Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 66 references

The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. VI. Near-Infrared Camera Imaging and Coronagraphy

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper delivers the updated absolute flux-calibration factors for every NIRCam imaging mode, converting DN/s to MJy/sr with scatter typically below 2%, and shows the instrument response drifts by less than 0.4% per year.

desk verdict A thorough, honest calibration delivery whose <2% scatter is real but measures internal consistency, not absolute accuracy; the single-star and substituted modes are clearly labeled and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08717 v1 pith:MWMKA3ZW submitted 2026-08-09 astro-ph.IM

Martha L. Boyer , Benjamin Sunnquist , Bryan Hilbert , Dan Coe , Varun Bajaj , Paul Bennet , Julien Girard This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords fluxcalibrationJWSTNIRCamPHOTMJSRCALSPEC2coronagraphyweaklensessubarrayoffsets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper establishes the new absolute flux scale for JWST's NIRCam: a set of PHOTMJSR factors that convert measured counts (DN/s) into physical surface brightness (MJy/sr) for every imaging filter, coronagraphic mask, weak lens, and subarray. The factors come from 3.5 years of observations of 19 standard stars across three stellar types, and for most configurations the scatter is below 2%, with about half of the combinations below 1%. Because the factors were loaded into the JWST pipeline in March 2026, all NIRCam imaging science processed after that date inherits this scale. The paper also quantifies detector stability, finding count-rate changes under 0.4% per year that are still within the calibration uncertainties. A careful reader would care because this is the reference scale against which every NIRCam imaging measurement will be interpreted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the calibration factor C defined by C = Fν / (Nap Acor Scor Ωpix), the ratio of the stellar model flux density Fν to the measured count rate Nap in a finite aperture, corrected for aperture losses Acor, subarray offsets Scor, and the average pixel solid angle Ωpix. Measuring C for each filter, detector, mask, and subarray, then averaging across standard stars, is what turns every NIRCam image into physical surface-brightness units. The CALSPEC2 stellar models supply the flux reference, STPSF supplies the aperture corrections, and the full-frame-versus-subarray comparison supplies the subarray offsets; together these convert the raw DN/s measurements into the PHOTMJSR keyword values that the pipeline applies.

What would settle it

Obtain a high-signal NIRSpec spectrum of LDS 749B (or one of the excluded WDFS white dwarfs) and compare it directly to its CALSPEC2 model; if the model is the problem, the spectral mismatch will match the 2-5% photometric offset, while if the spectrum matches the model, the offset must originate in the NIRCam photometric chain. Alternatively, recompute the delivered factors using an independent stellar-atmosphere model grid and check whether the fifteen retained stars still agree within 1%.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a measured PHOTMJSR calibration factor for each of the 29 NIRCam imaging filters on all ten detectors, all five coronagraphic masks (including dual-channel pairings), both weak lenses (WLP4 and WLP8) used in time-series modes, and every science subarray, delivered as pmap 1490 in March 2026. The factors are derived by comparing CALSPEC2 model spectra to aperture photometry, corrected for aperture losses with STPSF simulations, for subarray-to-full-frame count-rate differences, and for detector-to-detector offsets measured from LMC and 47 Tuc mosaics. The scatter in the factor is below 2% in most filter+detector[+mask] combinations and below 1% in about half; no trends appear with count rate or well depth. Four white dwarfs (LDS 749B and three WDFS stars) are excluded from the averages because their model predictions disagree at the 2-5% level, and the paper attributes these disagreements to the CALSPEC2 models rather than to the photometric chain. This is the first on-sky calibration for the weak lenses and for secondary coronagraphy channels, and the delivered factors change by less than 4% from the previous delivery for most combinations.

