Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 71 references

A Roman-tuned model-fitting photometry pipeline recovers galaxy colors to tens of millimags and shows that correlated noise and joint multi-object fitting are required for reliable photo-z work.

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

2026-07-14 15:04 UTC pith:N3YCTJS5

load-bearing objection Solid Roman–Rubin photometry prototype that nails three concrete requirements on sims; the idealized coadds are a real but openly stated limit, not a hidden collapse. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09849 v1 pith:N3YCTJS5 submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Robust Photometry for Roman High-Latitude Imaging Survey Cosmology Using Roman and Rubin Imaging

Chun-Hao To , Tae-Hyeon Shin , Chihway Chang , Christopher Hirata , Brett H. Andrews , Ami Choi , Boyan Yin , Rachel Mandelbaum
show 13 more authors
Federico Berlfein Kaili Cao James Chiang Nihar Dalal Yuedong Fang Axel Guinot Michael Gabe Andrew Hearin Katherine Laliotis Emily Macbeth Sidney Mau Edward F. Schlafly M. A. Troxel (for the Roman HLIS Cosmology Project Infrastructure Team)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords Roman Space Telescopephotometryphotometric redshiftssource blendingcorrelated noisemulti-object fittingRoman-Rubin joint analysisHigh-Latitude Imaging Survey
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 cosmology will live or die on galaxy photometry: colors drive sample selection, tomographic bins, and redshift distributions. Deep space imaging blends sources, and joint Roman–Rubin work makes the problem worse because the two surveys have different resolutions and PSFs. This paper introduces slimfarmer, a model-fitting pipeline that measures fluxes by simultaneously fitting groups of neighboring galaxies, corrects for correlated noise in Roman coadds, and treats astronomical shot noise from a model rather than the noisy image. On matched Roman and Rubin simulations it recovers Roman-based colors with mode residuals within 20 millimag and Rubin-based colors within 70 millimag, while default uncertainties without the noise correction can be too small by a factor of about three. The same tests show that single-object fitting in either survey produces environment-dependent color biases up to half a magnitude that then degrade photometric redshifts. The claim is that these three ingredients—correlated-noise corrections, model-based shot noise, and consistent multi-object fitting on both surveys—are the practical requirements for robust Roman HLIS photometric-redshift characterization.

Core claim

slimfarmer recovers galaxy colors with mode residuals within 20 millimag for Roman-based colors and within 70 millimag for Rubin-based colors; ignoring correlated noise underestimates photometric uncertainties by up to a factor of ~3; and only multi-object fitting applied consistently to both Roman and Rubin removes environment-dependent color biases of up to ~0.5 mag that otherwise degrade photo-z performance.

What carries the argument

slimfarmer: multi-object model fitting (via The Tractor) on groups defined by dilated segmentation maps, with flux uncertainties that fold in an empirical noise correlation function from coadd noise realizations and a model-updated inverse-variance weight that includes astronomical shot noise.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy is measured on simplified coadds that avoid imperfect background subtraction and omit several known Roman detector effects, so the claim that real HLIS data will behave the same way is untested.

What would settle it

Apply the same pipeline to full end-to-end Roman coadds that include realistic background residuals and the omitted detector effects, then check whether Roman color mode residuals stay within 20 millimag and whether environment-dependent color biases reappear at the half-magnitude level.

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

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents slimfarmer, a Tractor-based multi-object photometry pipeline for Roman HLIS cosmology, with extensions for correlated noise in coadds, model-based astronomical shot noise in the weight maps, and forced photometry on matched Rubin simulations. Using OpenUniverse2024-based Roman coadds (DC25 sim) and corresponding Rubin images, the authors validate magnitude and color recovery against truth, show that default Tractor uncertainties underestimate scatter by up to ~3 without correlated-noise corrections, and demonstrate that consistent multi-object fitting (MOF) on both surveys removes environment-dependent color biases of up to ~0.5 mag that appear under single-object fitting (SOF). They further propagate photometric choices into SOMPZ tomographic n(z) overlap and FlexZBoost individual photo-z metrics, arguing that correlated-noise treatment, shot-noise modeling, and joint MOF are required ingredients for robust photo-z characterization in Roman–Rubin analyses.

