Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 30 references

OpenCosmo is a production-ready portal and toolkit for querying and analyzing petabyte-scale cosmological simulations, bringing analysis to the data and returning custom subsets in minutes.

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

2026-08-01 21:27 UTC pith:DPKMQJCA

load-bearing objection Solid infrastructure paper with a genuinely useful new data release; the 'production-ready / minutes-latency' claim is thinner than the prose suggests, but all issues are addressable. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16059 v3 pith:DPKMQJCA submitted 2026-07-17 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO

OpenCosmo: Community Portal and Analysis Framework for Flagship Cosmological Simulations

Patrick R. Wells , Michael Buelhmann , Patricia Larsen , William M. Hicks , Manpreet Dhillon , Idunnuoluwa A. Adeniji , Katrin Heitmann , Salman Habib
show 6 more authors
Benoit C\^ot\'e Thomas Uram Gideon McFarland Andrew Hearin Ezar Shinabro Michael E. Papka
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO
keywords OpenCosmocosmological simulationsdata portalhigh-performance computingHACChalo catalogslightcone mapsPython toolkit
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.

OpenCosmo claims to make petabyte-scale cosmological simulation datasets tractable by bringing analysis to the data rather than moving the data to the analyst. A web portal serves custom subsets—halo catalogs, particle data, galaxy catalogs, and lightcone maps—from several flagship simulation runs, with results returned in minutes. A companion Python toolkit reads the returned files and scales without modification from a laptop to a full supercomputer, so the same script works at every data size. The paper argues that this pattern, built on standard orchestration and container infrastructure, is production-ready and can be extended to other data-intensive science domains.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that OpenCosmo is a fully managed platform for analyzing petabyte-scale cosmological datasets on leadership-class computing facilities, and that the same tooling runs unchanged from laptops to those systems. It backs this with a working portal that executes predefined query tasks—halo finding, profile and particle retrieval, galaxy catalogs, and HEALPix maps—against flagship simulations including a two-trillion-particle gravity-only run, and returns HDF5 files typically within minutes. The data products are drawn from completed simulations with existing validation, and the toolkit is a lazy-query engine with transparent MPI support that automatically links relate

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a multi-facility orchestration layer built on Globus Flows and Globus Compute. A submitted query is routed to the facility hosting the requested dataset, where a pre-registered, containerized function is submitted to the local scheduler; results are returned as HDF5 in the OpenCosmo Data Format and read by the OpenCosmo toolkit, a lazy-query engine that keeps most data on disk and runs serially or under MPI. The dataset registry and swappable JSON task definitions keep domain-specific knowledge out of the infrastructure layer, which is what makes the platform adaptable to other sciences.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the multi-facility orchestration layer—queries routed through orchestration services to compute endpoints at each facility, which submit containerized jobs to local schedulers and return results in minutes—reliably working as described; the paper asserts this but provides no benchmark, load test, or independent verification.

What would settle it

Submit a standard halo query (e.g., mass greater than 10^13 solar masses) against the two-trillion-particle simulation from a fresh account and measure time-to-delivery; if delivery is not 'within minutes' or the endpoint fails, the platform's central promise fails. A concurrent load test with dozens of simultaneous users would also reveal whether per-user rate limits and scheduler allocations actually protect the service.

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

If this is right

  • Researchers can compare observational data to synthetic galaxy catalogs without downloading or managing large simulation files.
  • The same Python script runs on a laptop subset and across an entire flagship simulation on a supercomputer, lowering the barrier for students and newcomers.
  • The 64-member hydrodynamic suite with shared initial conditions enables systematic studies of how subgrid parameters affect astrophysical predictions.
  • Lightcone catalogs and HEALPix maps from the largest gravity-only run support weak-lensing and survey-comparison analyses directly in the observer frame.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the promised latency and multi-facility reliability hold under real community load, the architecture points toward a general 'Science as a Service' pattern—domain-agnostic orchestration over domain-specific query tooling—that could be adopted by other data-intensive fields such as climate or genomics.
  • The stated next steps—user-submitted code and remote Python access to full datasets—are qualitatively harder than the current predefined queries, because they require secure code execution and environment construction on HPC resources; their feasibility is not established by this paper.
  • The MCP-based agent interface suggests a testable extension: an AI agent could be benchmarked against a human researcher on a standard analysis task to measure whether agent-driven workflows actually reduce time-to-insight.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. OpenCosmo is presented as a production-ready, multi-facility data-access and analysis platform for large HACC/CRK-HACC cosmological simulations. The paper describes a web portal (query tasks for halo catalogs, profiles, particles, galaxies, and lightcone maps), a lazy-evaluation Python toolkit with transparent MPI support, and a Globus Flows/Compute orchestration layer that routes queries to the facility hosting each dataset. Datasets include the Frontier-E gravity-only run, Last Journey, Diffsky, two Discovery simulations, and a 64-member SciDAC 128 SG5 hydrodynamic suite. The central value proposition is that users can request and analyze subsets of petabyte-scale data without HPC expertise, with results typically returned in minutes, and that the same toolkit runs unchanged from laptops to leadership-class systems. The paper is primarily a system description; it includes one worked end-to-end example but no operational validation data.