Load-bearing premise

The entire delivered scale inherits the accuracy of the CALSPEC2 model spectra for the fifteen stars kept in the averages; if those models carry a common bias, every PHOTMJSR value is biased by the same amount and the sub-2% scatter measures internal consistency rather than absolute accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All NIRCam imaging, time-series imaging, and coronagraphic data processed with pmap 1490 share one absolute flux scale; calibrated images carry the PHOTMJSR keyword that converts DN/s to MJy/sr, and the delivered table gives the associated zeropoints.
  • Subarray-dependent factors remove count-rate offsets up to about 1%, so observations taken in different subarrays or with different readout patterns can be compared directly.
  • Weak-lens and dual-channel coronagraph modes now have an on-sky calibration for the first time, with scatter below 1.5% for setups measured with at least three stars.
  • NIRCam's response drift (under 0.4% per year in the short-wavelength channel and under 0.1% in the long-wavelength channel) is smaller than the calibration uncertainty, so no time-dependent correction is delivered yet, but future deliveries will add one as more epochs accumulate.
  • Detector-to-detector offsets measured in eight filters are folded into the reference files; residual offsets from LMC and 47 Tuc images are typically below 1% but reach 4-5% in a few cases, and a Cycle 5 program will measure offsets in all remaining filters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the delivered factors are right at the percent level, the 2-5% discrepancies seen for LDS 749B and WDFS2317 are model-atmosphere failures rather than instrument problems; an independent spectrum of those stars would settle which side is wrong.
  • The detector-offset pattern, with NRCA3 and NRCB4 showing the largest offsets in the four measured SW filters, suggests those two detectors may be the main source of residual scatter in the unmeasured filters; a 47 Tuc observation in an unmeasured filter would test this directly.
  • Because the faint white dwarfs were added specifically for full-frame calibration, a future model-grid update could convert those excluded stars into independent cross-checks without new observations, simply by recomputing the factors with corrected models.
  • The weak-lens flat fields are still ground-based and known to differ from sky flats by 6-8%; once sky-based weak-lens flats are delivered, the WLP4/WLP8 factors may shift by more than their current scatter, so those factors should be re-derived before relying on them for time-series science.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports the updated absolute flux calibration of the JWST Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) imaging, time-series imaging, and coronagraphic modes. The calibration factor PHOTMJSR, converting DN/s/pixel to MJy/sr, is derived by comparing aperture photometry of 19 standard stars (A dwarfs, solar analogs, hot stars, and faint white dwarfs) with predicted fluxes from CALSPEC2 synthetic spectra, using STPSF aperture corrections and measured subarray-to-full-frame offsets. The authors deliver factors for all 29 imaging filters, 5 coronagraph masks, both weak lenses, and the coronagraph target-acquisition subarrays, with separate values by detector and subarray; the factors were installed in CRDS pmap 1490 in 2026 March. They report calibration scatter <2% for most imaging modes (<1% for about half), residual detector offsets typically <1% but up to 5%, subarray-dependent corrections up to ~1%, and slow responsivity declines <0.4%/yr. The paper provides the first on-sky calibration of WLP4/WLP8 and of dual-channel coronagraph configurations, and includes reproducibility checks against LMC and 47 Tuc fields.

