Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

GOTO pipeline finds transients 7 minutes after shutter close

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

GOTO's difference-image pipeline and marshalling system consistently deliver candidate transients to the community roughly seven minutes after shutter close.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, credible description of a working 32-UT transient pipeline; the headline 7-minute latency is real for successful images but the paper never reports the failure-inclusive rate, which is an addressable omission rather than a fatal flaw. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.02330 v2 pith:G3C2SW7T submitted 2026-03-02 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.SR

The Gravitational-wave Optical Transient Observer (GOTO) data pipeline and workflow for transient discovery

J. D. Lyman , D. O'Neill , T. Killestein , D. Jarvis , A. Kumar , K. Ulaczyk , K. Ackley , P. Chote
show 40 more authors
M. J. Dyer M. Pursiainen D. Steeghs B. Godson M. Magee J. R. Mullaney B. Warwick S. Belkin D. K. Galloway G. Ramsay V. S. Dhillon P. O'Brien K. Noysena R. Kotak R. P. Breton L. K. Nuttall B. Gompertz D. Pollacco J. Casares D. L. Coppejans R. A. J. Eyles-Ferris O. Graur L. Kelsey M. R. Kennedy A. Levan S. Littlefair S. Mandhai D. Mata S\'anchez S. Mattila J. McCormac S. Moran C. Phillips K. Pu A. Sahu M. Shrestha E. Stanway R. L. C. Starling L. Vincetti E. Wickens K. Wiersema
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.SR
keywords time-domain astronomytransient surveysdata pipelinesdifference image analysisimage subtractionreal-bogus classificationrobotic telescopesgravitational-wave follow-up
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 describes and assesses the complete software and hardware chain that turns raw images from the 32-telescope GOTO array into vetted, community-reported transient discoveries. The authors claim that, for images that process successfully, the whole chain—readout, intercontinental transfer, calibration, stacking, image subtraction, candidate scoring, and database ingestion—typically completes about seven minutes after the shutter closes, with automatic requests for spectroscopic follow-up sent at a median of about eleven minutes after shutter close. This matters because infant supernovae, kilonovae, and counterparts to gravitational-wave events fade quickly, so a survey that can go from exposure to candidate in minutes opens a new observational window. The paper also demonstrates image quality sufficient for discovery—depths near 20th magnitude, astrometric residuals around a third of a pixel—and reports a steady stream of community-facing transient reports.

Core claim

The central claim is that GOTO's kadmilos pipeline together with the marshall workflow meets the project's requirement for prompt discovery, reporting, and characterisation of infant transients. The headline result is a timing distribution: for successfully processed images, the median duration from shutter close to transient-candidate detections stored in the database is about seven minutes, and the automated trigger system submits follow-up requests to an external robotic telescope at a median of about 10.7 minutes after shutter close. The paper supports this with engineering detail—real-time file transfer with retry logic, orchestration of a directed-acyclic-graph workflow with parallel w

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the low-latency chain that produces difference images: a deep historical template is aligned to each new stacked image using source-detection-based registration with higher-order spline corrections, then subtracted with a spatially varying kernel matching. Candidate detections from the subtracted image are vetted by forced photometry on the stacked image and its constituent exposures, and scored by a convolutional neural network whose raw output is modulated by how consistently the source appears across the individual exposures. Around this sits the marshall's automated vetting and trigger logic, which combines catalogue matches, light-curve constraints, and spa

Load-bearing premise

The headline seven-minute latency applies only to images that do not fail during processing, and the paper does not report the fraction of images that fail; if that fraction is non-negligible, the end-to-end discovery chain would be slower than claimed.

