Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Effortless reconstructs oversampled images from single undersampled Roman frames and removes finite-sampling residuals by a simple post-measurement calibration.

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 14:58 UTC pith:6CC4WMKW

load-bearing objection Solid implementation paper that delivers residual budgets, public code, and a working single-epoch reconstructor; the star-only calibration is the real open risk, not a hidden flaw. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09862 v1 pith:6CC4WMKW submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO

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

Kaili Cao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO
keywords astronomy image processingweak gravitational lensingimage reconstructionpoint spread functionRoman Space Telescopeundersampled imagespost-measurement calibration
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.

Space telescopes such as the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope deliver undersampled native images whose point-spread functions are too narrow for accurate weak-lensing shear measurements. Effortless is a linear reconstruction algorithm that, given full knowledge of the native PSFs, produces oversampled images whose output PSFs are uniform and regular, and does so with far less computation and memory than its predecessor Imcom. The paper shows that the conditions of the classical Nyquist–Shannon theorem do not map directly onto survey data processing; residual wave-packet patterns caused by finite sampling can be reduced by roughly two orders of magnitude with an empirical calibration that fits measurement errors against trigonometric functions of each object’s subpixel location. Masked pixels, truncated weight windows, and Fourier-division artifacts are all controlled by tunable hyperparameters. The resulting API is general enough for time-domain and other non-lensing applications.

Core claim

Given a priori knowledge of the native (forward and backward) PSFs, Effortless can reconstruct individually oversampled images whose residual PSFs follow simple, predictable wave-packet patterns; those patterns are then largely removed by a post-measurement calibration that correlates measurement errors with subpixel offsets, reducing errors on injected stars by about two orders of magnitude and bringing them below or comparable to multi-image Imcom results.

What carries the argument

The weight field obtained by dividing the target output PSF by the pixelated input PSF in Fourier space (T̃ = Γ̃′/G̃′), sampled only at the locations of available input pixels and corrected for geometric distortion by Jacobian matrices; residual finite-sampling errors are subsequently calibrated by a Theil–Sen fit to trigonometric functions of the object’s subpixel phase.

Load-bearing premise

That the empirical calibration trained on ideal injected stars continues to remove finite-sampling bias for real extended galaxies without introducing new systematics larger than weak-lensing tolerances.

What would settle it

Apply the same k_max=2 trigonometric calibration to a library of realistic extended-galaxy simulations whose true shapes are known; if residual shear or size biases after calibration exceed Roman weak-lensing requirements, the central claim fails for science sources.

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

If this is right

  • Individual Roman exposures can be reconstructed and measured separately, enabling time-domain science and direct single-epoch comparisons.
  • Survey dither strategies may be relaxed if most objects still receive at least two usable measurements, potentially increasing sky area.
  • Masked-pixel diffusion and rejection-radius cuts keep reconstruction reliable even with ~3 % inoperable or cosmic-ray-hit pixels.
  • The same API can be reused for non-lensing and non-Roman imaging pipelines that need controlled output PSFs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a modest ‘truth library’ of realistic galaxy morphologies can be built, the same subpixel-phase calibration may be iterated on galaxies the way it is already iterated on stars, avoiding the need to combine frames.
  • Statistical (tomographic-bin) calibration of residual biases could serve as a fallback if per-object calibration does not generalize.
  • Because the residual patterns are deterministic functions of subpixel phase, noise-covariance models for the reconstructed images can be derived analytically rather than estimated from many realizations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the mathematical formalism, software architecture, hyperparameter choices, and practical residual analysis for Effortless (formerly Fast Imcom), an efficient linear image-reconstruction algorithm that produces uniform target PSFs from undersampled Roman WFI frames. Building on the companion formalism paper, it derives reconstruction weights via Fourier-space division of a Gaussian target by the pixelated input PSF (with circular/inner bandlimits), samples them on finite input-pixel windows, handles geometric distortions via Jacobian matrices, propagates and mitigates input masks by rejection + iterative weight diffusion, and introduces an empirical post-measurement calibration of HSM moments against trigonometric functions of subpixel offsets. Residual maps, leakage scans (Figs. 5, 7), mask-propagation examples, and before/after calibration distributions on OpenUniverse2024 injected stars are shown; the API is designed for reuse beyond Roman weak lensing.