Significance. If the demonstrated color accuracy, uncertainty calibration, and MOF environmental stability hold under more realistic processing, this is a useful and timely prototype for Roman HLIS catalog production and for joint Roman–Rubin photo-z work. The paper is concrete about what is required (correlated-noise variance, model-based shot noise, consistent MOF) rather than only reporting a black-box catalog. Strengths include systematic ablations (SOF vs MOF combinations; with/without correlated-noise correction; with/without Rubin), explicit uncertainty formulas (Eqs. 8 and 11), and two complementary photo-z diagnostics. The planned public release of slimfarmer and Roman SOMPZ configurations is a further positive. The main limitation is that the headline residual and uncertainty claims are demonstrated on idealized coadds that bypass imperfect background subtraction and omit several known detector effects, so the work is best read as a controlled pipeline study rather than a final end-to-end HLIS readiness claim.

major comments (3)
  1. Section 4.1: the magnitude and color validation that underpins the abstract claims (mode residuals within 20 mmag Roman / 70 mmag Rubin; uncertainty factor ~3) is performed on simplified images (true coadd + de-biasing field) chosen to avoid the 0.02–0.13 mag background oversubtraction found on the end-to-end coadds. That choice is stated, but the paper does not quantify how large residual background or coadd systematics would have to be before the mode color residuals or the MOF environmental stability fail. A short sensitivity test—e.g., re-running color residual vs nearest-neighbor and empirical-vs-model uncertainty ratios on a subset of end-to-end coadds, or injecting controlled background residuals—would make the central performance claims load-bearing for real HLIS products rather than only for idealized noise realizations.
  2. Section 2.1 and the uncertainty derivation in §3.3.2 / Eq. (11): the simulations omit brighter-fatter, persistence, ghosts, vertical trailing, and count-rate nonlinearity, while the correlated-noise correction assumes translation-invariant r(α,β) within each 1.66′ block estimated from de-biasing fields. Appendix B separates detector vs pyimcom contributions for the included effects, but does not bound how omitted detector correlations would bias the variance formula or the ~3 underestimation factor. Either a quantitative argument that residual correlations are sub-dominant for the S/N>18 sample (beyond the <0.01% pixel-area remark for BFE) or an explicit statement that the uncertainty-calibration claim is provisional pending those effects would strengthen the paper’s main methodological recommendation.
  3. Section 5.1 and Appendix D: the SOMPZ tests use the same photometry for deep and wide SOM assignments and assume a representative 30% spectroscopic subsample. That isolates photometric quality, but it also removes transfer-function realism and spectroscopic selection—precisely the regimes where photo-z methods are most sensitive to color and uncertainty errors. The claim that correlated-noise correction and Rubin bands are essential for tomographic binning is therefore demonstrated only under optimistic calibration conditions. At minimum, the text should more clearly separate “photometry-limited bin separation under ideal calibration” from “end-to-end SOMPZ readiness,” and preferably include one degraded-calibration or transfer-function test so that the n(z)-overlap conclusions are not over-read.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Empirical pipeline validation against independent simulation truth; only mild circularity from hyperparameter tuning on the same sims used for performance claims.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.1 (Model selections)]
    "Based on our simulation tests, we adopt δ_SG=0.1, χ^{2}_ED=0.15, χ^{2}_force,C=0.15, and δ_ED=0.1, as these values provide the best overall performance in terms of magnitude recovery, detection purity, and completeness. We therefore fix to these values throughout the paper."

    The decision-tree tolerances that control which galaxy model is assigned are selected by maximizing magnitude recovery (and purity/completeness) on the same DC25 sim used later to report the 20/70 mmag color residual modes. The reported residual performance is therefore mildly conditioned on hyperparameters already optimized for residual quality on those sims; it is ordinary tuning rather than a forced prediction, but it is the only place where a claimed performance metric is not fully independent of the configuration choices.

full rationale

The paper is a methods/validation paper for slimfarmer, not a first-principles derivation of a physical law. Its central claims (mode color residuals within 20 mmag Roman / 70 mmag Rubin; Tractor uncertainties underestimate empirical scatter by up to ~3 without correlated-noise correction; consistent MOF required to remove ~0.5 mag environment-dependent color bias) are measured by comparing measured photometry to the OpenUniverse2024 truth catalog on held-out simulation products. The correlated-noise variance formula (Eq. 11) is a standard propagation of the estimated noise correlation function r(Δx,Δy) from independent noise realizations; it is not fitted to force the residual statistics. The MOF vs SOF comparison is an ablation against truth, not a tautology. The only mild circularity is that the model-selection tolerances (δ_SG=0.1, χ^{2}_ED=0.15, etc.) were chosen as those that 'provide the best overall performance' on the same simulations used for the validation plots; this is ordinary hyperparameter tuning and does not make the residual modes or the factor-of-3 underestimation true by construction. No uniqueness theorem, self-citation load-bearing premise, or fitted-input-called-prediction is present. Score 1.5 reflects that single minor self-tuning step without load-bearing circularity of the scientific claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on simulation fidelity, a small set of hand-tuned model-selection thresholds, and standard assumptions of profile-fitting photometry. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are algorithmic tolerances chosen on the same simulations used for validation.

