Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A single Effortless image, with simple calibration, beats ~6 coadded Imcom images on ideal stars while running 50–60 imes faster.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 23:37 UTC pith:W24R4D7K

load-bearing objection Real algorithmic speed-up with public code; the accuracy win is cleanly shown only for noiseless ideal stars under perfect PSFs, and the calibration lives in a companion. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06674 v1 pith:W24R4D7K submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO

Efficient Optimal Image Reconstruction for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope and Beyond: I. First Results with {sc Effortless}

Kaili Cao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO
keywords astronomy image processingweak gravitational lensingpoint-spread function controllinear image reconstructionNancy Grace Roman Space TelescopeEffortlessImcom
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.

Roman will produce vast high-quality imaging, so reconstruction algorithms must be both fast and accurate enough for weak lensing and time-domain science. Effortless is a new linear reconstruction method that, like Imcom, lets the user set a target output point-spread function, but it obtains the reconstruction weights by a direct Fourier-domain formula instead of building and inverting large linear systems. Applied to the same simulated Roman blocks used for earlier Imcom tests, Effortless processes a (1.75 arcmin)² block in 9–13 core minutes (about 200 core hours per filter per square degree) and uses under 2 GiB of memory—50–60 times faster and leaner than the current Imcom implementation. On noiseless injected stars measured with HSM moments, a single Effortless image plus a post-measurement calibration that removes known trigonometric residuals yields amplitude, size, centroid, ellipticity and fourth-moment errors that are up to an order of magnitude smaller than those from an Imcom coadd of ~6 images. Because Effortless can also map each individual exposure onto a common grid with a controlled PSF, it opens pixel-level comparisons across epochs without forcing a permanent coadd.

Core claim

When the same Roman simulations and target PSFs used for Imcom benchmarks are reprocessed with Effortless, a single reconstructed image plus a simple sub-pixel-position calibration produces more accurate HSM measurements of ideal point sources than a coadd of approximately six images produced by Imcom, while requiring roughly fifty times less compute and less than half the memory.

What carries the argument

The Effortless weight field: reconstruction weights for each input image are obtained by sampling the inverse Fourier relation T̃ = Γ̃′ / G̃′ (target output PSF over input PSF), then applying equal meta-weights (the Σ-first strategy). This closed-form step replaces the large matrix inversions of Imcom and leaves residual PSF errors that follow simple, calibratable trigonometric patterns.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that every input point-spread function is known perfectly, including chromatic, spatial and temporal variations; the reported accuracy gains are demonstrated only on noiseless ideal stars drawn with those same PSFs.

What would settle it

Re-run the identical Y106 block comparison on noisy, realistically extended galaxies whose PSFs are independently estimated (or deliberately mismodeled) and check whether the calibrated Effortless single-image errors remain smaller than the Imcom coadd errors.

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

If this is right

  • Roman High-Latitude Imaging Survey Medium and Wide tiers can be reconstructed at ~200 core hours per filter per square degree instead of ~10⁴.
  • Individual exposures can be placed on a common pixel grid with matched PSFs, enabling epoch-to-epoch difference imaging without permanent coaddition.
  • Post-measurement calibration of the residual “rippling” can be applied after the fact, so measurement pipelines need not re-invert large systems when the target PSF is changed.
  • The same linear weights can be reused on multiple input layers (science, stars, white noise, 1/f noise), simplifying noise characterization and bright-object residual subtraction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the trigonometric residual patterns remain simple for mildly extended sources, the same calibration could be turned into a fast analytic correction for galaxy shape measurement rather than a post-hoc fit.
  • The closed-form weights make it feasible to re-optimize tiling or dither patterns on the fly by evaluating only the Fourier ratio, something prohibitively expensive under full Imcom matrix inversion.
  • Because single-image reconstruction is now cheap, one could leave cosmic-ray and bad-pixel masks unfilled and still obtain a usable measurement from every other exposure that covers the same sky position.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents first practical results of Effortless (formerly Fast Imcom), a linear image-reconstruction algorithm that obtains reconstruction weights by Fourier-domain division of a user-specified target PSF by the input PSF (Eq. 3), rather than by building and inverting the large linear systems used by Imcom. Applied to the same OpenUniverse Roman simulations previously processed by PyImcom, Effortless is reported to be 50–60 times faster (~2 imes10² core hours per filter per square degree) with a smaller memory footprint. For noiseless ideal point sources, HSM moment measurements on individual Effortless images, after a post-measurement trigonometric calibration of sub-pixel residuals (detailed in a companion paper), show smaller errors than measurements on ~6-image Imcom coadds (Fig. 3). The paper argues that the algorithm’s efficiency and residual interpretability open new possibilities for time-domain comparisons and iterative calibration, while noting that noisy extended sources remain future work.