What would settle it

Examine the orchestration system's metadata over a fixed window (say one month) and compute the duration from shutter close to candidate ingestion for every exposure, including those whose workflow ended in 'failed'. If the median including failures exceeds about ten minutes, or if the failure fraction is more than a few percent, the operational claim would be misleading. A separate check: compare timestamps of community discovery reports with the shutter-close times of the corresponding GOTO images; if the gap is routinely dominated by human vetting delays (paper reports median ~52 minutes fo

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Rapid electromagnetic follow-up of gravitational-wave alerts becomes practical: the same night, poorly localised events can be tiled and candidates identified before they fade.
  • The demonstrated latency sets a practical benchmark for other wide-field arrays, showing that the bottleneck is largely data transfer and orchestration overhead, not image subtraction or scoring.
  • Automatic triggering of spectroscopy within about 11 minutes of shutter close enables routine classification of very young transients, which is rare in current surveys.
  • An automated vetting pipeline can keep human review manageable—roughly a hundred candidates per day—while maintaining a steady stream of community-reported discoveries.
  • The step-model correction for CCD column charge traps, developed for this pipeline, is a transferable technique for other cameras suffering similar charge-transfer defects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported '~7 minutes' is computed only over images that successfully completed processing; the paper does not give an end-to-end success fraction. If a substantial fraction of images fail (for calibration gaps, network errors, or software issues), the true operational latency of the discovery chain would be longer than the headline figure, since failed images yield no candidates.
  • A practical test of the headline would be to include all shutter-close events in the timing distribution, treating failures as censored or infinite-latency events, and to report the median including those. The paper's own figure suggests a small but long tail of multi-day delays from such failures.
  • The architecture separates the 'distill' pipeline (from raw pixels to scored candidates) from the 'decide' layer (marshall vetting and triggering), with humans as a final filter. This separation is likely the key to scaling to higher candidate rates, such as those expected from next-generation surveys.
  • If the 7-minute latency holds in triggered mode, then GOTO could, in principle, cover gravitational-wave localisations with multiple tiles and still identify counterparts within the first hour—provided the external alert is received quickly and the scheduler prioritises the right tiles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents the GOTO transient-discovery data-processing workflow, from raw data transfer to TNS reporting and automated follow-up triggering. It details the kadmilos pipeline (Airflow-orchestrated CCD reduction, super-calibration, column-trap correction, single/set image generation, difference imaging with HOTPANTS, real-bogus scoring), the marshall system for candidate ingestion, automatic and manual vetting, forced photometry, external-trigger cross-matching, and the GOAT auto-trigger. The central quantitative claims are that the processing chain is typically complete ~7 min after shutter close (Fig. 12) and that GOAT submits LT follow-up observations ~11 min after shutter close (Fig. 17); the paper further claims the workflow meets GOTO's prompt-discovery needs (§5.8, §6).