free parameters (4)
  • δ_SG, χ²_ED, χ²_force,C, δ_ED = 0.1 / 0.15 / 0.15 / 0.1
    Model-selection decision-tree tolerances fixed at 0.1, 0.15, 0.15, 0.1 after simulation tests for best magnitude recovery, purity and completeness (Section 3.2.1).
  • segmentation dilation radius = 0.2 arcsec
    0.2 arcsec dilation used to define multi-object groups; chosen by the authors for Roman pixel scale and PSF.
  • S/N > 18 source selection = 18
    Defines the representative weak-lensing-like sample (37.8 arcmin⁻²); threshold taken from Eifler et al. 2021 but still a free analysis cut.
  • Gaussian position prior width for Rubin forced photometry = 0.1 arcsec
    0.1 arcsec prior to absorb Roman–Rubin astrometric mismatch (Section 3.4).
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Within each 1.66′×1.66′ block the noise correlation function depends only on pixel separation (translation invariance).
    Used to estimate r(α,β) from limited noise realizations (Eq. 12, Section 3.3.2); authors note they have not proved the assumption in general.
  • domain assumption OpenUniverse2024 + DC25 sim (with listed detector effects) are sufficiently realistic for photometry and photo-z validation of HLIS.
    All quantitative claims are measured on these simulations; several known effects (brighter-fatter, persistence, ghosts) are omitted (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Galaxy light profiles are adequately described by the Tractor PS/SG/Exp/Dev/Comp family (Gaussian-mixture approximations).
    Standard for The Farmer/Tractor; model selection tree assumes these five families exhaust the relevant morphologies (Section 3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper 30 % of source galaxies have representative spectroscopic redshifts for the photo-z tests.
    Simplifying assumption used to isolate photometric effects from spectroscopic selection bias (Section 5.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Same photometry can be used for both deep and wide SOM assignments (no transfer-function realism).
    Explicit simplification of Roman SOMPZ for this paper (Section 5.1, Appendix D).
invented entities (1)
  • slimfarmer no independent evidence
    purpose: Roman-tuned multi-object model-fitting photometry pipeline that adds correlated-noise variance, model-based shot-noise weights, and joint Roman–Rubin forced photometry on top of The Farmer/Tractor.
    The named software product whose performance is the paper’s central result; independent evidence will exist once code and real-data tests are public, but currently rests on the simulations in this work.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 37987 in / 3860 out tokens · 34727 ms · 2026-07-14T15:04:01.252395+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Accurate and precise photometry is essential for Roman cosmology because it affects photometric-redshift performance, galaxy and cluster selection, tomographic binning, and redshift-distribution characterization. Achieving robust photometry is challenging because Roman's depth leads to substantial source blending, particularly in joint Roman--Rubin analyses, where the two surveys have different spatial resolutions. In this work, we develop and validate slimfarmer, a model-fitting photometry pipeline designed for Roman High-Latitude Imaging Survey (HLIS) cosmological analyses. Building on The Farmer, slimfarmer introduces treatments of the correlated noise present in Roman images and of astronomical shot noise, together with model-fitting configurations tuned for Roman imaging. We validate the pipeline using Roman coadded simulated images and perform forced photometry on matched Rubin image simulations. We find that slimfarmer recovers galaxy colors with the mode of the color residuals within 20 millimag for Roman-based colors and within 70 millimag for Rubin-based colors. Properly accounting for correlated noise is essential for uncertainty quantification, as photometric uncertainties are otherwise underestimated by up to a factor of ~3. We also find that applying multi-object fitting consistently to both Roman and Rubin imaging substantially mitigates blending-induced color systematics. In crowded