Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 38 references

A deep-field calibration strategy keeps 76 percent more galaxies for weak lensing.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 05:32 UTC pith:DNB5CZ7M

load-bearing objection Solid simulation-level demonstration of deep-field AnaCal, but the response-transfer assumption between different galaxy populations is untested. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05152 v1 pith:DNB5CZ7M submitted 2025-09-05 astro-ph.CO

Deep-Field Analytical Calibration

Andy Park , Xiangchong Li , Rachel Mandelbaum , Matthew Becker This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords weak gravitational lensingcosmic shearshear calibrationmultiplicative biasdeep-field imaginganalytical calibrationFPFSLSST
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.

This paper introduces a way to calibrate weak gravitational lensing shear measurements that keeps nearly all the statistical power of wide survey images instead of sacrificing a third of it. Standard analytical calibration requires adding an extra layer of noise to every image to cancel a noise bias, which doubles the pixel noise and lowers the effective depth. The new method measures galaxy shapes on wide-field images but computes the needed shear response from separate deep-field images, whose noise is doubled instead. In LSST-like simulations the multiplicative bias stays below 3×10^-3 at 99.7 percent confidence, and the effective galaxy number density rises from 17 to 30 per square arcmin. If real surveys behave like these simulations, this is a practical route to meeting the ten-year LSST calibration requirement without giving up depth.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that shear can be estimated by the ratio of a wide-field measured ellipticity to a deep-field measured response, γ̂_α = ⟨ẽ_dacal, α⟩ / ⟨R̃_dacal, α⟩ + O(γ³), with both sides renoised so that the PSF and noise statistics of the two fields match. When the wide-field shape is measured on a noisy image and the response is measured on a deeper image, the noise-bias cancellation that standard AnaCal achieves by doubling wide-field noise is preserved, but the doubled noise is moved to the deep field, where it costs less. The claim is that this estimator is unbiased at the level required by ten-year LSST surveys — |m| < 3×10^-3 at 99.7 percent confidence — in both isolat

What carries the argument

The central object is the deep-field AnaCal shear estimator, γ̂_α = ⟨ẽ_dacal, α⟩ / ⟨R̃_dacal, α⟩ + O(γ³), built from two matched noise-added observables: the wide-field ellipticity ẽ_dacal = e(ν̃_wide) and the deep-field response R̃_dacal. The identity that carries the argument is the noise-matching construction of Eqs. (14) and (15): deconvolving each field by its own PSF and reconvolving by a common larger PSF, then adding rotated noise realizations from the other field, gives both fields the same effective PSF and the same noise variance σ²_wide + 2σ²_deep. That lets the linear shear response of the deep field be used to calibrate the wide-field shape, with bias corrections derived analyt