Significance. If the delivered factors are accurate, this paper defines the reference flux scale for essentially all NIRCam imaging science from 2026 March onward, including time-series and coronagraphy. The analysis is a direct measurement (Eq. 1) rather than a fit to a desired outcome, uses 3.5 years and 19 stars, and ships the reduction code and an electronic table of factors, which is exemplary for an operational calibration paper. The independent LMC/47 Tuc comparison and the repeatability monitoring are valuable validation steps. The main limitation is that the quoted scatter measures internal agreement among stars retained after sigma-clipping, so it does not bound common-mode systematics in the CALSPEC2 model SEDs or in shared photometric chain elements; this is normal for JWST calibration, but it means the headline 'absolute accuracy' should be presented with an explicit model-error term, and the several single-star modes warrant prominent qualification.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.3.5, §3.1.1] The delivered PHOTMJSR_ERR and the paper's <2% scatter are internal statistical quantities, not absolute accuracy bounds. Four stars (LDS 749B and the three WDFS white dwarfs) are excluded from the averages because they deviate from the mean; this is a post-hoc selection, and while the NIRISS result supports the model interpretation for LDS 749B, no independent check is cited for WDFS2317, whose ~5% long-wavelength deviation could signal a flat-field or aperture-correction error common to the photometric chain. Please add to Section 3.1.1 and Table 6 an explicit statement and, where possible, a numeric systematic error floor representing CALSPEC2 model uncertainty, so that users do not mistake the reported scatter for total uncertainty.
  2. [§3.2.1, Table 6] The final WLP4/WLP8 calibration factors for Module A rest on a single star (P330E) after the SUB320 data are excluded, and the WLP8 Module B factors add only J1743045 and G 191-B2B. With N_stars=1, PHOTMJSR_STD and PHOTMJSR_SEM are zero by construction, so Table 6 gives no uncertainty for a mode the abstract lists as 'calibrated.' The text should state that these factors are provisional and carry a systematic uncertainty that cannot be estimated from this dataset, and should flag N_stars=1 entries in the electronic table.
  3. [§3.3, §4.1.1] Dual-channel coronagraphy is calibrated in far fewer configurations than the abstract suggests: the secondary-channel combinations are based on P330E alone (plus J1743045 for 210R), the LWB+SW filter combinations are not measured and are delivered using SWB factors substituted, and for FULL-frame coronagraphy the pipeline applies one factor averaged over the round or bar masks (up to ~3% deviation). These substitutions and averages are recorded in the text, but they do not appear in Table 6 in a way that users can identify. Please add a column or flag that marks substituted/averaged entries and include the substitution uncertainty in PHOTMJSR_ERR.
  4. [§3.1.2, Table 5] Detector-to-detector offsets are measured in only 8 filters and applied to those filters only, while offsets up to 0.055 mag (5.5%) are found for NRCA3 in F070W. For the remaining 21 imaging filters the delivered single per-detector factors contain unknown inter-detector errors; the text itself speculates that NRCA3 and NRCB4 may show the largest offsets in every filter. Please either derive correction factors for all filters or propagate an inter-detector uncertainty floor for the unmeasured filters in the delivered reference file.
  5. [§3.4.1] Residual subarray offsets on NRCB1, especially between SUB160P and SUB160, reach ~3%, and because the final factors are averaged with SUB160 dominating, the paper warns that Time Series Imaging with standard filters on NRCB1 may be discrepant by up to ~2%. This residual is not included in the delivered error budget for those modes. Since Imaging Time Series is one of the modes being calibrated, please quantify the effect on the NRCB1 standard-imaging PHOTMJSR values and add it to the stated uncertainties, or correct for the residual before delivery.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table A2] In the Cycle 1 weak lens imaging row, the date '2002 Aug 20' should read '2022 Aug 20'.
  2. [Table 3] The note under Table 3 contains a typo: 'Ths inverse' should be 'The inverse'.
  3. [§2.3.5] Equation (1) defines N_ap as 'the flux density measured in a finite aperture (DN s^-1 pix^-1)'; this is a count rate, not a flux density, so please adjust the wording.
  4. [Figure 5] The caption contains an erroneous line break in 'subar- rays'; please repair the hyphenation.
  5. [§4.3] The equation for the Vega-Sirius zeropoint should state explicitly whether C is the full-frame or subarray-corrected calibration factor; clarifying this will avoid ambiguity for users applying Eq. (3).
  6. [§4.1.2] The limitation that the pipeline cannot distinguish coronagraph masks in FULL-frame observations is important for users; please add a prominent note in the abstract or Section 1 that mask-specific FULL-frame values must be applied manually.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; PHOTMJSR is a direct ratio to external CALSPEC2 models, with a mild post-hoc exclusion caveat.

  1. other [Section 2.3.5 (Eq. 1) and Section 3.1.1]
    "Then we combine the targets together into a final calibration factor, giving each target equal weight and excluding stars with measurements outside 2.5 σ. ... We exclude all three faint white dwarfs and LDS 749B from the average calibration factor for all filters/detectors, but include them on the plots for comparison."