regions, single-object fitting produces environment-dependent color biases of up to ~0.5 mag, leading to environment-dependent degradation of photometric-redshift performance. Together, these results establish slimfarmer as a prototype photometric pipeline for Roman HLIS cosmology applications and identify the correlated-noise corrections, astronomical shot-noise treatment, and joint Roman--Rubin multi-object fitting required for robust photometric-redshift characterization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09849 by Ami Choi, Andrew Hearin, Axel Guinot, Boyan Yin, Brett H. Andrews, Chihway Chang, Christopher Hirata, Chun-Hao To, Edward F. Schlafly, Emily Macbeth, Federico Berlfein, James Chiang, Kaili Cao, Katherine Laliotis, M. A. Troxel (for the Roman HLIS Cosmology Project Infrastructure Team), Michael Gabe, Nihar Dalal, Rachel Mandelbaum, Sidney Mau, Tae-hyeon Shin, Yuedong Fang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two-dimensional correlation functions of the normalized noise fields, defined in equation 12, for the Y106, J129, H158, F184, and K213 bands. The correlation functions are computed from a single pyimcom block. Any spatial extent beyond a delta function at zero lag indicates the presence of correlated noise. that the model provides an adequate description of the data. In practice, these assumptions may not … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of the difference between the measured galaxy AB magnitude and the true galaxy AB magnitude as a function of true AB magnitude for the galaxy sample in Y106, J129, H158, F184, and K213 bands. The contours enclose 39.2%, 86.5%, and 98.9% of the data, corresponding to the 1𝜎, 2𝜎, and 3𝜎 regions of a two-dimensional Gaussian, respectively. We also show the median (dotted line), mode (solid line),… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as figure 2, but for the differences between the measured and true colors in Rubin and Roman bands. We show the r − i and J129 − H158 colors as representative Rubin-based and Roman-based colors, respectively. The summary statistics are computed in 15 bins from the 10 to the 90 percentiles of the color distribution of source galaxy samples (S/N > 18 in the mean combined detection image). The slimfarmer… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as figure 3, but for the differences between the measured and true colors in Rubin and Roman bands as a function of H158 magnitude. The summary statistics are computed in 15 bins from the 10 to the 90 percentiles of the H158 magnitude distribution of source galaxy samples (S/N> 18 in the mean combined detection image). The yellow curves show the average color uncertainty in each bin, based on The Trac… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The plot configuration is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Redshift distributions estimated by Roman SOMPZ for simulated source galaxies selected with S/N > 18 in the mean￾combined detection map. In both panels, solid lines show the Fiducial configuration described in Section 5.1, which uses Roman Y106, J129, and H158 photometry together with Rubin u, g, r, i, z, and y photometry, measured with the default slimfarmer configuration. The dashed lines show two altern… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Redshift-bin overlaps for the Fiducial configuration and the alternative photometric configurations described in section 5.1, including the No Corr-Noise, Roman SOF/Rubin MOF, Roman SOF/Rubin SOF, and No Rubin cases. The overlap is quantified using the normalized Gram matrix of the inferred redshift distributions, with larger values indicating greater overlap between bins. Error bars are estimated from rea… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Individual photo-𝑧 performance as a function of nearest-neighbor separation, quantified by the outlier fraction (top row) and the median absolute deviation (bottom row). Statistics are measured in 15 equally spaced bins between 0.5 ′′ and 3′′. Columns correspond to the photometric configurations described in Section 5.1: Fiducial, No Corr-Noise, Roman SOF/Rubin MOF, and Roman SOF/Rubin SOF. Vertical lines … view at source ↗