Load-bearing premise

The deep-field galaxies used to measure the shear response are assumed to represent the wide-field galaxies whose shapes are being calibrated, with any difference appearing only as random sample variance; the simulations always supply the true PSF and noise, so real-world PSF or population mismatches between the two fields are not tested.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier is a simulation where deep- and wide-field galaxy populations are deliberately mismatched in redshift or morphology while PSF and noise are matched; if the multiplicative bias then exceeds |m| > 3×10^-3, the response-transfer assumption fails. An observational check would overlay wide and deep images of the same patch and compare the deep-field AnaCal response against one measured directly from the wide-field data with matched noise.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Surveys using deep-field AnaCal can recover about 76 percent more effective galaxies (n_eff from 17 to 30 arcmin^-2 in ten-year LSST r-band simulations) than standard AnaCal on wide-field images, directly improving cosmic shear statistical precision.
  • With a ten-times deeper field, pixel noise variance in the shear estimate drops by about 30 percent and overall shear uncertainty by about 25 percent relative to standard wide-field AnaCal.
  • The multiplicative bias remains within |m| < 3×10^-3 at 99.7 percent confidence across isolated, blended, variable-noise, variable-PSF, and bulge+disk galaxy simulations, meeting the nominal ten-year LSST calibration requirement.
  • Sample variance from realistic LSST Deep Drilling Field coverage contributes an equivalent calibration uncertainty of ≲0.3 percent, small enough to stay within the LSST error budget.
  • The method generalizes the deep-field response idea to blended galaxies and shear-dependent detection bias, which earlier deep-field metacalibration did not cover.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper leaves implicit is to compute redshift-dependent responses from deep-field galaxies in redshift bins, which would extend deep-field AnaCal to tomographic shear without re-introducing wide-field noise.
  • The same noise-matching construction could be applied to multi-band or multi-epoch combinations, where the deep field is built from coadded visits; the benefit would grow when the wide-field noise is high relative to the deep field.
  • One testable consequence is that the statistical gain should track the ratio sqrt(2/(1+2r)) with r the deep-to-wide noise variance ratio; simulating other ratios would confirm the scaling and help observers choose deep-field exposure time.
  • If deep-field galaxy properties differ from wide-field ones in ways beyond sample variance — for example in redshift or morphology — the response transfer could become biased; reweighting deep galaxies to match wide-field distributions is a plausible fix that the same simulations could test.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper introduces Deep-Field Analytical Calibration (deep-field AnaCal), an extension of the AnaCal/FPFS shear estimation framework. The key idea is to measure galaxy shapes from wide-field images (avoiding the noise penalty of standard AnaCal) while computing the ensemble shear response from deeper-field images, with a noise/PSF matching procedure defined in Eqs. (14)-(16). The estimator is given in Eq. (17). The method is tested on isolated and blended galaxy simulations with LSST-like conditions. Reported results include multiplicative bias consistent with |m| < 3e-3 at 3σ, an improvement in effective number density from 17 to 30 arcmin^-2 relative to wide-field-only AnaCal, and a sample-variance calibration uncertainty of ≲0.3% for LSST Deep Drilling Fields. The paper argues that deep-field AnaCal preserves the statistical power of wide-field images while avoiding the need to inject an extra noise layer into them.