    The final PHOTMJSR factor is the sigma-clipped weighted mean of standard-star ratios (Eq. 1), and Sec. 3.1.1 removes the four stars that deviate 2–5% from that mean before averaging. The reported scatter (<2%, and <1% for about half the modes) is therefore computed from the same retained stars that define the factor; it measures internal consistency of the selected sample, not an independent absolute-accuracy check. This is a mild selection effect, not a forced fit: the absolute scale is still anchored to external CALSPEC2 model spectra, and the excluded stars are disclosed rather than predicted. It does not invalidate the central calibration, but the precision claim should not be read as external validation.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, not circular. Equation 1 defines each calibration factor as C = F_nu / (N_ap A_cor S_cor Omega_pix), a direct aperture-photometry ratio of CALSPEC2 model flux to measured DN/s, with aperture corrections from independent STPSF simulations and subarray offsets from dedicated full-frame/subarray transfer observations. The delivered PHOTMJSR values are thus measured ratios to external model spectra, not outputs of a fitted model. The subarray, detector-offset, and repeatability checks use separate datasets (programs 4452/6630/8882, LMC/47 Tuc, programs 1539/4499/6607/7671) and are not used to force the factors. The only self-referential element is the sigma-clipped combination and the explicit exclusion of LDS 749B and the three WDFS white dwarfs (Secs. 2.3.5 and 3.1.1): the average and the quoted scatter are defined over the stars that pass the 2.5-sigma cut. This is standard robust averaging and is openly disclosed; the four excluded stars are not claimed as predictions, and the absolute scale remains anchored to the external CALSPEC2 system. The paper also flags residual subarray offsets up to ~2% (Sec. 3.4.1), sparse standard-star coverage for weak lenses and coronagraphy (Sec. 5), and missing factors (Sec. 4.1.1); these limit precision but do not create circularity. Self-citations (Sunnquist et al. 2022/2024, Boyer et al. 2022, Boyer 2026, Bajaj 2024) are used for software, flat-field context, and visualization, and are not load-bearing for the central factor derivation. Overall circularity score: 2, reflecting only the mild self-consistency caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measured quantities rather than free parameters: the calibration factors are directly computed from count rates and model fluxes. However, the choice of which stars to keep (four excluded), the sigma-clipping thresholds, and the reliance on external models (CALSPEC2, STPSP, Synphot) are load-bearing analyst and model assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • sigma-clipping thresholds = 2.5 sigma (target combination), 2.5 and 3 sigma (subarray averages)
    Choice of clipping thresholds affects which measurements enter the final calibration factors; not fit to data, but analyst-selected.
  • excluded standard stars = LDS 749B, WDFS0122-30, WDFS0458-56, WDFS2317-29 excluded from all calibrations; G191-B2B and J1743045 excluded from…
    Post-hoc selection based on physical arguments; these exclusions change the calibration factors by up to 2-5% for the affected filters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CALSPEC2 model spectra are accurate for the retained standard stars
    All calibration factors are ratios of model flux to measured count rate (Eq. 1); the paper excludes four stars that disagree with the average, citing model issues (Section 3.1.1).
  • domain assumption STPSF simulated PSFs accurately predict encircled energy and aperture corrections
    Aperture corrections in Table 3 are derived from STPSF v2.0.0 models; for coronagraphy these corrections scale measured flux by 1.15-1.49, so model errors propagate directly into C.
  • domain assumption Filter throughputs (Synphot v7.0) and pixel area maps are correct
    Used to compute predicted flux densities from the CALSPEC2 spectra in Section 2.3.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual subarray offsets are caused by flat-field errors, not by the subarray correction itself
    Section 3.4.1 attributes residual 1-3% subarray differences to flat fields, but the alternative (inaccurate subarray offsets) is acknowledged as possible for NRCALONG and NRCB1; the delivered factors for SUB160-heavy averages may be biased.
  • domain assumption Dark subtraction errors are negligible for long exposures
    Section 2.3 notes dark current <0.02 DN/s/pix and skipped dark subtraction for >100-frame exposures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. VI. Near-Infrared Camera Imaging and Coronagraphy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWMKA3ZW

@misc{pith2026260808717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. VI. Near-Infrared Camera Imaging and Coronagraphy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWMKA3ZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08717}
}
read the original abstract