Significance. If the residual control and calibration hold, Effortless would remove a major computational and systematic bottleneck for Roman HLIS shear pipelines and enable single-epoch analyses useful for time-domain science. Strengths include a clean OOP design with public code (v0.2.2 on Zenodo), transparent hyperparameter tables, quantitative residual budgets for bandlimits/finite sampling/windows/masks, and reproducible OpenUniverse2024 experiments that demonstrate ~2-order-of-magnitude error reduction for stars. The work is a solid engineering and diagnostic foundation even if the galaxy-level claim remains open.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6, §7] §6 (and the limitations paragraph of §7): All quantitative support for the post-measurement calibration (Theil–Sen fits of HSM amplitude, centroid, size, ellipticity and spin-2 fourth moment versus trig(k·2πΔx/y) with KMAX=2; Figs. 12–15) uses ideal point sources. The paper itself states that for extended sources the aliasing relations among Fourier modes are no longer fixed by a known morphology, so the residual is no longer a pure phase-shifted wave packet independent of the object. Without a galaxy residual budget or a demonstration that the star-trained coefficients keep multiplicative shear bias below Roman requirements (~10^{-3}–10^{-4}), the claim that Effortless enables accurate measurements on individual undersampled frames (abstract; §1) is not yet established for the science case that motivates the work. Either supply such a test (even on a small set of simulated galaxies) or
  2. [§6] §6: The calibration requires a full no-mask counterpart of every science image (NOMASK=True) so that “ground-truth” moments can be measured; this more than doubles the already non-negligible reconstruction cost and is not free for real data. The text notes the cost but does not quantify wall-time or memory overhead relative to a pure Imcom/PyImcom run, nor does it show that the same coefficients can be transferred from a sparse set of injected-star layers without re-running the no-mask path. A scaling estimate or an ablation that freezes the regressors after a subset of fields is needed before the method can be claimed practical for the full HLIS.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2, §3.2] Table 2 and §3.2: Hyperparameter names mix underscores inconsistently (e.g., MASK_THR vs DISTTHR, BL_CIRC vs BL_INNER). A uniform convention would aid reproducibility.
  2. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption and surrounding text: The decomposition (κ, γ1, γ2, φ) is useful, but the color-scale ranges differ by orders of magnitude across panels without a common colorbar; a single shared scale (or explicit note that each panel is independently normalized) would prevent misreading the relative importance of the terms.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (5)] Eq. (5) and §4.1: The statement that both Γ̃′ and G̃′ “vanish (at least in computers) at large wavenumbers” is slightly imprecise; the practical issue is that the ratio becomes numerically unstable near the zeros of the pixelated G̃′. A one-sentence clarification would help readers who implement the division themselves.
  4. [§5] §5: The choice REJECT = 8 output pixels and MASK_THR = 32 is motivated by the leakage curves in Fig. 9, but the text never states the corresponding native-pixel radius or the fraction of sky lost after both cuts. Adding those two numbers would make the data-volume impact transparent.
  5. Throughout: Occasional typographic inconsistencies (e.g., “Effortless” vs. “{\sc Effortless}”, missing spaces before citations, “half-integer multiplied by √2” historical remark that is no longer needed). A light copy-edit pass would polish the presentation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mild fitted-input circularity only in the star-only post-measurement calibration (fit and residual reported on same sample); core Fourier-weight derivation and residual characterization are independent and non-circular.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 (post-measurement calibration; Figs. 12–13 and accompanying text)]
    "Effortless uses scikit-learn TheilSenRegressor to fit a relationship between measurement errors and a set of trigonometric functions of subpixel positions of injected stars. … To obtain the “ground truth,” each reconstructed image has a no-mask counterpart … After the post-measurement calibration with k_max=2, … the errors are reduced by about 2 orders of magnitude"