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a valuable, detailed reference for a complete low-latency transient discovery system. Its strengths include extensive operational statistics (13M DAG runs, TNS reporting rates, astrometric residual maps, depth distributions), honest discussion of engineering trade-offs (e.g., Airflow's suitability), and a public static copy of the code. The threshold choices are openly stated as practical calibrations rather than derived quantities. The main result—~7-minute latency from shutter close to candidate—is credible but needs to be placed on a well-defined end-to-end statistical footing.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.8, Fig. 12, Abstract] The headline 'typically complete ~7 minutes after shutter close' is computed from Airflow DAG timings that, as the text states, 'do not include those images which failed processing for any reason.' The paper also reports a tail reaching many days or weeks. An end-to-end success fraction (e.g., fraction of raw exposures that reach a stored candidate table without manual intervention/reprocessing) is never given. Without it, the 7-minute figure overstates the operational promptness, because failed exposures produce no candidates and require human action. Please add either (a) the success/failure fraction with a latency distribution over all attempted exposures, or (b) a clear redefinition of the headline as conditional on successful processing, with failure statistics reported alongside. This is needed to support the abstract and §6 claims that the workflow 'is meeting the needs' of prompt
  2. [§5.6.1, Fig. 17] The GOAT auto-trigger latency distribution (P50≈10.7 min from shutter close to LT API) is presumably only for candidates that actually triggered follow-up. The paper does not report at what rate candidates passed versus failed the GOAT checks, nor the latency for candidates that ultimately did not trigger. The 11-minute figure therefore does not represent the end-to-end decision latency for the candidate stream. Please state the conditioning (successful triggers only) and, if possible, give the trigger-acceptance rate and the latency for all candidates reaching the GOAT stage.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'ATLAF-REFCAT2' should be 'ATLAS-REFCAT2'.
  2. [§5.3.2] 'O(10^3.5)' is unconventional; state e.g. 'about 3000 candidates per night'.
  3. [§5.7] 'Killestein and Kelsey et al. 2024' is awkward; use the standard citation format.
  4. [§4.8, Fig. 12] Give sample sizes (N) and numerical median/P95 values for the 'all' distribution in the text or figure, since 'typically' is not quantified.
  5. [§4.6.1] In Eq. (5), clarify that T_i is the relative transparency derived from the zeropoint, and specify the reference 'best' image convention.
  6. [§4.4.3] The thresholds in Eqs. (1) and (2) are set empirically; a brief statement on how sensitive the final column-trap map is to these choices (or an explicit note that they are fixed operationally) would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the pipeline's performance claims are empirical measurements, and the one flagged limitation (exclusion of failed images) affects completeness, not derivation.

full rationale

This is a systems/operations paper, not a derivation. The headline latency ('typically complete ~7 minutes after shutter close') is read directly from Airflow DAG run timings (Sec 4.8, Fig. 12), not from a fitted model or from a quantity defined in terms of the claim. The real-bogus classifier (Killestein et al. 2021) and other internal tools are cited as software inputs, not as evidence for the central claim; the paper independently validates the workflow with 13M DAG runs, TNS report counts, GOAT trigger latencies, and recovered GRB afterglows. Threshold choices (real-bogus >0.7/>0.4, weight <0.6 exclusion, calibration cuts) are openly stated operational decisions, not predictions. The one notable caveat—Sec 4.8 explicitly states the timing distributions 'do not include those images which failed processing for any reason'—is a limitation on an empirical statistic, not a circular step; it means the 'typically ~7 min' figure is conditional on successful processing, but it does not make the claim reduce to its inputs. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via self-citation, and no renaming of known results occurs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the marshall, source lists, and GOAT are software constructs. The free parameters are engineering thresholds that directly control candidate quality, calibration validity, and image depth, and the axioms are standard-but-unproven observational and algorithmic assumptions the pipeline depends on.

free parameters (4)
  • Real-bogus score threshold (survey / follow-up) = 0.7 / 0.4
    Section 5.2: sky-survey detections require RB>0.7, event follow-up >0.4. These thresholds set candidate-stream purity/completeness and are chosen by hand, not derived; the claimed discovery throughput depends on them.
  • Set-combination weight cutoff = w < 0.6 excluded
    Section 4.6.1: images with relative weight <0.6 are excluded from stacking because they are typically compromised. This hand-set threshold affects image depth and hence the 5-sigma ~20 mag depth claim.
  • Minimum calibration sources = 100
    Section 4.5.5: 'A minimum of 100 sources are required to be used in the calibration steps.' If fewer than 100 sources pass cuts, calibration is not performed, so the prompt transient recovery pipeline stalls; the threshold is empirical.
  • Photometric calibration selection cuts = g-r in [0,1.3], 11.5<mg<20.5, r>7.5 arcsec, chi2/DOF<9, mu<100 mas/yr
    Section 4.5.5 and Fig. 7: these hand-tuned cuts define the calibration source population; the per-image RBF calibration and therefore photometric quality of candidates depend on them.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Standard CCD calibration (bias/dark/flat subtraction and division) is sufficient to remove instrumental signatures.
    Sections 4.4.2/4.4.4. The pipeline assumes the supercalibration frames and column-trap correction render science frames photometrically and astrometrically usable. This is standard practice but not proven for every GOTO UT.
  • domain assumption HOTPANTS/PSF-matching difference imaging provides a faithful subtraction where positive residuals correspond to astrophysical transients or known artefacts.
    Section 4.7.1. The discovery workflow presupposes that a spatially-varying kernel can match template PSF to science PSF across the wide field; any failure produces bogus candidates that must be filtered downstream.
  • domain assumption The algorithmically-trained real-bogus CNN generalizes from synthetic/inserted transients to real GOTO data under all conditions.
    Section 4.7.2. Candidate ingestion and auto-vetting depend on this classifier; if its calibration drifts, the 0.7/0.4 thresholds no longer deliver the claimed candidate stream.
  • domain assumption ATLAS-REFCAT2 sources with the stated quality cuts give an adequate photometric reference frame for the L-band filter.
    Section 4.5.5. The calibration uses g/r magnitudes plus a colour term to derive L-band zero-points; this assumes the L filter can be modelled as a linear combination of g and r for the selected stellar locus.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Gravitational-wave Optical Transient Observer (GOTO) data pipeline and workflow for transient discovery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G3C2SW7T