Significance. If the method works as claimed, it offers a practical and computationally efficient way to recover a substantial fraction of the statistical power lost in standard AnaCal's renoising procedure. The paper is careful in several respects: the simulations are controlled (fixed/variable noise, fixed/variable PSF, single- and two-component galaxy models, isolated and blended cases), no parameters are fitted to make the measured biases pass the requirement, and the code is publicly available. The O(γ^3) accuracy and noise-bias proofs are imported from prior work (Li et al. 2024a), which is appropriate. The main unresolved issue is whether the deep-field response can be transferred to the wide-field shape population in a real survey, where the two samples are not drawn from the same galaxy-property distribution. This is the load-bearing assumption of the method and is not tested in the present simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2 and §5, Eq. (17)] The simulations do not test the transfer of the deep-field response to a wide-field shape sample with different galaxy properties. In §4.2 the deep-field images are made by "randomly selecting a new galaxy for every corresponding wide-field image," so the wide and deep samples have the same intrinsic galaxy-property distribution. The same is true for the isolated-galaxy tests in §3.1, where the same galaxy catalog is used with lower noise. Thus the reported unbiasedness (|m|<3e-3) is established only for the case <R_wide> = <R_deep> by construction. In a real survey, deep fields are deeper and select fainter, higher-redshift, and possibly morphologically different galaxies than the wide-field shape sample. Since the response in Eq. (16) depends on galaxy properties through the nonlinear weights in Eq. (6), a systematic difference between the wide and deep populations would induce a multi
  2. [§3, first paragraph] All simulations provide the true PSF model and the true noise variance to the estimator. This is stated clearly, but it means the validation does not include PSF misestimation, which is a leading shear systematic. The abstract's claim that the method mitigates biases "arising from ... the PSF" is broader than what is tested. Please either add tests with an imperfect PSF model (e.g., wrong size or ellipticity) or temper the abstract/conclusions to make clear that the results assume a perfect PSF model and known noise variance.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 and Abstract] The claimed statistical gain factor sqrt(2/(1+2/10)) ≈ 1.30 is described as reducing pixel noise variance by 30%. From the stated noise contributions, the ratio of variances is (σ_w²+2σ_d²)/(2σ_w²) = 0.6, i.e., a 40% variance reduction, and the corresponding uncertainty reduction is about 23%, not 30%. Also, the measured m uncertainty in Table 2 improves by a factor ≈2.1/1.3 ≈ 1.62, larger than the predicted factor. Please clarify which quantity the factor applies to (σ_γ vs. m uncertainty) and reconcile the numbers.
  2. [Eq. (14)-(16)] The notation for the added noise layers is slightly inconsistent: Eq. (14) uses n'_deep and n''_deep, while Eq. (15) uses n'_wide and n'_deep, and the response Eq. (16) subtracts 2δν'_deep and δν'_wide. It would help readers to define explicitly which noise realizations are rotated by 90 degrees and which enter the shape vs. response images, to make the noise-matching construction easier to verify.
  3. [Table 3 and §4.2] The n_eff comparison assumes equal areas for the wide and deep fields, as noted in the table caption. This is a useful idealized comparison, but the text should state more prominently that in a real survey the deep-field area is much smaller, so the n_eff gain applies only to a subset of the survey unless the response is transferred to the rest of the sky; the sample-variance discussion in §4.3 partially addresses this but not the population-mismatch point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: deep-field AnaCal is validated against external simulations; population-matching limitations are external-validity concerns, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The central estimator (Eq. 17) is defined as the ratio of a wide-field shape measurement to a deep-field shear response, ⟨ẽ_dacal,α⟩/⟨R̃_dacal,α⟩. The response is computed from analytic shear derivatives of linear observables (Eqs. 5, 8, 16), not fitted to the measured bias. The paper's validation procedure measures multiplicative and additive biases using known input shears (Eqs. 18, 20, 21) and compares them to a fixed external requirement, |m| < 3×10^-3 at 99.7% confidence; no parameter is adjusted to make the bias pass. The noise-bias correction is imported from Li et al. (2024a), a prior paper by overlapping authors, but that prior work provides its own simulation support, and the present paper independently tests the resulting estimator on both isolated and blended galaxy simulations (Tables 1 and 2). Thus the citation is real evidence, not a load-bearing self-citation chain. The sample-variance analysis (Sec. 4.3) also compares estimated response scatter against the same LSST requirement without fitting to it. The paper explicitly notes limitations: the simulations provide the true PSF and noise variance (Sec. 3); the isolated-galaxy test omits detection/selection effects (Sec. 4.1); and blended tests draw deep-field galaxies from the same underlying catalog as the wide-field galaxies (Sec. 4.2), leaving systematic population mismatch untested. These are external-validity limitations, not circularity: they concern whether the simulation suite covers all relevant systematics, not whether the estimator's derivation reduces to its inputs. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction, or renaming of a known result is present. The derivation chain is self-contained against the stated benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The central claim rests on the analytic noise-bias proof from prior work, the statistical equivalence of matched noise and PSF between wide and deep fields, and the representativeness of the deep-field response. Two hyperparameters (sigma_h and C) are inherited from the AnaCal framework rather than fitted here.

free parameters (2)
  • smoothing scale sigma_h = 0.52 arcsec
    Adopted from Li et al. (2024b) to maximize effective number density; chosen by hand in prior work, not fitted in this paper.
  • ellipticity weighting constant C
    Constant in Eq. (7) adjusting brightness weighting; inherited from the AnaCal/FPFS framework, value not stated in this paper.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The renoised shear response estimator (Eq. 12) is unbiased to second order in shear and free from noise bias (Li et al. 2024a)
    The paper follows the proof of Li et al. (2024a) and extends it to the two-field noise case; no independent proof is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption Image noise and added noise realizations have identical statistical properties after 90-degree rotation, and the shear response of noise is zero
    Invoked in Eqs. (9)-(12); standard for uncorrelated noise, assumed without proof for the matched deep-field noise layers.
  • domain assumption The mean shear response measured on deep-field galaxies with matched PSF and noise equals the response appropriate for wide-field shapes
    Core premise of deep-field calibration; tested only via sample variance in Sec 4.3, not via systematic galaxy-property mismatch.
  • domain assumption OpenUniverse2024 catalog realistically captures galaxy property correlations with large-scale structure for sample variance estimation
    Used in Sec 4.3 to extrapolate response scatter to LSST Deep Drilling Fields areas.