    The trigonometric coefficients are fitted directly to the measurement errors of the same injected-star sample whose residual scatter is then quoted as the calibration success. With k_max=2 the model has enough degrees of freedom to absorb the dominant wave-packet patterns observed in those stars; the reported two-order reduction is therefore largely the residual of that fit rather than an independent out-of-sample prediction. (The paper itself notes the open problem of generalizing the same coefficients to extended galaxies.)

full rationale

The load-bearing reconstruction (Eqs. 1–5) obtains weights by Fourier division of a user-chosen target PSF by the known input PSF, followed by sampling, circular band-limits, and finite windows; these steps are constructive approximations to the Imcom optimality criterion and do not define the target residuals they later measure. Finite-sampling wave-packet patterns are derived from the same linear map and exhibited in new figures (Figs. 2–7), not presupposed. The only mild circularity is the post-measurement step of §6: a Theil–Sen regressor is trained on trigonometric functions of sub-pixel offsets against measurement errors of the identical injected-star sample (ground truth = no-mask counterparts of the same images), after which the residual scatter of those same stars is reported as a ~2-order improvement. That reduction is therefore partly by construction of the model capacity (k_max=2). Self-citations to the companion formalism and prior PyImcom papers supply context and independent simulation code, but are not required to force the present claims. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or definitional identity of a central prediction appears. Overall circularity is therefore low and confined to an acknowledged empirical calibration whose generalization to galaxies is left open by the authors themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on linear reconstruction with known PSFs, a set of hand-chosen numerical cut-offs, and the empirical validity of a trigonometric calibration trained on simulated point sources. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are algorithmic hyperparameters tuned on the same simulation suite used for validation.