We present an updated flux calibration for all imaging modes of the Near-Infrared Camera on JWST that converts instrumental units to physical surface brightness units of MJy sr^-1. This calibration includes observations of 19 flux standard stars spanning 3.5 years, with a mix of A dwarfs, solar analogs, and hot stars. All 5 coronagraphic setups, all 29 filters, and both weak lenses are calibrated. This is the first on-sky calibration for the weak lenses used in Time Series observations and for secondary coronagraphic configurations (long wavelength masks paired with short wavelength filters, and vice versa). We also assess count-rate differences between subarrays and the full frame, finding differences of up to ~1%. These differences are incorporated into the calibration factors. We find that the scatter in the calibration factor is typically <2%, with about half of the filter+detector[+mask] combinations reaching <1% scatter. There are no trends with detector effects such as the count rate and well depth. Images in a handful of filters of the Large Magellanic Cloud and globular cluster 47 Tuc show that residual detector-to-detector offsets are typically small (<1%), but can be as high as 4-5%. The NIRCam detectors are found to be quite stable, with possible count-rate decreases of <0.4% per year, which is within the calibration uncertainties. These new calibration factors were incorporated into the JWST pipeline in 2026 March.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Locations of the primary subarrays used for imaging flux calibration: SUB160, SUB160P, and SUB64P. SW subarrays are blue, LW subarrays are red. SUB64P on Module B is not shown, but is at the same location as SUB160P on that module. The NRCALONG and NRCBLONG detectors are outlined in black. The SW detectors are outlined in gray and labeled. Note that reference pixels are located in 4-pixel wide boundaries around the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The location of the occulting masks and subar￾rays for NIRCam Coronagraphy. The plus symbols mark the center of the mask locations. Red and blue outlines indicate the LW and SW subarray on the primary coronagraph chan￾nel, respectively. The black line outlines the NRCALONG detector, and the gray lines trace the NRCA2 and NRCA4 SW detectors. SW subarrays are 640×640 pix, LW round mask subarrays are 320×320 pix, and t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example PSFs for each type of optical ele￾ment: imaging filters, coronagraph round and bar masks, and WLP4 and WLP8 weak lenses. All images show F210M or F410M, except WLP4 (F212N). The top two (imaging) panels are 40×40 pix, the coronagraph panels are 80×80 pix, and the WLP panels are 200×200 pix. The target is P330E in all panels. Jump step turned off. This occurred in about 17% of the images. For both channels, w… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Count-rate differences between subarrays and the full frame. Here, we show the extended source subarrays on detector NRCB1. The complete figure set (29 images) is available in the online journal. In each figure, the star is placed at the same location on the detector f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The calibration factor (C) for F200W on module B, as a function of stellar flux density. The complete figure set (42 images, all imaging filters/detectors) is available in the online journal. Figures are labeled with pupil+filter wheel notation (e.g., CLEAR+F200W). The…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The standard error of the mean (as a percentage) for the calibration factors. The horizontal gray line marks the 1% level. The JWST/NIRISS absolute flux analysis (K. Volk & P. Goudfrooij 2025) did not include the faint white dwarfs, but did find discrepant measurements…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The calibration factor vs. the subarray, on the four detectors where measurements were made on multi￾ple subarrays. We include all filters in each panel, with the calibration factor normalized to the average in that filter. Random scatter to the left and right has bee…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The F200W calibration factor for NRCB3, as a function of the peak pixel rate. The points are measurements from each image with colors indicating the stellar type (solar, A dwarf, or hot stars) and the shapes indicating the subarray. Gray points are targets that were n…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The dependence of the calibration factor on the source type. The SW detectors are combined into a single panel for each module. 3-σ error bars are included. The black points are the average of all wide filters, and the colored points are the individual filters. No tre…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Repeatability of each detector. The lower left indicates the slope measured over Cycles 2–4. Cycle 1 is ex￾cluded in the SW channel slope because insufficient dithering caused noisy data. Cycle 1 is also excluded from the slope for the LW channel because the Cycle 1 d…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The percent deviation from the average ful￾l-frame calibration factor for each mask. Individual calibra￾tion factors are within ∼3% of the average value delivered to CRDS for observations in the FULL frame. F070W F090W F115W F140M F150W F162M F182M F200W F210M F250M F…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The absolute value of the percent differences between the FULL frame calibration factors for this deliv￾ery (pmap 1490) and the previous delivery (pmap 1126) for imaging filters. Most calibration factors changed by <3%. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The absolute value of the percent differences in the FULL frame calibration factors between this deliv￾ery (pmap 1490) and the previous delivery for coronaraphy (pmap 1146). Note that the previous delivery did not in￾clude dual-channel coronagraphy data, so this plot …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Anderson , J. 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 240, American Astronomical Society Meeting \#240, 206.01

    work page 2022

  2. [3]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, title Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy , , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [4]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, title The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package , , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  4. [5]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, title The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package , , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  5. [6]

    2023, title All-sky Faint DA White Dwarf Spectrophotometric Standards for Astrophysical Observatories: The Complete Sample , , 951, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd333

