pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.12094 · v2 · pith:DOEHAQ6Anew · submitted 2026-01-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · astro-ph.HE

Uncovering the Next Galactic Supernova with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory

John Banovetz , Claire-Alice Hebert , Peter B. Denton , Dan Scolnic , Anze Slosar , Chris Walter This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 12:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE
keywords galactic supernovaVera C. Rubin Observatoryneutrino triggerlocalization efficiencystellar mass densitycore-collapse supernovaoptical counterpartmulti-messenger observation
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Vera C. Rubin Observatory can localize nearly all neutrino-triggered galactic supernovae and catch 57 to 97 percent of them.

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

The paper simulates how effectively the Vera C. Rubin Observatory can find the optical counterpart of a galactic supernova after receiving a neutrino alert. It shows the telescope is well suited for rapid initial localization of almost every observable event. This matters because core-collapse supernovae occur only once or twice per century in a galaxy like the Milky Way, yet the last one seen by humans happened nearly a thousand years ago. The simulations convert localization success into an overall catching probability of 57 to 97 percent, using models of where stars are concentrated in our galaxy, and also examine choices for filters and exposure times.

Core claim

Simulations of supernova events demonstrate that the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, thanks to its large etendue, is ideally positioned to rapidly localize the optical counterpart of nearly all observable neutrino triggers and thereby carries a 57-97 percent chance of catching any galactic supernova, with the range arising from theoretical stellar mass density predictions combined with historical observations.

What carries the argument

Monte Carlo simulations of supernova locations distributed according to stellar mass density maps, used to measure the fraction of events that can be localized and then caught in optical light.

If this is right

  • The observatory can deliver initial localization for nearly all observable supernova triggers received from neutrino detectors.
  • A 57-97 percent overall chance of catching the next galactic supernova follows directly from the localization results and the assumed stellar distribution.
  • Specific choices of optical filters and exposure times maximize the chance of recording the event once localized.
  • This strategy closes the observational gap that has existed since the last galactic supernova was seen almost one thousand years ago.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Real-time optical data starting minutes after the neutrino signal would let astronomers watch the shock breakout phase of a galactic supernova in detail for the first time.
  • The same simulation approach could be reused with updated stellar maps or with alerts from other neutrino experiments to tighten the catching probability.
  • Successful detection would supply a nearby, well-timed example that can test models of stellar evolution and supernova physics inside our own galaxy.
  • Combining Rubin data with neutrino and gravitational-wave signals would create a complete multi-messenger record of the next galactic event.

Load-bearing premise

The models of where massive stars are distributed in the Milky Way accurately represent reality, so that localization efficiency can be turned into a reliable overall catching probability.