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

71 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, SITCOMTN-128: Unrecognized Blends in LSSTComCam Data Preview 1 ECDFS, Tech

    Adari, P., & von der Linden, A. 2025, SITCOMTN-128: Unrecognized Blends in LSSTComCam Data Preview 1 ECDFS, Tech. rep., NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, doi: 10.71929/RUBIN/2570850

    work page doi:10.71929/rubin/2570850 2025

  2. [2]

    2019, The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  3. [3]

    P., Crill, B

    Akeson, R., Dubois-Felsmann, G. P., Crill, B. P., et al. 2025, The SPHEREx Image and Spectrophotometry Processing Pipeline, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15823, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15823

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15823 2025

  4. [4]

    2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Synthetic-source Injection Across the Full Survey Using Balrog, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 65, doi: 10.33232/001c.138627

    Anbajagane, D., Tabbutt, M., Beas-Gonzalez, J., et al. 2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Synthetic-source Injection Across the Full Survey Using Balrog, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 65, doi: 10.33232/001c.138627

    doi:10.33232/001c.138627 2025

  5. [5]

    2011, LePHARE: Photometric Analysis for Redshift Estimate,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.009 http://ascl.net/1108.009

    Arnouts, S., & Ilbert, O. 2011, LePHARE: Photometric Analysis for Redshift Estimate,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.009 http://ascl.net/1108.009

    2011

  6. [6]

    2016, SEP: Source Extractor as a library, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    Barbary, K. 2016, SEP: Source Extractor as a library, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 58, doi: 10.21105/joss.00058

    doi:10.21105/joss.00058 2016

  7. [7]

    M., Abbott, T

    Bernstein, G. M., Abbott, T. M. C., Desai, S., et al. 2017, Instrumental response model and detrending for the Dark Energy Camera, PASP, 129, 114502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa858e

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa858e 2017

  8. [8]

    1996, SExtractor: Software for source extraction., A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, SExtractor: Software for source extraction., A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  9. [9]

    2020, The SourceXtractor++ Software, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E., Schefer, M., Apostolakos, N., et al. 2020, The SourceXtractor++ Software, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo, E. R. Deul, J. D. Mol, J. de Plaa, & H. Verkouter, 461

    2020

  10. [10]

    2018, The Hyper Suprime-Cam software pipeline, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, The Hyper Suprime-Cam software pipeline, PASJ, 70, S5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx080

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx080 2018

  11. [11]

    2019, An Overview of the LSST Image Processing Pipelines, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bosch, J., AlSayyad, Y., Armstrong, R., et al. 2019, An Overview of the LSST Image Processing Pipelines, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.03248

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.03248 2019

  12. [12]

    Campos, A., Yin, B., Dodelson, S., et al. 2024, Enhancing weak lensing redshift distribution characterization by optimizing the Dark Energy Survey Self-Organizing Map Photo-z method, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00922, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00922

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00922 2024

  13. [13]

    M., Laliotis, K., et al

    Cao, K., Hirata, C. M., Laliotis, K., et al. 2025, Simulating Image Coaddition with the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. III. Software Improvements and New Linear Algebra Strategies, ApJS, 277, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb580

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb580 2025

  14. [14]

    M., Laliotis, K., et al

    Cao, K., Hirata, C. M., Laliotis, K., et al. 2026a, Simulating Image Coaddition with the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. IV. Hyperparameter Optimization and Experimental Features, ApJ, 998, 304, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a97

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a97

  15. [15]

    H., Miranda, V., et al

    Cao, K., Weinberg, D. H., Miranda, V., et al. 2026b, Fisher Forecasts for Cosmological Yields from 3×2pt Analysis of the Roman Space Telescope High Latitude Imaging Survey, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.00438, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.00438

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.00438

  16. [16]

    2022, Determining the Best-Fitting Slope and Its Uncertainity for Up-the-Ramp Sampled Images with Unevenly Distributed Resultants, Tech

    Casertano, S. 2022, Determining the Best-Fitting Slope and Its Uncertainity for Up-the-Ramp Sampled Images with Unevenly Distributed Resultants, Tech. Rep. Technical Report Roman-STScI-000394, STScI

    2022

  17. [17]

    Choi, A., & Hirata, C. M. 2020, Brighter-fatter Effect in Near-infrared Detectors. II. Autocorrelation Analysis of H4RG-10 Flats, PASP, 132, 014502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4504

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab4504 2020

  18. [18]

    B., et al

    Dalmasso, N., Pospisil, T., Lee, A. B., et al. 2020, Conditional density estimation tools in python and R with applications to photometric redshifts and likelihood-free cosmological inference, Astronomy and Computing, 30, 100362, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2019.100362

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2019.100362 2020

  19. [19]

    2021, The Roman Space Telescope Relative Calibration System and the Dark Energy Figure of

    Deustua, S., Rubin, D., Hounsell, R., et al. 2021, The Roman Space Telescope Relative Calibration System and the Dark Energy Figure of

    2021

  20. [20]

    Merit, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 66, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abf1fb

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abf1fb

  21. [21]

    S., et al

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Rykoff, E. S., et al. 2018, Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: The Photometric Data Set for Cosmology, ApJS, 235, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f5 Roman HLIS-PIT photometry 19

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f5 2018

  22. [22]