    Axelrod , T., Saha , A., Matheson , T., et al. 2023, title All-sky Faint DA White Dwarf Spectrophotometric Standards for Astrophysical Observatories: The Complete Sample , , 951, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd333

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd333 2023

  6. [7]

    2024, title One-Pass-Fitting , , version 0.2 https://github.com/Vb2341/One-Pass-Fitting

    Bajaj , V. 2024, title One-Pass-Fitting , , version 0.2 https://github.com/Vb2341/One-Pass-Fitting

    work page 2024

  7. [8]

    O., Kammerer , J., Pueyo , L., et al

    Balmer , W. O., Kammerer , J., Pueyo , L., et al. 2025, title JWST-TST High Contrast: Living on the Wedge, or, NIRCam Bar Coronagraphy Reveals CO _ 2 in the HR 8799 and 51 Eri Exoplanets' Atmospheres , , 169, 209, 10.3847/1538-3881/adb1c6

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb1c6 2025

  8. [9]

    C., Gordon , K

    Bohlin , R. C., Gordon , K. D., & Tremblay , P. E. 2014, title Techniques and Review of Absolute Flux Calibration from the Ultraviolet to the Mid-Infrared , , 126, 711, 10.1086/677655

    doi:10.1086/677655 2014

Show all 66 references
  1. [10]

    C., Krick , J

    Bohlin , R. C., Krick , J. E., Gordon , K. D., & Hubeny , I. 2022, title How Do Spitzer IRAC Fluxes Compare to HST CALSPEC? , , 164, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6fe1

    2022 doi

  2. [12]

    L., Anderson , J., Gennaro , M., et al

    Boyer , M. L., Anderson , J., Gennaro , M., et al. 2022, title The JWST Resolved Stellar Populations Early Release Science Program. I. NIRCam Flux Calibration , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 191, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac923a

    2022 doi

  3. [15]

    P., Mather , J

    Gardner , J. P., Mather , J. C., Abbott , R., et al. 2023, title The James Webb Space Telescope Mission , , 135, 068001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    2023 doi

  4. [16]

    H., Leisenring , J., Kammerer , J., et al

    Girard , J. H., Leisenring , J., Kammerer , J., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle , S. Matsuura , & M. D. P...

    2022 doi

  5. [17]

    D., Bohlin , R., Sloan , G

    Gordon , K. D., Bohlin , R., Sloan , G. C., et al. 2022, title The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. I. Program Design and Calibrator Stars , , 163, 267, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc

    2022 doi

  6. [18]

    D., Sloan , G

    Gordon , K. D., Sloan , G. C., Garcia Marin , M., et al. 2025, title The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. II. Mid-infrared Instrument Imaging and Coronagraphy , , 169, 6, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8cd4

    2025 doi

  7. [19]

    Z., Llop-Sayson , J., Lew , B

    Greenbaum , A. Z., Llop-Sayson , J., Lew , B. W. P., et al. 2023, title First Observations of the Brown Dwarf HD 19467 B with JWST , , 945, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb68b

    2023 doi

  8. [20]

    2016--2026, title JWST User Documentation (JDox)

    JWST User Documentation, . 2016--2026, title JWST User Documentation (JDox). Baltimore, MD: Space Telescope Science Institute , , https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu

    2016

  9. [21]

    2011, title Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in P ython, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, title Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in P ython, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  10. [24]

    H., Su , K., Sloan , G

    Rieke , G. H., Su , K., Sloan , G. C., & Schlawin , E. 2022, title Infrared Absolute Calibration. I. Comparison of Sirius with Fainter Calibration Stars , , 163, 45, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3b5d

    2022 doi

  11. [26]

    J., Kelly , D

    Rieke , M. J., Kelly , D. M., Misselt , K., et al. 2023, title Performance of NIRCam on JWST in Flight , , 135, 028001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    2023 doi

  12. [27]

    2023, title The Science Performance of JWST as Characterized in Commissioning , , 135, 048001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby , J., Perrin , M., McElwain , M., et al. 2023, title The Science Performance of JWST as Characterized in Commissioning , , 135, 048001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  13. [28]

    2018, title synphot: Synthetic photometry using Astropy , , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1811.001 1811.001