free parameters (6)
  • ACCEPT (acceptance radius) = 8 native pixels
    Fixed at 8 native pixels after leakage-vs-radius scan (Fig. 7); controls computational cost and outer residual amplitude.
  • BL_CIRC (circular bandlimit) = band-dependent half-integers × √2
    Band-dependent values (18.5√2, 20.5√2, 22.5√2 cycles per NPIX) chosen by inspecting leakage curves for single, double-resonance and 2×2 dithers (Fig. 5).
  • BL_INNER (inner bandlimit) = 18 / 22
    Set to 18 (F184) and 22 (H158) to suppress annular Fourier artifacts (Fig. 3).
  • REJECT / DISTTHR / MASK_THR / NDIFF = 8 / 8 / 32 / 5
    Mask-propagation and diffusion hyperparameters fixed at 8 output pixels, 8, 32 and 5 after residual and lost-flux scans (Figs. 8–11).
  • KMAX (trigonometric order) = 2
    Maximum harmonic order in the post-measurement Theil-Sen fit; set to 2 after testing on injected stars.
  • target output PSF width σ (SIGMA) = band-dependent 2.0–2.3 px
    Band-dependent FWHM values (2.0–2.3 native pixels) taken from prior PyImcom benchmarks.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Image reconstruction is a linear map H_α = Σ_i T_αi I_i with weights local to a finite acceptance window.
    Stated in §2.1; inherited from Imcom/Drizzle literature and required for computational tractability.
  • domain assumption Native (forward and backward) PSFs are known a priori to sufficient accuracy and can be treated as spatially constant inside each subslice.
    Core premise of §2.1 and the Fourier-division step (Eq. 5); enables single-epoch reconstruction beyond naïve Nyquist limits.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-sampling residuals are well-approximated by wave packets whose phase is a simple function of subpixel offset (Δx, Δy).
    Observed in 1-D experiments of the companion paper and confirmed in 2-D residual maps (§4.2); underpins the trigonometric calibration of §6.
  • domain assumption Geometric distortions between input and output planes are adequately captured by a locally constant Jacobian matrix D.
    §2.2; justified by measured κ, γ ≪ 1 and slow spatial variation on Roman SCAs.
invented entities (2)
  • Effortless weight field T obtained by Fourier division Γ̃′/G̃′ followed by circular band-limiting and real-space sampling independent evidence
    purpose: Replace Imcom’s per-stamp linear-system solve with a fast, memory-light procedure that still controls output PSF shape.
    Defined in §2.1 (Eq. 5) and implemented in the PSFModel/SubSlice classes; independent evidence is the residual maps and star-measurement improvements shown in the paper and companion.
  • Iterative weight-diffusion scheme for masked input pixels independent evidence
    purpose: Mitigate lost flux without recomputing full linear systems.
    Introduced in §5; efficacy shown by exponential drop of lost-weight fraction (Fig. 9).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 35789 in / 3387 out tokens · 32667 ms · 2026-07-14T14:58:14.510973+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Weak gravitational lensing is a promising but technically demanding cosmological probe. For space missions like the forthcoming Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, a major challenge is that native images are undersampled and need to be reconstructed to enable accurate measurements. {\sc Effortless} (EFFicient Optimal image ReconsTruction using LESS memory; previously known as Fast {\sc Imcom}) is a new algorithm designed for that purpose. My companion paper has exhibited promising first results to demonstrate that {\sc Effortless} can make point spread functions (PSFs) uniform and regular across reconstructed images more efficiently than its predecessor {\sc Imcom} and has the potential to outperform {\sc Imcom} in terms of control over systematic errors. In this paper, I present the mathematical formalism, software implementation, and practical issues in detail. Foremost, while the Nyquist--Shannon sampling theorem remains true, the conditions of the theorem are subtly (and importantly) different from the problem in survey data processing, and finite sampling effects can be substantially reduced via a simple post-measurement calibration. Imperfections caused by numerical artifacts, finiteness of input pixel windows, and unavailability of some input pixels are understood and under control. The {\sc Effortless} application programming interface is general and can support use cases beyond weak lensing cosmology and beyond the Roman Space Telescope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09862 by Kaili Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Decomposition of distortion matrices. From top to bottom, the four rows present the four components of distortion matrices, the convergence κ, two components of the shear γ1 and γ2, and the roll angle φ, respectively. The four columns correspond to a representative set of four input images; while these are simulated images in the H158 band, the distortion matrices are band-independent. Each panel visualize… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Summary of how the weight fields are computed. From left to right, the four columns correspond to the Y106, J129, H158, and F184 bands, respectively. The first row shows example PSFs in different bands in logarithmic scale, so that structures in the outer regions can be easily seen. In the inner regions, half widths at half maxima (HWHMs) of the input PSFs (mainly characterized by the wavelength-to-apertur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Application of circular bandlimits. The upper left panel shows the central part of the last panel of the third row of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PSF residuals caused by finite sampling. From left to right, the four columns correspond to the Y106, J129, H158, and F184 bands, respectively. The first and third rows present the PSF residuals in real space, while the second and fourth rows present them in Fourier space. In each row, the PSF residuals are multiplied by some power of 10 to avoid clutter. Throughout this figure, the PSF residuals are mainl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tuning circular bandlimits given finite sampling. This figure plots the PSF leakage (U/C) versus the circular bandlimit (with the inner bandlimits kept to their default values). Results for the Y106, J129, H158, and F184 bands are shown in blue, orange, green, and purple, respectively. The solid, dashed, and dot-dashed curves are results for sin￾gle input images, the “double resonance” dithering pattern, a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PSF residuals caused by the finiteness of input pixel windows. To isolate this causal relationship, effects due to finite sampling (see Section 4.2) are not included here. From left to right, the four columns correspond to the Y106, J129, H158, and F184 bands, respectively. From top to bottom, the four rows correspond to acceptance “radii” of 5, 8, 11, and 14 native pixels, respectively. The corresponding … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tuning acceptance “radius” given finite sampling. This figure plots the PSF leakage (U/C) versus the accep￾tance “radius” (with the circular and inner bandlimits kept to their default values). The coloring scheme and the line styles are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Four examples illustrating the propagation of pixel masks. The four columns correspond to the same four input images as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Iterative diffusion of lost weights. The two rows present the total fractions of lost weights and the ratios between PSF leakages with and without masks, respectively. Note that the “fraction” can exceed 1 because some of the weights are negative, hence it is possible for a partial sum to be larger than the total sum. The left column plots these two quantities versus the number of iterations of weight diff… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Impact of masked output pixels on injected stars. Both panels plot the total fractions of lost fluxes (assuming the Gaussian target output PSFs are perfectly reconstructed) versus the distances to the nearest masked output pixels. Results for the Y106, J129, H158, and F184 bands are shown in blue, orange, green, and purple, respectively. The y-axes of the left and right panels are in linear and logarithmi… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of the threshold for the distances between injected stars and their nearest masked output pixels. Each panel visualizes the distributions of numbers of contributing images as a function of the distance threshold in one of the bands. The average numbers of contributing images at different thresholds are shown as white dashed curves. The distance threshold adopted in this work is shown as a black dot… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Motivation for post-measurement calibration. Each panel plots a property of injected stars versus some trigonometric function (as shown in the x-axis label) of their subpixel positions in the respective input images. From top to bottom, the properties are: amplitude and shear invariant width, centroid offset (x- and y-components), ellipticity (2 components), and the spin-2 fourth moment (real and imaginar… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Effect of post-measurement calibration. This figure is an extended version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Impact of masked output pixels on measurements of injected stars. The mapping between panels and measured properties is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Impact of the number of contributing images. The mapping between panels and measured properties is the same as in Figures 12 and 14. Each panel plots root mean square errors (RMSEs) as a function of the number of contributing images. Results for the Y106, J129, H158, and F184 bands are shown in blue, orange, green, and purple, respectively. Average numbers of contributing images in different bands, given … 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