@misc{pith2026260302330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Gravitational-wave Optical Transient Observer (GOTO) data pipeline and workflow for transient discovery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G3C2SW7T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.02330}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Wide-field and high-cadence sky surveys are the first step in the chain of discovery and characterisation of astrophysical transients such as supernovae, kilonovae, and tidal disruption events, each linked to the varied demise of stellar systems. The Gravitational-wave Optical Transient Observer (GOTO) is a telescope array of thirty-two 40 cm unit telescopes split over two almost antipodal sites. It performs a regular time-domain sky-survey in the optical to ~20 mag in addition to immediate scheduling of follow-up observations at the locations of external multi-wavelength and -messenger triggers. To facilitate the timely recovery of optical counterparts to these triggers, as well as the presence of serendipitous discoveries of astrophysical transients in the regular sky-survey, a low-latency data pipeline and workflow was developed. The implementation of this workflow is described herein and the quality of GOTO data delivered by it assessed, alongside its performance for prompt transient recovery. Utilising difference image analysis to identify candidate discoveries, the process is typically complete ~7 minutes after shutter close on the telescope. We further describe later processing of these candidates -- both automated and human-in-the-loop -- including reporting to the wider community and the triggering of more detailed observations, with a focus on immediate, intra-night characterisation. The workflow is meeting the needs of GOTO to promptly discover, report and characterise infant transients. Nevertheless, areas for further development and improvements are also highlighted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02330 by A. Kumar, A. Levan, A. Sahu, B. Godson, B. Gompertz, B. Warwick, C. Phillips, D. Jarvis, D. K. Galloway, D. L. Coppejans, D. Mata S\'anchez, D. O'Neill, D. Pollacco, D. Steeghs, E. Stanway, E. Wickens, G. Ramsay, J. Casares, J. D. Lyman, J. McCormac, J. R. Mullaney, K. Ackley, K. Noysena, K. Pu, K. Ulaczyk, K. Wiersema, L. Kelsey, L. K. Nuttall, L. Vincetti, M. J. Dyer, M. Magee, M. Pursiainen, M. R. Kennedy, M. Shrestha, O. Graur, P. Chote, P. O'Brien, R. A. J. Eyles-Ferris, R. Kotak, R. L. C. Starling, R. P. Breton, S. Belkin, S. Littlefair, S. Mandhai, S. Mattila, S. Moran, T. Killestein, V. S. Dhillon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic showing the data flow and software implementation of the GOTO transient discovery workflow. Full details are given in the respective sections. Succinctly, data acquired and written by the GOTO mounts to a local file system at the respective observatory (see Dyer 2020). A rawtransfer service (Section 4.1) at each site monitors these local file systems, packages the new FITS files as they are cre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Column-wise traces of pixel value in deep-stacked single images of a GOTO camera highlighting various column-trap behaviour. Each panel shows the trace for a visually identified bad column (dark blue), alongside the trace for the neighbouring, good, column (light blue). The top three panels show ‘step’ features in the traces of varying depths, with the second panel also showing some offset above that of th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The use of a column-wise step-model to correct column charge trap defects in GOTO data. Left: A deep stack of 500 single science images prior to the correction. Middle: The step-model of the column traps following the procedure described in the text (Section 4.4.3). Right: Subtraction of the step-model from the uncorrected data showing the removal of almost all trap features. Very subtle and or small-lengt… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Column-wise traces of pixel value in columntrap calibration frames showing the evolution of column-trap behaviour. Each panel shows the trace for the same columns as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density distributions of source HFD, calculated from medians in individual GOTO single images. Individual UT distributions are shown (thin coloured lines), along with the overall distribution per mount (thick dashed line). Density estimates were determined using a Gaussian kernel with bandwidth using the method of Scott (1992). The distributions were initially filtered to remove the low number of images wi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heatmap of astrometric residuals of high SNR GOTO source cen￾troids from ATLAF-REFCAT2 catalogue Gaia-based positions. Quantities were calculated from 5000 randomly selected images and are shown with un￾certainty based on the 𝑃16 and 𝑃84 values of the distribution. kadmilos splits the images into 25 (5 × 5) sub-tiles