Significance. If the speed and residual-control claims hold under more realistic conditions, Effortless would be a practically important advance for Roman HLIS and other large imaging surveys: it retains Imcom-style PSF control while removing the computational barrier that has limited Imcom’s use outside weak-lensing pipelines. The public code release (Effortless v0.2.2) and the direct wall-clock comparison on shared OpenUniverse inputs are concrete strengths. The demonstration that a single reconstructed image plus a simple calibration can outperform multi-image coadds for ideal stars is a useful existence proof and motivates the companion implementation paper.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and §3 (Fig. 3): The central superiority claim—that a single Effortless image plus post-measurement calibration yields better HSM moments than ~6 Imcom-coadded images—is demonstrated exclusively on noiseless ideal point sources drawn with the same input PSFs used for reconstruction (§2.2, final paragraph of §3). The paper itself states that future work is required for noisy extended sources without a priori PSFs. The claim should be scoped more carefully in the abstract and conclusions so that readers do not over-generalize the order-of-magnitude accuracy gain beyond the idealized regime in which residual patterns are analytically simple.
  2. §2.1 and §2.2: The quantitative comparison relies on a post-measurement trigonometric calibration whose details are deferred entirely to the companion paper (K. Cao 2026, in preparation). Because that calibration is load-bearing for the accuracy claim in Fig. 3, the present manuscript should either (a) include a self-contained summary of the calibration model and its validation on the same stars, or (b) reframe the accuracy results as preliminary and contingent on the companion. As written, the reader cannot independently assess how much of the reported gain comes from Effortless versus from the calibration step.
  3. §2.1: Perfect knowledge of input PSFs (including chromatic and spatial/temporal variation) is assumed; mismodeling is left for future work. Given that the Fourier weight field is T̃ = Γ̃′/G̃′, residual patterns under realistic PSF error will differ from the pure sampling-induced patterns that the calibration exploits. A short quantitative stress test—or at least an explicit statement of the PSF-error tolerance required to preserve the Fig. 3 gains—would strengthen the paper’s applicability claims for Roman weak lensing.
minor comments (4)
  1. §2.1, footnote 5: The correction to the sign convention relative to the earlier Effortless formalism paper is welcome, but a brief explicit statement of the corrected forward/backward PSF definitions would help readers who have not yet seen the companion.
  2. Fig. 1 caption: The four-band composite color mapping is described by hex codes; a short note on how the scaling was chosen for the difference panels (absolute vs signed) would improve reproducibility of the visual comparison.
  3. §3: The cosmic-ray rate inflation factor of 1.2 used to match mask fractions is a free parameter of the comparison; a one-sentence sensitivity check (or confirmation that results are insensitive) would be useful.
  4. Throughout: Occasional typographic inconsistencies (e.g., spacing around ~, mixed use of Effortless/Imcom/PyImcom) should be cleaned for the final version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Empirical HSM comparison on idealized noiseless stars; load-bearing calibration deferred to same-author companion, but no claim reduces to its inputs by construction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; §2.2; §3 (Fig. 3 and surrounding text)]
    "With ideal point sources, I illustrate that a single image reconstructed by Effortless, combined with the post-measurement calibration procedure described in a companion paper, can lead to better measurements than a set of ∼6 images coadded by Imcom. … Such post-measurement calibration is another major topic of K. Cao (2026, in preparation). In short, the calibration amounts to detrending trigonometric functions of subpixel positions like cos(2π∆x) using a linear model."

    The order-of-magnitude accuracy advantage that constitutes the paper’s strongest claim is obtained only after a post-measurement calibration whose full procedure and validation are deferred to a same-author companion paper still in preparation. Without that external step the paper itself states that raw Effortless measurements have relatively large undersampling errors. The citation is therefore load-bearing for the headline result, even though the HSM measurements themselves remain independent.

full rationale

The paper’s central numerical claims (50–60× wall-clock speedup, smaller memory footprint, and post-calibration HSM moment errors on injected stars that are smaller than those from ~6-image PyImcom coadds) are direct empirical measurements on the same OpenUniverse simulations previously used for Imcom. The reconstruction weights themselves are obtained by the explicit Fourier-space design choice T̃ = Γ̃′/G̃′ (Eq. 3), which by construction makes the continuous-limit output PSF equal the user-chosen target; residual sampling patterns are then removed by a linear detrend whose details live in the companion paper. That self-citation is load-bearing for the accuracy claim yet does not force the reported numbers: the HSM moments, the expected values of A and s, and the comparison to Imcom remain independent observables. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no fitted parameter is re-labeled a prediction of a distinct quantity, and no first-principles result collapses to its defining equation. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-forcing self-citation of the calibration procedure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central performance claim rests on a small set of modeling choices (perfect PSFs, equal meta-weights, Gaussian target PSF) and on the linear-reconstruction framework inherited from Imcom. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are algorithmic hyperparameters rather than fitted cosmological constants.