pith-pipeline@v1.4.0-alltime-deepseek-medium · 14120 in / 16144 out tokens · 158825 ms · 2026-08-05T05:32:44.667099+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep-Field Analytical Calibration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNB5CZ7M

@misc{pith2026250905152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep-Field Analytical Calibration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNB5CZ7M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05152}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The next generation of imaging surveys, including the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST), Euclid, and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, will place unprecedented constraints on cosmology using weak gravitational lensing. To fully exploit their statistical power, shear measurement methods must achieve sub-percent accuracy while mitigating systematic biases from noise, the point-spread function (PSF), blending, and shear-dependent detection. The analytical calibration framework (\texttt{AnaCal}) has demonstrated such accuracy but requires adding noise to images, reducing their effective depth. We introduce Deep-Field Analytical Calibration (\textsc{deep-field~}\texttt{AnaCal}), an extension of \texttt{AnaCal} that leverages deep-field images to compute shear responses while preserving wide-field statistical power. We validate the method on isolated and blended galaxy simulations with LSST-like seeing and noise, showing it meets the stringent requirement of multiplicative bias $|m| < 3\times10^{-3}$ at 99.7% confidence. Relative to standard \texttt{AnaCal} on wide-field images, this method improves effective galaxy number density from $17$ to $30$ arcmin$^{-2}$ for simulated 10-year LSST data. Assuming deep fields with $10\times$ the exposure of wide fields, we find the pixel noise variance in shear estimation is reduced by $30%$ and the overall shear uncertainty by $\sim 25%$. Finally, we assess sample variance impacts using the LSST Deep Drilling Fields strategy, finding an equivalent calibration uncertainty of $\lesssim 0.3%$. These results establish \textsc{deep-field~}\texttt{AnaCal} as a promising approach for shear calibration in upcoming weak lensing surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05152 by Andy Park, Matthew Becker, Rachel Mandelbaum, Xiangchong Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: This plot demonstrates that our implementation of deep-field AnaCal produces consistent noise properties across wide- and deep-field images, as expected from equations (14) and (15). The left and middle panel show the noise correlation function in configuration space after applying deep-field AnaCal. The correlation function is normalized such that the maximum is 1. The right panel presents the absolute di… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of wide-field (left) and deep-field (right) images. The top row shows isolated galaxy simulations, while the bottom row presents blended galaxy simulations. All images were simulated with a PSF FWHM of 0.7 arcsec. The isolated images (top) show two 64 × 64 pixel stamps for each field. The blended images (bottom) are randomly located cut-out coadded images of 128 × 128 pixels (equivalent to 0.43 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fractional difference in the 1𝜎 error on the inferred shear as a function of the ratio of the deep-field PSF size to the wide-field PSF size. The fractional difference is computed relative to the 1𝜎 error when the deep-field and wide-field PSF sizes are equal (PSF FWHM ratio = 1.0). An increase in the deep-field PSF size relative to the wide-field PSF size increases the uncertainties on shear estimation. a… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fractional scatter in the deep-field AnaCal response as a function of the area of a single deep-field patch, assuming a total of five independent LSST Deep Drilling Fields, each with that area. The dashed line corresponds to the requirements on the 10-year LSST shear calibration. The solid gray band shows the estimated area of LSST Deep Drilling Fields. The dotted line represents the extrapolations to the … 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

38 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    arXiv:1902.05569

    Akeson R., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190205569A p. arXiv:1902.05569

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

  2. [2]

    M., Armstrong R., Krawiec C., March M

    Bernstein G. M., Armstrong R., Krawiec C., March M. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.4467B 459, 4467

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw879 2016

  3. [3]

    The Rubin Observatory Survey Cadence Optimization Committee

    Bianco F., et al., 2025, The Rubin Observatory Survey Cadence Optimization Committee Technical Note PSTN-056 , Survey Cadence Optimization Committee’s Phase 3 Recommendations . The Rubin Observatory Survey Cadence Optimization Committee