    STScI Development Team . 2018, title synphot: Synthetic photometry using Astropy , , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1811.001 1811.001

    2018

  14. [29]

    2024, title Improved NIRCam Flat Field Reference Files for Cycle 1 , , Tech

    Sunnquist , B., Boyer , M., Brooks , B., et al. 2024, title Improved NIRCam Flat Field Reference Files for Cycle 1 , , Tech. Rep. Technical Report JWST-STScI-008607, STScI

    2024

  15. [30]

    2022, title NIRCam Commissioning Results NRC-10-Flat Fields, Scattered Light, and Backgrounds , , Tech

    Sunnquist , B., Willmer , C., Brooks , B., et al. 2022, title NIRCam Commissioning Results NRC-10-Flat Fields, Scattered Light, and Backgrounds , , Tech. Rep. Technical Report JWST-STScI-008304, STScI

    2022

  16. [31]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, title SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python , Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  17. [33]

    Baltimore, MD: Space Telescope Science Institute

    JWST User Documentation (JDox). Baltimore, MD: Space Telescope Science Institute. 2016--2026 , month = jan, adsurl =

    2016

  18. [34]

    NIRCam Commissioning Results NRC-10-Flat Fields, Scattered Light, and Backgrounds

  19. [35]

    , keywords =

    How Do Spitzer IRAC Fluxes Compare to HST CALSPEC?. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6fe1 , archivePrefix =. 2205.08322 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  20. [36]

    American Astronomical Society Meeting \#240 , year = 2022, series =

    hst1pass: One-Pass PSF Photometry for HST Detectors. American Astronomical Society Meeting \#240 , year = 2022, series =

    2022

  21. [37]

    Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , year = 2022, editor =

    Phasing the Webb Telescope. Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , year = 2022, editor =. doi:10.1117/12.2633474 , adsurl =

    2022 doi

  22. [38]

    , keywords =

    Performance of NIRCam on JWST in Flight. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 , archivePrefix =. 2212.12069 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  23. [39]

    , keywords =

    The Science Performance of JWST as Characterized in Commissioning. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acb293 , archivePrefix =. 2207.05632 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  24. [40]

    , keywords =

    The James Webb Space Telescope Mission. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 , archivePrefix =. 2304.04869 , primaryClass =

  25. [41]

    The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. V. Near-Infrared Camera Wide Field Slitless Spectroscopy. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.13918 , archivePrefix =. 2602.13918 , primaryClass =

    doi

  26. [42]

    The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. IV. Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph Imaging. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adea77 , adsurl =

    doi

  27. [43]

    synphot: Synthetic photometry using Astropy

  28. [44]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.8436689 , version =

    JWST Calibration Pipeline. doi:10.5281/zenodo.8436689 , version =

    doi

  29. [45]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.21677181 , version =

    JWST/NIRCam Flux calibration for Imaging, Coronagraphy, and Time Series. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21677181 , version =

    doi

  30. [46]

    , keywords =

    First Observations of the Brown Dwarf HD 19467 B with JWST. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb68b , archivePrefix =. 2301.11455 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  31. [47]

    , keywords =

    JWST-TST High Contrast: Living on the Wedge, or, NIRCam Bar Coronagraphy Reveals CO _ 2 in the HR 8799 and 51 Eri Exoplanets' Atmospheres. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb1c6 , archivePrefix =. 2503.13608 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  32. [48]

    The JWST Resolved Stellar Populations Early Release Science Program. I. NIRCam Flux Calibration. Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society , keywords =. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac923a , archivePrefix =. 2209.03348 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  33. [49]

    , keywords =

    All-sky Faint DA White Dwarf Spectrophotometric Standards for Astrophysical Observatories: The Complete Sample. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd333 , archivePrefix =. 2305.07563 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  34. [50]

    The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. II. Mid-infrared Instrument Imaging and Coronagraphy. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8cd4 , archivePrefix =. 2409.10443 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  35. [51]

    Infrared Absolute Calibration. I. Comparison of Sirius with Fainter Calibration Stars. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3b5d , archivePrefix =. 2111.10444 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  36. [52]

    Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI , year = 2016, editor =

    Pandeia: a multi-mission exposure time calculator for JWST and WFIRST. Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI , year = 2016, editor =. doi:10.1117/12.2231768 , archivePrefix =. 1707.02202 , primaryClass =