62 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0609591

    Albrecht, A., Bernstein, G., Cahn, R., et al. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0609591

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0609591 2006

  3. [3]

    A., et al

    Amon, A., Gruen, D., Troxel, M. A., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023514, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023514 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 Astropy Collaborati...

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023514 2022

  4. [4]

    A., Friedrich, O., Harnois-Déraps, J., et al

    Burger, P. A., Friedrich, O., Harnois-Déraps, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244673

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244673 2023

  5. [5]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.06674

    Cao, K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.06674. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06674

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    M., Laliotis, K., et al

    Cao, K., Hirata, C. M., Laliotis, K., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb580 17 https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/theory/openuniverse2024/ overview.html

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb580 2025

  7. [7]

    M., Laliotis, K., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a97

  8. [8]

    Cao, K., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2025, ApJL, 990, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfa12 2025

  9. [9]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae356a 2026

  10. [10]

    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

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.00438

  11. [11]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123519, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123519 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T

    Dalal, R., Li, X., Nicola, A., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123519, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123519 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Adamow, M., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14559, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.14559 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10065

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123519 2023

  12. [12]

    2023, A&A, 675, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245158

    Dvornik, A., Heymans, C., Asgari, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245158

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245158 2023

  13. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04088, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04088 Effortless II

    Eifler, T., Fang, X., Krause, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04088, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04088 Effortless II. Implementation27 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.04088 2024

  14. [14]

    S., & Hook, R

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

    doi:10.1086/338393 2002

  15. [15]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 103503, doi: 10.1103/c87p-j9nt

    Giannini, G., Camacho-Ciurana, G., Whyley, A., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 103503, doi: 10.1103/c87p-j9nt

    work page doi:10.1103/c87p-j9nt 2026

  16. [16]

    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

    doi:10.1086/427976 2012

  17. [17]