What would settle it

A new, high-resolution map of massive star locations across the Milky Way that produces a catching probability clearly below 57 percent or above 97 percent when fed into the same localization simulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.12094 by Anze Slosar, Chris Walter, Claire-Alice Hebert, Dan Scolnic, John Banovetz, Peter B. Denton.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Probability distribution of the distance away from Earth for the TRILEGAL CCSN candidates. Bottom: Same as the panel above as a cumulative distribu￾tion. are detectable from CCSNe in the Magellanic Clouds— famously, in the case of 1987A, the neutrino detection was made in retrospect, after the electro-magnetic coun￾terpart was discovered (Hirata et al. 1987). At distances of 50 kpc and 62 kpc for the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: The distribution of TRILEGAL stars in a Molleview Celestial projection. Bottom: Same as the above figure but in galactic coordinates. Both of these show the visibility cutoff due to the location of Rubin. There are many factors that determine the specific CCSN type of a progenitor (see Gilkis et al. 2025, for review); only one of these, its zero-age main-sequence mass, is available in LSST TRILGAL for… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Probability distribution of events and their cor￾responding peak absolute LSST r-band magnitude for Type II CCSN SCOTCH Models. For our study, we focused on the SN-II Template model. ure 3), and all Type Ib/c will follow the SNIb-Templates model. To model these explosions in the Milky Way, we apply extinction to each explosion model based on the distance modulus and sky position provided by LSST TRILEGAL f… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The probability distribution of the peak (solid) and SBO (dashed) apparent magnitudes for all LSST TRILEGAL CCSN candidates with CCSN rates applied, using the SCOTCH SN-II and SN-Ib Template models used to represent Type-II and Type-I, respectively. et al. (2024) to trace the likelihood of candidates falling into the footprint of LSST [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distribution of values shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The results of placing a 100,000 CCSN at a random time of the year and random location in our subset of the LSST TRILEGAL catalog. Left: Fraction of stars that explode at night and are available to observe (Available right away). Right: Fraction of stars that explode during the day but are available at night (Available at Night). 1 Number of Stars 500 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Healpix map showing the distribution of the apparent magnitudes in r of the results from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of stars for which, with a random filter assignment, the SBO is visible. the filter we currently have in place to help determine the appropriate exposure time. The second mitigation is that we can simply dither while the tripped-off detec￾tor is recovering and then shortening the exposure time if the CCSN is unexpectedly bright. These mitigations should help lower the chance of tripping-off a dete… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Supernovae are observed to occur approximately 1-2 times per century in a galaxy like the Milky Way. Based on historical records, however, the last core-collapse galactic supernova observed by humans occurred almost 1,000 years ago. Luckily, we are well positioned to catch the next one with the advent of new neutrino detectors and astronomical observatories. Neutrino observatories can provide unprecedented triggers for a galactic supernova event as they are likely to see a supernova neutrino signal anywhere from minutes to days before the shock breakout causes the supernova to brighten in optical wavelengths. Given its large etendue, the Vera C. Rubin Observatory is ideally positioned to rapidly localize the optical counterpart based on the neutrino trigger. In this paper we simulate events to study the efficiency with which supernovae are optimally localized by the Vera C. Rubin Observatory. We find that the observatory is ideal for initial localization of nearly all observable supernova triggers and has a 57-97% chance of catching any supernova based on theoretical stellar mass density predictions and observations. We provide an analysis of optimal filter selection and exposure times and discuss observational caveats.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates the efficiency with which the Vera C. Rubin Observatory can localize galactic supernovae following neutrino triggers. It reports that the observatory is ideal for initial localization of nearly all observable triggers and estimates a 57-97% overall catching probability obtained by weighting the localization efficiency by supernova occurrence density derived from theoretical stellar mass maps and historical observations. The work also examines optimal filter choices and exposure times along with observational caveats.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides timely, practical guidance for rapid optical follow-up of the next galactic supernova, an event expected once or twice per century but not observed in nearly 1000 years. The simulation framework and concrete recommendations on filters and exposures are useful for observatory planning. The integration of localization efficiency with external density models is a reasonable approach, though the resulting broad probability range underscores the importance of validating those inputs.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and results section: the 57-97% catching probability is obtained by weighting the simulated localization efficiency (near 100% for observable triggers) by the supernova occurrence density derived from theoretical stellar mass maps plus historical observations. This integration step is load-bearing; any systematic offset in the radial or vertical distribution (e.g., under-weighting the inner disk or bulge) would directly rescale the final percentage. No quantitative sensitivity test or cross-check against alternative density models is presented.
  2. Methods section: the abstract and summary report simulation results and a percentage range, but the description of how stellar density models were incorporated, how error propagation was performed, and whether post-hoc choices were made is insufficient to verify the central efficiency claim from the provided text.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions: several figures showing localization efficiency versus exposure time or filter would benefit from explicit labels indicating which curves correspond to different supernova types or distances.
  2. Notation: the definition of 'observable triggers' should be stated explicitly in the main text rather than only in a footnote or appendix.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and results section: the 57-97% catching probability is obtained by weighting the simulated localization efficiency (near 100% for observable triggers) by the supernova occurrence density derived from theoretical stellar mass maps plus historical observations. This integration step is load-bearing; any systematic offset in the radial or vertical distribution (e.g., under-weighting the inner disk or bulge) would directly rescale the final percentage. No quantitative sensitivity test or cross-check against alternative density models is presented.