for astrometric stats, but only calculates for central and extrema sub-tile in each axis –… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The number of ATLAS-REFCAT2 calibration sources in 1.4 deg cone searches at central locations of GOTO tile positions, shown as a function of Galactic latitude (black circle markers, left axis). The thin black dashed lines indicate the 𝑃5−95 range of these values. The right axis and differently coloured marker shapes show the fraction of those total sources that survive each photometric quality cut detailed… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The number of sources used in the astrometric and subsequent photometric calibration of GOTO images. Solid lines indicate the median value (binned to daily frequency), with the shaded regions showing the 𝑃5−95 ranges. Also plotted is the moon illumination (thin dark line, right axis), correlating with small dips in source numbers around full illumination due to an imparted lower sensitivity of GOTO images.… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A heat map of the aperture correction Radial Basis Function (RBF) surface for a representative GOTO-1 UT-1 image. Overlaid on this heat map are scatter points of detections used to construct the surface. They are colour coded on the same scale and outlined for visual clarity. A zoom-in region is indicated, showing the underlying image data with coloured markers sur￾rounding those detections that pass succe… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of photometric calibration of 45 second single GOTO-1 images, split by UT (colours). Shown on the plot are daily bins of the zero-point (solid lines) and median detection magnitude of 5𝜎 sources in the images (dashed lines). Overlaid is the moon illumination (thin dark line), causing a reduction in image depths around full moon. Periods of no data are either due to bad weather, technical downtime,… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 2D histograms of GOTO set image depths as a function of moon illumination in the 𝐿-band. The two main observing strategies are indicated as titles above each subplot. Note that the colour scaling of bins is logarithmic. the set image, the image differencing is performed using a multi￾threaded version of the High Order Transform of Psf ANd Template Subtraction code (HOTPANTS; Becker 2015) 12. The algorithm… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Total times for GOTO images to be created and analysed by kadmilos, based on DAG run timings in Airflow. Dashed lines indicate time taken for image processing only – i.e. the creation and analysis of a sequence of single, set and difference images. Solid lines measure this processing time from shutter close of the telescope for the image, thereby also including raw data readout, transfer, and ingestion st… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Schematic visualisation of the processing performed upon ingestion of a new difference image source into the GOTO marshall. Fuller details on these processes are in Sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 and 5.6 schemes given the exquisite proper motion constraints available from Gaia for sources down to the typical depth of GOTO. Given their low incidence rate, manual eyeballing of these sources is relied upon for vetti… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The time-delay between marshall auto-vetting placing a source into the Inbox and the final manual vetting action performed on a source for sources in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: An example webform in the GOTO marshall allowing a user to trigger an LT spectroscopic observation using the SPRAT (Spectrograph for the Rapid Acquisition of Transients) instrument. 5.6.1 Automatic follow-up scheduling The GOTO Auto-Trigger (GOAT) is a system within the marshall which performs a series of checks on new sources, based on both contextual and photometric information ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows that the GOAT typically inserts observing sequences into the LT observation queue around 11 minutes after shutter close. If they are picked up expediently by the LT scheduler, this offers a route to early characterisation of new discoveries (e.g. Magee et al. 2025). 5.7 Citizen Science integration The marshall also has close integration with the Kilonova Seekers citizen science project (Killestein a… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The cumulative sum of TNS discovery reports by GOTO (blue solid line), and the subset of first-discoveries (blue dashed line). The green dotted line shows the fraction of template images held by the pipeline – a reasonable proxy of sky coverage fraction where difference imaging could be performed. Significant marshall milestones assisting the reporting of new transient candidates are also indicated. to th… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Magnetically guided accretion and extremely slow rotation in a metal-enriched white dwarf