    2021, Cosmology with the Roman Space Telescope - multiprobe strategies, MNRAS, 507, 1746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1762

    Eifler, T., Miyatake, H., Krause, E., et al. 2021, Cosmology with the Roman Space Telescope - multiprobe strategies, MNRAS, 507, 1746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1762

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1762 2021

  23. [23]

    2015, IMFIT: A Fast, Flexible New Program for Astronomical Image Fitting, ApJ, 799, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 Euclid Collaboration, Zalesky, L., McPartland, C

    Erwin, P. 2015, IMFIT: A Fast, Flexible New Program for Astronomical Image Fitting, ApJ, 799, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226 Euclid Collaboration, Zalesky, L., McPartland, C. J. R., et al. 2025, Euclid preparation: LXI. Cosmic Dawn Survey: ’Pre-launch’ multiwavelength catalogues for Euclid Deep Field North and Euclid Deep Field Fornax, A&A, 695, A2...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/226 2015

  24. [24]

    2022, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Measuring the Survey Transfer Function with Balrog, ApJS, 258, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac26c1

    Everett, S., Yanny, B., Kuropatkin, N., et al. 2022, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Measuring the Survey Transfer Function with Balrog, ApJS, 258, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac26c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac26c1 2022

  25. [25]

    M., Masters, D

    Feder, R. M., Masters, D. C., Lee, B., et al. 2024, The Universe SPHEREx Will See: Empirically Based Galaxy Simulations and Redshift

    2024

  26. [26]

    Predictions, ApJ, 972, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad596d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad596d

  27. [27]

    Freudenburg, J. K. C., Givans, J. J., Choi, A., et al. 2020, Brighter-fatter Effect in Near-infrared Detectors—III. Fourier-domain Treatment of Flat Field Correlations and Application to WFIRST, PASP, 132, 074504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab9503

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab9503 2020

  28. [28]

    M., & Choi, A

    Hirata, C. M., & Choi, A. 2020, Brighter-fatter Effect in Near-infrared Detectors. I. Theory of Flat Autocorrelations, PASP, 132, 014501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab44f7

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab44f7 2020

  29. [29]

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

    Hirata, C. M., Yamamoto, M., Laliotis, K., et al. 2024, Simulating image coaddition with the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope - I. Simulation methodology and general results, MNRAS, 528, 2533, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae182 2024

  30. [30]

    W., & Lang, D

    Hogg, D. W., & Lang, D. 2013, Replacing Standard Galaxy Profiles with Mixtures of Gaussians, PASP, 125, 719, doi: 10.1086/671228

    doi:10.1086/671228 2013

  31. [31]

    J., Cheng, Y.-T., et al

    Huai, Z., Bock, J. J., Cheng, Y.-T., et al. 2026, Simulating Spectral Confusion in SPHEREx Photometry and Redshifts, ApJ, 1000, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae472b Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019a, LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae472b 2026

  32. [32]

    Izbicki, R., & Lee, A. B. 2017, Converting High-Dimensional Regression to High-Dimensional Conditional Density Estimation, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.08095, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1704.08095

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.08095 2017

  33. [33]

    F., Salnikov, A., et al

    Jenness, T., Bosch, J. F., Salnikov, A., et al. 2022, The Vera C. Rubin Observatory Data Butler and pipeline execution system, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12189, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VII, 1218911, doi: 10.1117/12.2629569

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629569 2022

  34. [34]

    Kron, R. G. 1980, Photometry of a complete sample of faint galaxies., ApJS, 43, 305, doi: 10.1086/190669

    doi:10.1086/190669 1980

  35. [35]

    2008, GaaP: PSF- and aperture-matched photometry using shapelets, A&A, 482, 1053, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066601

    Kuijken, K. 2008, GaaP: PSF- and aperture-matched photometry using shapelets, A&A, 482, 1053, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066601

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066601 2008

  36. [36]

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

    Laliotis, K., Hirata, C. M., Macbeth, E., & Cao, K. 2026, Removing correlated noise stripes from the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope survey images, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag020

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psag020 2026

  37. [37]

    M., et al

    Laliotis, K., Macbeth, E., Hirata, C. M., et al. 2024, Analysis of Biasing from Noise from the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope: Implications for Weak Lensing, PASP, 136, 124506, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad9bec

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad9bec 2024

  38. [38]

    2020, A hybrid Fourier–Real Gaussian Mixture method for fast galaxy–PSF convolution, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2012.15797, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2012.15797