free parameters (3)
  • target output PSF width
    Chosen as a Gaussian slightly wider than the input PSFs in each band; the precise width is a free hyperparameter that sets the expected amplitude and size of reconstructed stars.
  • meta-weights N_i-bar
    Set equal for all available input images under the Σ-first strategy; alternative weightings are possible and would change the noise properties.
  • cosmic-ray rate inflation factor 1.2
    Ad-hoc adjustment to match the number of masked pixels used in earlier PyImcom runs when laboratory noise masks were unavailable.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Input PSFs (including chromatic and spatial/temporal variation) are known perfectly.
    Stated explicitly in §2.1; mismodeling impact is deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption Linear reconstruction of the form H_α = Σ N_i T_αi I_i is sufficient and preserves a well-defined output PSF.
    Inherited from the Imcom framework (Rowe et al. 2011 and subsequent papers) and used throughout §2.
  • domain assumption In the vicinity of a given position the input PSF G' is the same for all pixels of an input image.
    Local-stationarity approximation used to replace G'_i by G' in Eq. (3).
  • ad hoc to paper Post-measurement trigonometric calibration of sub-pixel residuals removes the dominant reconstruction artifacts for ideal stars.
    Described as living in the companion paper; the quantitative superiority claim depends on it.
invented entities (1)
  • Effortless weight field T(r) obtained by Fourier division Γ̃/G̃ independent evidence
    purpose: Provides closed-form reconstruction weights without matrix inversion, enabling the claimed speed-up and interpretability.
    The functional form is new relative to Imcom; independent evidence is the numerical performance shown on the same simulations previously used for Imcom.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17526 in / 2693 out tokens · 34547 ms · 2026-07-10T23:37:15.851829+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The forthcoming Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will revolutionize astrophysics by generating huge amounts of data of unprecedented quality. To properly address the data deluge and fully realize its potential, analysis tools that are both efficient and optimal are needed. {\sc Effortless} (previously known as Fast {\sc Imcom}) is a new algorithm for linear image reconstruction. Like its predecessor {\sc Imcom}, it offers control over point spread functions in output images; by avoiding laborious calculations, it is tens of times faster and has a smaller memory footprint. In this paper, I apply {\sc Effortless} to simulated Roman images and present promising first results. With ideal point sources, I illustrate that a single image reconstructed by {\sc Effortless}, combined with the post-measurement calibration procedure described in a companion paper, can lead to better measurements than a set of $\sim 6$ images coadded by {\sc Imcom}. While both algorithms were originally designed for weak gravitational lensing cosmology, {\sc Effortless} can benefit studies of static features and dynamic aspects of the Universe alike. Moreover, the efficiency and interpretability of {\sc Effortless} provides new possibilities for further reducing errors in measurements. The implementation of {\sc Effortless} is detailed in the companion paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06674 by Kaili Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Four layers in a field of 17.5 arcsec (448 output pixels) on a side, coadded by the Cholesky kernel of PyImcom (upper row) and the Σ-first strategy of Effortless (middle row), along with the differences between them (absolute difference for the first two columns, PyImcom minus Effortless for the last two columns; lower row). Images in the upper row are identical to those in the upper row of [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two layers in the same field as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: HSM measurements of the 54 injected stars in block (14, 12) in the Y106 band. PyImcom results based on the combination of ∼ 6 images are shown in gray; calibrated Effortless results based on the reconstruction of 6 individual images are shown in different colors. Numbers of stars measured from individual images are shown in the legends; measurements of each injected star are provided by at least 1 image. T… 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Efficient Optimal Image Reconstruction for the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope and Beyond: II. Implementation of {\sc Effortless}

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Effortless reconstructs individual undersampled Roman images into uniform-PSF oversampled images; finite-sampling residuals are reduced by post-measurement calibration on subpixel positions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05569 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., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astr...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2019

  2. [2]

    M., Laliotis, K., et al

    Cao, K., Hirata, C. M., Laliotis, K., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb580

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb580 2025

  3. [3]

    M., Laliotis, K., et al

    Cao, K., Hirata, C. M., Laliotis, K., et al. 2026a, ApJ, 998, 304, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a97

  4. [4]