    2020, PASJ, 72, 16, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz138

    Hamana, T., Shirasaki, M., Miyazaki, S., et al. 2020, PASJ, 72, 16, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz138

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz138 2020

  18. [18]

    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

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

  19. [19]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 43, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz010

    Hikage, C., Oguri, M., Hamana, T., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 43, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz010

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz010 2019

  20. [20]

    2003, MNRAS, 343, 459, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x

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

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

  21. [21]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae182 2024

  22. [22]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.02600

    Huff, E., & Mandelbaum, R. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.02600. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02600

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  24. [24]

    M., Amon, A., et al

    Jarvis, M., Bernstein, G. M., Amon, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3679

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3679 2021

  25. [25]

    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

    2003

  26. [26]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae07c9 2025

  27. [27]

    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

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

  28. [28]

    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

    doi:10.1145/2833157.2833162 2015

  29. [29]

    Lauer, T. R. 1999, PASP, 111, 227, doi: 10.1086/316319

    doi:10.1086/316319 1999

  30. [30]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193. https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    2023, A&A, 679, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347236

    Li, S.-S., Hoekstra, H., Kuijken, K., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347236

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347236 2023

  32. [32]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 4904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad890

    Li, X., & Mandelbaum, R. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad890

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad890 2023

  33. [33]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3895

    Li, X., Mandelbaum, R., Jarvis, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3895

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3895 2024

  34. [34]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123518 LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration

    Li, X., Zhang, T., Sugiyama, S., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123518, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123518 LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1211.0310, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1211.0310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123518 2023

  35. [35]

    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

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

  36. [36]

    H., et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.2209.09253 2023

  37. [37]

    M., Seljak, U., et al

    Mandelbaum, R., Hirata, C. M., Seljak, U., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 1287, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09282.x

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

  38. [38]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123517

    Miyatake, H., Sugiyama, S., Takada, M., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123517

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123517 2023

  39. [39]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123520

    More, S., Sugiyama, S., Miyatake, H., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123520

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123520 2023

  40. [40]

    J., Bennett, C., et al

    Mosby, G., Rauscher, B. J., Bennett, C., et al. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 046001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.6.4.046001 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. 2024, Cardi...

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.6.4.046001 2020

  41. [41]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1833 2025

  42. [42]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 2011

  43. [43]

    T., Gaudi, B

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aafb69 2019

  44. [44]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade1d6 2025

  45. [45]

    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

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

  46. [46]

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

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 2015

  47. [47]

    F., Samuroff, S., Krause, E., et al

    Secco, L. F., Samuroff, S., Krause, E., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023515, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023515

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023515 2022

  48. [48]

    S., Becker, M

    Sheldon, E. S., Becker, M. R., MacCrann, N., & Jarvis, M. 2020, ApJ, 902, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb595

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb595 2020

  49. [49]

    S., & Huff, E

    Sheldon, E. S., & Huff, E. M. 2017, ApJ, 841, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa704b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa704b 2017

  50. [50]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123521 28K

    Sugiyama, S., Miyatake, H., More, S., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123521 28K. Cao

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123521 2023

  51. [51]

    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 van den Busch, J. L., Wright, A. H., Hildebrandt, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142083

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad664 2023

  52. [52]

    E., et al

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

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

  53. [53]

    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

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.05.001 2013

  54. [54]

    J., Downing, N

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adde5b 2025

  55. [55]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf3df 2023

  56. [56]

    H., Stölzner, B., Asgari, M., et al

    Wright, A. H., Stölzner, B., Asgari, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554908

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554908 2025

  57. [57]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae177 2024

  58. [58]

    Zackay, B., & Ofek, E. O. 2017a, ApJ, 836, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/187

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/187

  59. [59]

    Zackay, B., & Ofek, E. O. 2017b, ApJ, 836, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/188

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/188

  60. [60]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3350

  61. [61]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1801

  62. [62]

    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

    doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019