    Lang, D. 2020, A hybrid Fourier–Real Gaussian Mixture method for fast galaxy–PSF convolution, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2012.15797, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2012.15797

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.15797 2020

  39. [39]

    W., & Mykytyn, D

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., & Mykytyn, D. 2016, The Tractor: Probabilistic astronomical source detection and measurement,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1604.008 http://ascl.net/1604.008

    2016

  40. [40]

    Leung, G. C. K., Finkelstein, S. L., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2023, The Spitzer-HETDEX Exploratory Large-Area Survey. IV. Model-based Multiwavelength Photometric Catalog, ApJS, 269, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfe78

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfe78 2023

  41. [41]

    A., Hirata, C

    Lin, C.-H., Mandelbaum, R., Troxel, M. A., Hirata, C. M., & Jarvis, M. 2022, Impact of image persistence in the Roman Space Telescope High-Latitude Survey, MNRAS, 512, 3312, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac512

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac512 2022

  42. [42]

    2009, Aperture Photometry Uncertainties assuming Priors and Correlated Noise,, https: //web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/fmasci/home/mystats/ApPhotUncert corr.pdf

    Masci, F. 2009, Aperture Photometry Uncertainties assuming Priors and Correlated Noise,, https: //web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/fmasci/home/mystats/ApPhotUncert corr.pdf

    2009

  43. [43]

    2018, SCARLET: Source separation in multi-band images by Constrained Matrix Factorization, Astronomy and Computing, 24, 129, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.07.001

    Melchior, P., Moolekamp, F., Jerdee, M., et al. 2018, SCARLET: Source separation in multi-band images by Constrained Matrix Factorization, Astronomy and Computing, 24, 129, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.07.001

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2018.07.001 2018

  44. [44]

    L., & Siegel, J

    Melchior, P., Ward, C., Remy, B., Wiemann, M. L., & Siegel, J. 2026, scarlet2: Astronomical scene modeling in JAX, Journal of Open Source Software, 11, 9646, doi: 10.21105/joss.09646

    doi:10.21105/joss.09646 2026

  45. [45]

    2021, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: redshift calibration of the weak lensing source galaxies, MNRAS, 505, 4249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1515

    Myles, J., Alarcon, A., Amon, A., et al. 2021, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: redshift calibration of the weak lensing source galaxies, MNRAS, 505, 4249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1515

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1515 2021

  46. [46]

    A., & Gruen, D

    Newman, J. A., & Gruen, D. 2022, Photometric Redshifts for Next-Generation Surveys, ARA&A, 60, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032122-014611

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032122-014611 2022

  47. [47]

    Nyland, K., Lacy, M., Sajina, A., et al. 2017, An Application of Multi-band Forced Photometry to One Square Degree of SERVS: Accurate Photometric Redshifts and Implications for Future Science, ApJS, 230, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fed 2017

  48. [48]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, Secondary standard stars for absolute spectrophotometry., ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    doi:10.1086/160817 1983

  49. [49]

    2025, OpenUniverse2024: a shared, simulated view of the sky for the next generation of cosmological surveys, MNRAS, 544, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1833

    OpenUniverse, LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, Roman HLIS Project Infrastructure, et al. 2025, OpenUniverse2024: a shared, simulated view of the sky for the next generation of cosmological surveys, MNRAS, 544, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1833

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1833 2025

  50. [50]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, Detailed Structural Decomposition of Galaxy Images, AJ, 124, 266, doi: 10.1086/340952

    doi:10.1086/340952 2002

  51. [51]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, Detailed Decomposition of Galaxy Images. II. Beyond Axisymmetric Models, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 2010

  52. [52]

    Rauscher, B. J. 2015, Teledyne H1RG, H2RG, and H4RG Noise Generator, PASP, 127, 1144, doi: 10.1086/684082

    work page doi:10.1086/684082 2015

  53. [53]

    J., Arendt, R

    Rauscher, B. J., Arendt, R. G., Fixsen, D. J., et al. 2012, Reducing the read noise of HAWAII-2RG detector systems with improved reference sampling and subtraction (IRS2), in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8453, High

    2012

  54. [54]

    Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy V, ed. A. D. Holland & J. W. Beletic, 84531F, doi: 10.1117/12.926089 Roman HLIS Cosmology PIT, Hirata, C., various team members, & in prep. 2026, PyIMCOM 5 deg2 run release notes, Roman Observations Time Allocation Committee, & Core Community Survey Definition Committees. 2025, Roman Observations Time ...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.926089 2026