    2026, AJ, 171, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae356a

    Cao, K., & Roman HLIS Cosmology PIT. 2026, AJ, 171, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae356a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae356a 2026

  5. [5]

    H., Miranda, V., et al

    Cao, K., Weinberg, D. H., Miranda, V., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.00438, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.00438

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.00438

  6. [6]

    Center, O. S. 1987, Ohio Supercomputer Center, http://osc.edu/ark:/19495/f5s1ph73 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 13 https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/theory/openuniverse2024/ overview.html Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 1987

  7. [7]

    S., & Hook, R

    Fruchter, A. S., & Hook, R. N. 2002, PASP, 114, 144, doi: 10.1086/338393

    work page doi:10.1086/338393 2002

  8. [8]

    2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook (Space Telescope Science Institute) Górski, K

    Gonzaga, S., Hack, W., Fruchter, A., & Mack, J. 2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook (Space Telescope Science Institute) Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/427976 2012

  9. [9]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  10. [10]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06504.x , keywords =

    Hirata, C., & Seljak, U. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 459, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x 2003

  11. [11]

    M., Yamamoto, M., Laliotis, K., et al

    Hirata, C. M., Yamamoto, M., Laliotis, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2533, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae182

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae182 2024

  12. [12]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  13. [13]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    work page 2003

  14. [14]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07c9

    Kessler, R., Hounsell, R., Joshi, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07c9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae07c9 2025

  15. [15]

    2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901

    Kilbinger, M. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901 2015

  16. [16]

    M., Macbeth, E., & Cao, K

    Laliotis, K., Hirata, C. M., Macbeth, E., & Cao, K. 2026, PASJ, 78, 810, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag020 10K. Cao

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psag020 2026

  17. [17]

    M., et al

    Laliotis, K., Macbeth, E., Hirata, C. M., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 124506, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad9bec

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad9bec 2024

  18. [18]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proc. Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, 1–6, doi: 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    work page doi:10.1145/2833157.2833162 2015

  19. [19]

    Euclid Definition Study Report

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193. https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3193 LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1211.0310, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1211.0310

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1211.0310 2011

  20. [20]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928

    Mandelbaum, R. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928 2018

  21. [21]

    PSFs of coadded images

    Mandelbaum, R., Jarvis, M., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 5, doi: 10.21105/astro.2209.09253

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.2209.09253 2023

  22. [22]

    2005, title The three-point function in large-scale structure: redshift distortions and galaxy bias , , 361, 824, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09234.x

    Mandelbaum, R., Hirata, C. M., Seljak, U., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 1287, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09282.x Observations Time Allocation Committee, R., & Community Survey Definition Committees, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10574 Ohio Supercomputer Center. 2018, Pitzer Cluster, Ohio Supercomputer Center, doi: 10.8...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09282.x 2005

  23. [23]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1833

    OpenUniverse, LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, Roman HLIS Project Infrastructure, et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1833

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1833 2025

  24. [24]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 2011

  25. [25]

    T., Gaudi, B

    Penny, M. T., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafb69

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aafb69 2019

  26. [26]

    M., Vincenzi, M., Hounsell, R., et al

    Rose, B. M., Vincenzi, M., Hounsell, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade1d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade1d6 2025

  27. [27]

    2011, ApJ, 741, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/46

    Rowe, B., Hirata, C., & Rhodes, J. 2011, ApJ, 741, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/46 2011

  28. [28]

    Rowe, B. T. P., Jarvis, M., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 10, 121, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 2015

  29. [29]

    A., Lin, C., Park, A., et al

    Troxel, M. A., Lin, C., Park, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad664

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad664 2023

  30. [30]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  31. [31]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973

    Wang, Y., Zhai, Z., Alavi, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973 2022

  32. [32]

    H., Mortonson, M

    Weinberg, D. H., Mortonson, M. J., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2013, PhR, 530, 87, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2013.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.05.001 2013

  33. [33]

    J., Downing, N

    Weiss, T. J., Downing, N. J., Pinsonneault, M. H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adde5b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adde5b 2025

  34. [34]

    F., Barclay, T., Powell, B

    Wilson, R. F., Barclay, T., Powell, B. P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf3df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf3df 2023

  35. [35]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 6680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae177

    Yamamoto, M., Laliotis, K., Macbeth, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae177 2024

  36. [36]

    2023a, MNRAS, 520, 2328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3350

    Zhang, T., Almoubayyed, H., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 2328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3350

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3350

  37. [37]

    2023b, MNRAS, 525, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1801

    Zhang, T., Li, X., Dalal, R., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1801

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1801

  38. [38]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019