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Chang C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.2121C 434, 2121

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1156 2013

  5. [5]

    arXiv:2408.05275

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240805275E p. arXiv:2408.05275

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.05275 2024

  6. [6]

    R., Lin H., Gawiser E., Jha S

    Gris P., Awan H., Becker M. R., Lin H., Gawiser E., Jha S. W., The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad79f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..275...21G 275, 21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad79f5 2024

  7. [7]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

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

  8. [8]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.3547H 509, 3547

    Hartley W. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.3547H 509, 3547

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3055 2022

  9. [10]

    arXiv:1702.02600

    Huff E., Mandelbaum R., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1702.02600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170202600H p. arXiv:1702.02600

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.02600 2017

  10. [11]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  11. [12]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  12. [13]

    Kilbinger M., 2015, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015RPPh...78h6901K 78, 086901

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

  13. [14]

    arXiv:1110.3193

    Laureijs R., et al., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1110.3193L p. arXiv:1110.3193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.3193 2011

  14. [15]

    Li X., Mandelbaum R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4904L 521, 4904

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad890 2023

  15. [16]

    Li X., Katayama N., Oguri M., More S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4445L 481, 4445

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2548 2018

  16. [17]

    Li X., Li Y., Massey R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac342 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.4850L 511, 4850

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac342 2022

  17. [18]

    arXiv:2408.06337

    Li X., Mandelbaum R., The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240806337L p. arXiv:2408.06337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.06337

  18. [19]

    Li X., Mandelbaum R., Jarvis M., Li Y., Park A., Zhang T., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710388L 527, 10388

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3895

  19. [20]

    Mandelbaum R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA&A..56..393M 56, 393

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

  20. [21]

    Mandelbaum R., Lackner C., Leauthaud A., Rowe B., 2019, COSMOS real galaxy dataset, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3242143 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3242143

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3242143 2019

  21. [22]

    Massey R., Refregier A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09453.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.363..197M 363, 197

    arXiv 2005

  22. [23]

    Massey R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11315.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.376...13M 376, 13

    arXiv 2007

  23. [24]

    Moffat A. F. J., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969A&A.....3..455M 3, 455

    1969

  24. [25]

    arXiv:2501.05632

    OpenUniverse et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250105632O p. arXiv:2501.05632

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05632 2025

  25. [26]

    Park A., Li X., Mandelbaum R., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf053 , 537, 507

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf053 2025

  26. [27]

    arXiv:2501.07938

    Prat J., Bacon D., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250107938P p. arXiv:2501.07938

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.07938 2025

  27. [28]

    Pujol A., Kilbinger M., Sureau F., Bobin J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A...2P 621, A2

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833740 2019

  28. [29]

    Refregier A., Bacon D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05902.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.338...48R 338, 48

    work page arXiv 2003

  29. [30]

    Rowe B., Jarvis M., Mandelbaum R., 2014, GalSim: Modular galaxy image simulation toolkit , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1402.009 ( @eprint ascl 1402.009 )

    work page 2014

  30. [31]

    L., 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963BAAA....6...41S 6, 41

    S \'e rsic J. L., 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963BAAA....6...41S 6, 41

    work page 1963

  31. [32]

    Shapiro C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..775S 696, 775

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/775 2009

  32. [33]

    S., Huff E

    Sheldon E. S., Huff E. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa704b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...24S 841, 24

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa704b 2017

  33. [34]

    S., Becker M

    Sheldon E. S., Becker M. R., Jarvis M., Armstrong R., LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2303.03947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..17S 6, 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [35]

    arXiv:1809.01669

    The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1809.01669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180901669T p. arXiv:1809.01669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.01669 2018

  35. [36]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

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

  36. [37]

    Deep-field Metacalibration

    Zhang Z., Sheldon E. S., Becker M. R., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2206.07683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..16Z 6, 16

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [38]

    de Vaucouleurs G., 1948, Annales d'Astrophysique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1948AnAp...11..247D 11, 247

    1948

  38. [39]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...