    Authors: We agree that the integration with stellar density models is central to the reported 57-97% range and that explicit sensitivity tests would strengthen the result. The presented range already reflects variation across theoretical stellar mass maps and historical observations, but we will add a dedicated quantitative sensitivity analysis using alternative density models (e.g., different radial and vertical profiles) to the revised manuscript to demonstrate the impact on the final probability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Methods section: the abstract and summary report simulation results and a percentage range, but the description of how stellar density models were incorporated, how error propagation was performed, and whether post-hoc choices were made is insufficient to verify the central efficiency claim from the provided text.

    Authors: We acknowledge that additional detail in the Methods section would improve reproducibility and verifiability. The manuscript describes the simulation framework and the use of stellar mass density predictions, but we will expand this section in the revision to include a step-by-step account of how the density models were incorporated into the weighting, the specific error propagation methods employed, and any post-hoc choices or assumptions made during the analysis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: 57-97% probability integrates external stellar mass density maps

full rationale

The paper simulates localization efficiency for neutrino-triggered supernovae with Rubin Observatory and reports near-100% efficiency for observable triggers. The headline 57-97% catching probability is produced by weighting that efficiency by an external supernova rate density taken from theoretical stellar mass maps plus historical observations. This integration step uses independent inputs rather than fitting parameters to the simulation outputs or re-deriving the density from the paper's own results. No equations reduce to self-definition, no fitted inputs are relabeled as predictions, and no self-citation chain carries the central claim. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external stellar mass density models and the assumption that neutrino triggers provide accurate enough sky positions for rapid follow-up; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Theoretical stellar mass density predictions accurately represent the distribution of potential supernova progenitors in the Milky Way
    Used to convert localization success into overall catching probability

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5745 in / 1278 out tokens · 41364 ms · 2026-05-22T12:41:34.487097+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2017, Journal of Instrumentation, 12, P03012, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/P03012

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012 2017

  2. [2]

    Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics,

    Abi, B., Acciarri, R., Acero, M. A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.03005, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2002.03005

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.03005 2020

  3. [3]

    M., Kochanek, C

    Adams, S. M., Kochanek, C. S., Beacom, J. F., Vagins, M. R., & Stanek, K. Z. 2013, ApJ, 778, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/164 Al Kharusi, S., BenZvi, S. Y., Bobowski, J. S., et al. 2021, New Journal of Physics, 23, 031201, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/abde33

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/164 2013

  4. [4]

    D., Malanchev, K., Sharief, S., et al

    Aleo, P. D., Malanchev, K., Sharief, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbfba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbfba 2023

  5. [5]

    2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 030401, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401

    An, F., An, G., An, Q., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 030401, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401 2016

  6. [6]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04793, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04793

    Andreoni, I., Margutti, R., Banovetz, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04793, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04793

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.04793 2024

  7. [7]

    2024, Universe, 10, 148, doi: 10.3390/universe10030148

    Boccioli, L., & Roberti, L. 2024, Universe, 10, 148, doi: 10.3390/universe10030148

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10030148 2024

  8. [8]

    Burbidge, G.R

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.29.547 1957

  9. [9]

    K., Borkowski, K

    Carlton, A. K., Borkowski, K. J., Reynolds, S. P., et al. 2011, ApJL, 737, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L22

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/l22 2011

  10. [10]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 1274, doi: 10.1086/321401

    Chabrier, G. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1274, doi: 10.1086/321401

    work page doi:10.1086/321401 2001

  11. [11]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f8 Dal Tio, P., Pastorelli, G., Mazzi, A., et al

    Choi, L., Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, ApJ, 975, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f8 Dal Tio, P., Pastorelli, G., Mazzi, A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7be6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad74f8 2024