  55. [55]

    2011, Optimal Linear Image

    Rowe, B., Hirata, C., & Rhodes, J. 2011, Optimal Linear Image

    2011

  56. [56]

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/46

  57. [57]

    P., Burchat, P

    Sanchez, J., Mendoza, I., Kirkby, D. P., Burchat, P. R., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2021, Effects of overlapping sources on cosmic shear estimation: Statistical sensitivity and pixel-noise bias, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2021, 043, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/07/043 S´anchez, J., Walter, C. W., Awan, H., et al. 2020, The LSST DESC data...

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/07/043 2021

  58. [58]

    2021, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Photometric Data Set for Cosmology, ApJS, 254, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abeb66

    Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Bechtol, K., Carrasco Kind, M., et al. 2021, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Photometric Data Set for Cosmology, ApJS, 254, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abeb66

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abeb66 2021

  59. [59]

    2024, Cosmic Ray Jump Detection for the Roman Wide Field Instrument, PASP, 136, 054504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad4b9e

    Sharma, S., & Casertano, S. 2024, Cosmic Ray Jump Detection for the Roman Wide Field Instrument, PASP, 136, 054504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad4b9e

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad4b9e 2024

  60. [60]

    S., Becker, M

    Sheldon, E. S., Becker, M. R., Jarvis, M., Armstrong, R., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2023, Metadetection Weak Lensing for the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 17, doi: 10.21105/astro.2303.03947

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.2303.03947 2023

  61. [61]

    S., Becker, M

    Sheldon, E. S., Becker, M. R., MacCrann, N., & Jarvis, M. 2020, Mitigating Shear-dependent Object Detection Biases with Metacalibration, ApJ, 902, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb595

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb595 2020

  62. [62]

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, Wide-Field InfrarRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 Report, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 20 To et al. The RAIL Team, van den Busch, J. L., Charles, E., et al. 2025, Redshift Assessment Infrastructure Layers (RAIL): Rubin-era phot...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1503.03757 2015

  63. [63]

    2023, MORPHOFIT: An automated galaxy structural parameters fitting package, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 51, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.989443 Vera C

    Tortorelli, L., & Mercurio, A. 2023, MORPHOFIT: An automated galaxy structural parameters fitting package, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 51, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.989443 Vera C. Rubin Observatory Science Pipelines Developers. 2025, The LSST Science Pipelines Software: Optical Survey Pipeline Reduction and Analysis Environment, Project S...

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.989443 2023

  64. [64]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, COSMOS2020: A Panchromatic View of the Universe to z∼10 from Two Complementary

    2022

  65. [65]

    Catalogs, ApJS, 258, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3078

  66. [66]

    R., Zalesky, L., Kokorev, V., et al

    Weaver, J. R., Zalesky, L., Kokorev, V., et al. 2023, The Farmer: A Reproducible Profile-fitting Photometry Package for Deep Galaxy

    2023

  67. [67]

    Surveys, ApJS, 269, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf850

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf850

  68. [68]

    R., Sheldon, E., et al

    Yamamoto, M., Becker, M. R., Sheldon, E., et al. 2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 6 results: cell-based coadds and METADETECTION weak lensing shape catalogue, MNRAS, 543, 4156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1661

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1661 2025

  69. [69]

    2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Redshift Calibration of the Weak Lensing Source Galaxies, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.23566, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.23566

    Yin, B., Amon, A., Campos, A., et al. 2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Redshift Calibration of the Weak Lensing Source Galaxies, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.23566, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.23566

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.23566 2025

  70. [70]

    Accurate modeling for 3$\times$2pt analyses in Roman and Rubin: a study of model approximations

    Zhang, J., Chang, C., Xu, J., et al. 2026, Accurate modeling for 3×2pt analyses in Roman and Rubin: a study of model approximations, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.23781, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23781

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23781 2026

  71. [71]

    F., et al

    Zhang, T., Charles, E., Crenshaw, J. F., et al. 2026, Photometric Redshift Estimation for Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1 with Redshift Assessment Infrastructure Layers (RAIL), MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag1012 A WEIGHT MAP In this appendix, we detail how the inverse variance weight is derived from the available PyIMCOM product. Here we follow the notat...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag1012 2026