    2016 arXiv

  37. [53]

    Update of the STIS CTE Correction Formula for Stellar Spectra

  38. [54]

    , keywords =

    Techniques and Review of Absolute Flux Calibration from the Ultraviolet to the Mid-Infrared. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/677655 , archivePrefix =. 1406.1707 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  39. [55]

    Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , year = 2014, editor =

    Updated point spread function simulations for JWST with WebbPSF. Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , year = 2014, editor =. doi:10.1117/12.2056689 , adsurl =

    2014 doi

  40. [56]

    astropy/photutils: 1.8.0 , month = may, year = 2023, publisher =

    Larry Bradley and Brigitta Sip. astropy/photutils: 1.8.0 , month = may, year = 2023, publisher =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.7946442 , url =

    2023 doi

  41. [57]

    The James Webb Space Telescope Absolute Flux Calibration. I. Program Design and Calibrator Stars. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc , archivePrefix =. 2204.06500 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  42. [58]

    and Haberland, Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cournapeau, David and Burovski, Evgeni and Peterson, Pearu and Weckesser, Warren and Bright, Jonathan and

    Virtanen, Pauli and Gommers, Ralf and Oliphant, Travis E. and Haberland, Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cournapeau, David and Burovski, Evgeni and Peterson, Pearu and Weckesser, Warren and Bright, Jonathan and. Nature Methods , year =

  43. [59]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.6672538 , url =

    Brammer, Gabriel and Victoria Strait and Jasleen Matharu and Ivelina Momcheva , title =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.6672538 , url =

    doi

  44. [60]

    Astrometric Catalog for JWST Focal Plane Geometric Calibration

  45. [61]

    , keywords =

    The Initial Mass Function in the Coma Berenices Dwarf Galaxy from Deep Near-infrared HST Observations. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaceff , archivePrefix =. 1806.08380 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  46. [62]

    Calibration of ACS/WFC Absolute Scale and Rotation for Use in creation of a JWST Astrometric Reference Field

  47. [63]

    Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , year = 2012, editor =

    The JWST Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS) and Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS). Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , year = 2012, editor =. doi:10.1117/12.926578 , adsurl =

    2012 doi

  48. [64]

    Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments XI , year = 2005, editor =

    Overview of James Webb Space Telescope and NIRCam's Role. Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments XI , year = 2005, editor =. doi:10.1117/12.615554 , adsurl =

    2005 doi

  49. [65]

    Improved NIRCam Flat Field Reference Files for Cycle 1

  50. [66]

    arXiv , Author =:1307.6212 , Journal =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , Eid =. arXiv , Author =:1307.6212 , Journal =

    arXiv

  51. [67]

    , keywords =

    The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , archivePrefix =. 1801.02634 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  52. [68]

    , keywords =

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , archivePrefix =. 2206.14220 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  53. [69]

    , keywords =

    Stellar Cluster Fiducial Sequences with the Advanced Camera for Surveys. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/444542 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0506672 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  54. [70]

    A detailed photometric and spectroscopic study of the very metal-poor Draco II satellite

    Pristine dwarf galaxy survey - I. A detailed photometric and spectroscopic study of the very metal-poor Draco II satellite. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1986 , archivePrefix =. 1807.10655 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  55. [71]

    , keywords =

    Accurate distances to Galactic globular clusters through a combination of Gaia EDR3, HST, and literature data. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1474 , archivePrefix =. 2105.09526 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  56. [72]

    , keywords =

    Intrinsic iron spread and a new metallicity scale for globular clusters. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913003 , archivePrefix =. 0910.0675 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  57. [73]

    and Varoquaux, G

    Pedregosa, F. and Varoquaux, G. and Gramfort, A. and Michel, V. and Thirion, B. and Grisel, O. and Blondel, M. and Prettenhofer, P. and Weiss, R. and Dubourg, V. and Vanderplas, J. and Passos, A. and Cournapeau, D. and Brucher, M. and Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. , journal=. S...

  58. [74]

    Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , year = 2022, editor =

    JWST/NIRCam coronagraphy: commissioning and first on-sky results. Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave , year = 2022, editor =. doi:10.1117/12.2629636 , archivePrefix =. 2208.00998 , primaryClass =

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.