and affects the interpretation of the X-ray-to-optical flux ratio plots.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian positional errors for all five X-ray catalogs, allowing scaling from 68% to 95% error radii with factor 1.96.
    Section 2.1: "Then, assuming Gaussian errors, we multiply to get the 95% error radius R95 = 1.96R1σ."
  • domain assumption The DP1 Object catalog is complete enough that local background densities are not underestimated.
    Section 3.2: "The calculation of the reliability depends on an accurate measurement of the background source number density. This in turn assumes that the Object catalog has high completeness..." The authors flag this as uncertain for crowded fields.
  • ad hoc to paper The convex hull of all matches in a field approximates the DP1 observed footprint.
    Section 2.3: "To further eliminate these sources, we find the convex hull of all matches in a field. We then assume that sources interior to the convex hull were observed as a part of DP1."
  • domain assumption psfFlux can be used as a proxy for optical flux when computing X-ray-to-optical flux ratios.
    Section 4.3 uses log(FX/Fr psfF lux) without specifying a zero-point conversion, implying the count ratio is treated as a physical flux ratio.
  • standard math The Stetson J index as defined in Eq. 5 is a valid variability measure for the sparse, unevenly sampled DP1 light curves.
    Stetson (1996) defines the index; the paper adapts it with the single-epoch definition Pi = δ_i^2 - 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical Counterparts to X-ray sources in LSST DP1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTECQ5WG

@misc{pith2026250714400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical Counterparts to X-ray sources in LSST DP1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTECQ5WG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14400}
}
abstract

We present a crossmatch between a combined catalog of X-ray sources and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1 (DP1) to identify optical counterparts. The six fields targeted as part of DP1 include the Extended Chandra Deep Field South (E-CDF-S), the Euclid Deep Field South (EDF-S), the Fornax Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy (Fornax dSph), 47 Tucanae (47 Tuc) and science validation fields with low galactic and ecliptic latitude (SV\_95\_-25 and SV\_38\_7, respectively). We find matches to 2314 of 3830 X-ray sources. We also compare our crossmatch to DP1 in the E-CDF-S field to previous efforts to identify optical counterparts. The probability of a chance coincidence match varies across each DP1 field, with overall high reliability in the E-CDF-S field, and lower proportion of high-reliability matches in the other fields. The majority of previously known sources that we detect are, unsurprisingly, active galaxies. We plot the X-ray-to-optical flux ratio against optical magnitude and color in an effort to identify Galactic accreting compact objects using a {\em Gaia} color threshold transformed to LSST $g$--$i$, but do not find any strong candidates in these primarily extragalactic counterparts. The DP1 dataset contains high-cadence photometry collected over a number of nights. We calculate the Stetson \( J \) variability index for each object under the hypothesis that X-ray counterparts tend to exhibit higher optical variability; however, the evidence is inconclusive whether our sample is more variable over DP1 timescales when compared to field objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14400 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histogram of R95 positional errors of all X-ray sources in DP1 observed fields by catalog. pipeline-processed visit images, visit-level source cata￾logs, co-added images with object catalogs, forced source catalogs, difference images and difference image analysis (DIA) catalogs, and other Science Support Products de￾livered via the Rubin Science Platform for early-science testing. This preview allows the community t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of X-ray sources by X-ray catalog in each DP1 field. The majority of X-ray sources are found in the Extended Chandra Deep Field - South (E-CDF-S), which is well observed by X-ray telescopes. We then performed a 1.5 degree conesearch around the center of each of the 6 DP1 fields we include in our crossmatch to isolate only the X-ray sources near these fields, yielding 10,307 sources. We then de-duplicated the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of all X-ray sources in the combined X-ray catalog. Matches to Objects are colored green. We also crossmatched diaObjects, which are detections based on difference images. X-ray sources only detected in the DiaObjectcatalog are plotted in blue and sources found in both catalogs are plotted in black. X-ray sources with no optical match in DP1 are plotted in red. Due to the crowdedness of the 47 T… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The magnitude distribution of the counts of candidate counterparts in each of the 6 fields, by band. Many of the crossmatched counterparts are fainter than the Gaia, PanSTARRS and SDSS limiting magnitudes. Only measurements where the SNR ≥ 5, where SNR = psfFlux/psfFlu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example lightcurve of one of our counterparts, the SU UMa type cataclysmic variable CRTS J033349.8- 282244, which was observed in outburst. This Object had the highest r-band Stetson J out of all of our high-reliability matches. 4.3. Plots in optical-X-ray parameter…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: There is no apparent association between the reliability of a crossmatch and the Stetson J index of the object. Conversely, the Stetson J appears to be systematically higher for brighter Objects. We use a symmetric logarithmic (symlog) scale for the y-axis. X-ray param…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: TOP: On the left, we plot the X-ray flux vs i-band magnitude, only for objects with matches to the Milliquas catalog. The solid grey line delineates log(FX/Fopt) = 0, and the dashed and dotted lines are at log flux ratios of ±1 and ±2 respectively. Most of the X-ray br…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2020, Vera C