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    WD 1532+129 rotates once every ~289 days — the slowest directly measured spin of any white dwarf — and its accreted metals sit in patches at both magnetic poles.

  2. SCAT Data Release 1: 1810 optical spectra of 1330 transients

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 accept novelty 6.0

    SCAT DR1 delivers 1810 spectra of 1330 transients with classifications, fitted light curves, new redshifts for many host galaxies, and host properties as a testbed for photometric classification pipelines.

  3. Failed jet breakout in the metal-poor broad-lined type Ic supernova 2026gzf

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    SN 2026gzf is interpreted as a choked-jet Ic-BL supernova in a circumstellar shell, the first such event with prompt high-energy emission but no jet breakout signature.

  4. Early Multiwavelength Observations of AT 2026fgk: The Luminous Afterglow to Sub-luminous GRB 260310A, Identified Independently of a Gamma-ray Trigger

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 accept novelty 5.0

    First blind optical identification of a z=0.153 sub-luminous GRB afterglow with Ic-BL SN, yielding a volumetric rate consistent with on-axis high-luminosity long GRBs.

  5. An analysis of the Type Ia SN 2024gy and a comparison of different host extinction estimation techniques

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    SN 2024gy observations yield host extinction estimates ranging from 0.12 to 0.24 magnitudes across methods, with explosion modeling giving mixed results on detonation scenarios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

3 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [2005]

    347 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, p

    The SIP Convention for Representing Distortion in FITS Image Headers, inAstronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, vol. 347 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, p. 491. Singer,L.P.&Price,L.R.,2016. Rapidbayesianpositionreconstructionfor gravitational-wave transients,Phys. Rev. D,93, 024013. Singer, L. P., Parazin, B., Coughli...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2015]

    Harris, C

    pt5m - a 0.5 m robotic telescope on La Palma,MNRAS,454(4), 4316–4325. Harris, C. R. et al., 2020. Array programming with NumPy,Nature, 585(7825), 357–362. ed. Howell, S. B., 1992.Astronomical CCD observing and reduction tech- niques, vol. 23 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series. Iske, A., 2003. Radial basis functions: basics, advanced t...

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2019]

    Möller,A.etal.,2020.fink,anewgenerationofbrokerforthelsstcommunity, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,501(3), 3272–3288

    RAPID: Early Classification of Explosive Transients Using Deep Learning,PASP,131(1005), 118002. Möller,A.etal.,2020.fink,anewgenerationofbrokerforthelsstcommunity, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,501(3), 3272–3288. Newville, M. et al., 2025. Lmfit: Non-linear least-squares minimization and curve-fitting for python. Ofek,E.O.etal.,2023. T...

    2020

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.