  12. [12]

    C., & Jiang et al., F

    Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., & Jiang et al., F. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1919 2019

  13. [13]

    Science , keywords =

    Drout, M. R., G¨ otberg, Y., Ludwig, B. A., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1287, doi: 10.1126/science.ade4970

    work page doi:10.1126/science.ade4970 2023

  14. [14]

    2003, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 501, 418, doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X

    Fukuda, S., Fukuda, Y., Hayakawa, T., et al. 2003, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 501, 418, doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)00425-x 2003

  15. [15]

    M., Tucker, B

    Garnavich, P. M., Tucker, B. E., Rest, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 23, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/23

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/23 2016

  16. [16]

    Gilkis, A., Laplace, E., Arcavi, I., Shenar, T., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf884

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf884 2025

  17. [17]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 895, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042352

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042352 2005

  18. [18]

    Girardi, L., Barbieri, M., Groenewegen, M. A. T., et al. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 26, Red Giants as Probes of the Structure and Evolution of the Milky Way, ed. A. Miglio, J. Montalb´ an, & A. Noels, 165, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-18418-5 17

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18418-5 2012

  19. [19]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00695 2018

  20. [20]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae738

    Healy, S., Horiuchi, S., Colomer Molla, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae738

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae738 2024

  21. [21]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report

    Hirata, K., Kajita, T., Koshiba, M., et al. 1987, PhRvL, 58, 1490, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1490 Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration, :, Abe, K., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.04163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1805.04163 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.58.1490 1987

  22. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d8e

    Kashiwagi, Y., Abe, K., Bronner, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d8e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d8e 2024

  23. [23]

    D., Haxton, W

    Kistler, M. D., Haxton, W. C., & Y¨ uksel, H. 2013, ApJ, 778, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/81 2013

  24. [24]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 482, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0793-0 11

    Kroupa, P., & Jerabkova, T. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 482, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0793-0 11

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0793-0 2019

  25. [25]

    M., van der Hucht K

    Li, W., Chornock, R., Leaman, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x 2011

  26. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad302

    Lokken, M., Gagliano, A., Narayan, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad302

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad302 2023

  27. [27]

    N., Abe, K., Hayato, Y., et al

    Machado, L. N., Abe, K., Hayato, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f9c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f9c 2022

  28. [28]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77 2017

  29. [29]

    Mayall, N. U. 1939, Leaflet of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 3, 145 M¨ uller, B. 2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, 253, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023434 M¨ uller, B., Tauris, T. M., Heger, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz216

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023434 1939

  30. [30]

    G., Janka, H.-T., & Fiorillo, D

    Raffelt, G. G., Janka, H.-T., & Fiorillo, D. F. G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.16306, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.16306

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16306 2025

  31. [31]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Roodman, A., Rasmussen, A., Bradshaw, A., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Motohara, & J

    Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 130961S, doi: 10.1117/12.3019698

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3019698

  33. [33]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  34. [34]

    Schlegel, D.P

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  35. [35]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 2009

  36. [36]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/38 2016

  37. [37]

    R., Fesen, R

    Thorstensen, J. R., Fesen, R. A., & van den Bergh, S. 2001, AJ, 122, 297, doi: 10.1086/321138

    work page doi:10.1086/321138 2001

  38. [38]

    LSST Target of Opportunity proposal for locating a core collapse supernova in our galaxy triggered by a neutrino supernova alert

    Walter, C. W., Scolnic, D. M., & Slosar, A. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.01599, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1901.01599

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.01599 2019

  39. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25915, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25915

    Wang, B., Liu, D., Guo, Y., & Han, Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25915, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25915

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.25915 2025

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935854 12 APPENDIX For calculating the magnitude limits for saturation and 5σdetections of the different bands, we utilizing equations from a recent LSST technote: https://smtn-002.lsst.io/. For the saturation limits, we use Equation 41, Cb = 5,455 g 100.4(25−m...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935854 2019