    Blum, R., & the Rubin Operations Team. 2020, Vera C. Rubin Observatory Data Policy, Data Management Operations Controlled Document RDO-013, Vera C. Rubin Observatory. https://ls.st/RDO-013 Budav´ ari, T., & Basu, A. 2016, AJ, 152, 86 Budav´ ari, T., & Szalay, A. S. 2008, ApJ, 679, 301

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Belvedersky, M

    Bykov, S. D., Belvedersky, M. I., & Gilfanov, M. R. 2022, Astronomy Letters, 48, 653, doi: 10.1134/S1063773722110044

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773722110044 2022

  4. [4]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02103

    Caplar, N., Beebe, W., Branton, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02103

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.02103 2025

  5. [5]

    Choi, Y., Olsen, K. A. G., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.01343, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.01343

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.01343 2025

  6. [6]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Drake, A. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu639

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu639 2014

  7. [7]

    N., Evans, J

    Evans, I. N., Evans, J. D., Mart ´ ınez-Galarza, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319 2024

  8. [8]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7db9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7db9 2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 49, doi: 10.21105/astro.2308.01505 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Bechtol, K., Bellm, E., et al

    Guy, L. P., Bechtol, K., Bellm, E., et al. 2025, Rubin Observatory Plans for an Early Science Program, Technical Note RTN-011, Vera C. Rubin Observatory. https://rtn-011.lsst.io/

    2025

  4. [12]

    2024, Mapping Gaia magnitudes to LSST bands, LSST Community Forum

    Gwyn, S. 2024, Mapping Gaia magnitudes to LSST bands, LSST Community Forum. https://community.lsst.org/t/ mapping-gaia-magnitudes-to-lsst-bands/8927/2

    2024

  5. [13]

    B., & Rutledge, R

    Haakonsen, C. B., & Rutledge, R. E. 2009, ApJS, 184, 138

    2009

  6. [14]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2008, A&A, 490, 905, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809839

    Hasinger, G. 2008, A&A, 490, 905, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809839

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    F., Salnikov, A., et al

    Jenness, T., Bosch, J. F., Salnikov, A., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12189, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VII, 1218911, doi: 10.1117/12.2629569

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kaiser, N. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5489, Ground-based Telescopes, ed. J. M

    2004

  11. [19]

    Oschmann, Jr., 11–22, doi: 10.1117/12.552472

    doi

  12. [20]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 75, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx058

    Kato, T., Isogai, K., Hambsch, F.-J., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 75, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx058

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    N., Xue, Y

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y. Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/2

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.23955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23955

    Malanchev, K., DeLucchi, M., Caplar, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.23955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23955

    2025 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 14 NSF-DOE Vera C

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 14 NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. 2025a, The Vera C. Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1, doi: 10.71929/rubin/2570536 —. 2025b, Legacy Survey of Space and Time Data Preview 1: object...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Richter, G. A. 1975, Astronomische Nachrichten, 296, 65, doi: 10.1002/asna.19752960203

    1975 doi

  17. [25]

    Rodriguez, A. C. 2024, PASP, 136, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad357c Rubin Observatory Science Pipelines Developers. 2025, The LSST Science Pipelines Software: Optical Survey Pipeline Reduction and Analysis Environment, Project Science Technical Note PSTN-019, Vera C. Rubin...

    2024

  18. [26]

    E., Brunner, R

    Rutledge, R. E., Brunner, R. J., Prince, T. A., & Lonsdale, C. 2000, ApJS, 131, 335

    2000

  19. [27]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2651

    Salvato, M., Buchner, J., Budav´ ari, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2651

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Read, A

    Saxton, R. D., Read, A. M., Esquej, P., et al. 2008, A&A, 480, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079193

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 51

    Shi, X., Budav´ ari, T., & Basu, A. 2019, ApJ, 870, 51

    2019

  22. [30]

    Stetson, P. B. 1996, PASP, 108, 851, doi: 10.1086/133808

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    1992a, MNRAS, 259, 413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.3.413 —

    Sutherland, W., & Saunders, W. 1992a, MNRAS, 259, 413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.3.413 —. 1992b, MNRAS, 259, 413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.3.413 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Davenport, J

    Wainer, T. M., Davenport, J. R. A., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.03228, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.03228

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  27. [35]

    T., Jonker, P

    Wevers, T., Hodgkin, S. T., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 4530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw643

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.