Significance. If the platform behaves as claimed, this is a valuable community resource: it lowers the barrier to working with extreme-scale simulation data, builds on mature Globus services, and the registry/task-definition design cleanly separates domain-specific from domain-generic components, giving the infrastructure genuine transfer potential. The manuscript also ships concrete artifacts — open-source toolkit code, publicly available container images, example notebooks, and a reproducible halo-mass-function example — which are strengths. The main risk is that the headline operational claims (minutes-latency, multi-facility production readiness, transparent laptop-to-supercomputer scaling) are supported by a single anecdote and qualitative statements rather than measurements; the architecture is coherent, but its validation is incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, §5.4, §6] The central operational claim — that results are 'typically returned within minutes' and that the platform is 'production-ready' — is supported only by the single worked example in §2.3 and the qualitative scheduler remark in §5.1. No end-to-end latency distribution, queue-time breakdown, success/failure rate, endpoint availability, or load test is reported for the Globus Flows/Compute chain. Because this chain is the load-bearing premise for 'bring analysis to data,' the manuscript currently asserts rather than demonstrates the claimed latency and reliability. Please add a representative measurement campaign (e.g., a latency CDF over a set of queries at each facility, including queue and transfer components) or temper the production-readiness claim accordingly.
  2. [§5.4.4, Figure 6, §4.5] OLCF is listed in Figure 6 and Frontier-E GO is described as hosted at OLCF (§3.1), and the endpoint-resolution design routes each query to the facility housing the requested dataset (§5.4.3). However, §5.4.4 states that the containerized query environment is 'known to work' only at NERSC and ALCF, and §4.5's access model names only NERSC/ALCF accounts. No successful OLCF query or OLCF compute-endpoint deployment is described. The multi-facility claim is therefore not yet substantiated for OLCF. If Frontier-E GO data are actually replicated to NERSC/ALCF and current queries run there, state that explicitly; otherwise document the OLCF deployment and at least one successful end-to-end query.
  3. [§2.1, §5.3] The claim that 'the same tooling runs unchanged from laptops to leadership-class systems' and that a serial script can be run across many nodes without modifications is central to the toolkit's value proposition, but no benchmark or scaling test is provided. Figure 5 demonstrates a scale-transition workflow but gives no runtimes, memory usage, or parallel efficiency. In fact, §5.3 notes that the portal's largest queries currently run on a single compute node, so the 'leadership-class' mode is an assertion about untested behavior. Please include at least one strong- or weak-scaling measurement of the toolkit, or clearly distinguish 'designed to support' from 'validated at' leadership scale.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.3] The sentence 'well below the 10^8-halo limit... indicating that the sample is complete' overreaches: a non-binding cap does not establish catalog completeness. It shows only that the cap was not reached; if completeness is intended, a separate validation should be cited or described.
  2. [§2.3] The wall-clock accounting is inconsistent: the text first says the query completes in ~5 minutes and later says ~10 minutes are added for query completion and download. Please clarify whether the 5 minutes excludes queue/scheduler and transfer time.
  3. [§4.5, §6] The paper calls OpenCosmo a 'community portal' ready for general use, but access is currently limited to NERSC/ALCF account holders and DOE-laboratory affiliates. This is a legitimate restriction, but it should be stated earlier (abstract or introduction) so that readers are not misled about public availability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the paper reports an engineering platform, with no fitted inputs or predictions that reduce to definitions.

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, fitted parameters, or scientific predictions whose derivation chain could reduce to its inputs. The central claims are architectural: a portal, a Python toolkit, and a Globus-based orchestration layer serving subsets of HACC/CRK-HACC simulations. The one numeric performance statement (§2.3: 'The query completes in approximately 5 minutes') is an anecdotal runtime report, not a prediction forced by construction, and §5.1's 'turnaround times of minutes rather than hours' is a qualitative operational expectation. Self-citations to HACC (Habib et al. 2016), CRK-HACC (Frontiere et al. 2023/2025), Last Journey (Heitmann et al. 2021), and the HACC data portal (Heitmann et al. 2019) supply the underlying datasets and prior simulation context; they do not constitute the load-bearing evidence for the platform's functionality, and they are used as data provenance rather than as a uniqueness or derivation argument. The paper's self-concessions — no mature CI/CD for HPC resources (§5.5), possible replacement of persistent endpoints (§6), and access restrictions to NERSC/ALCF accounts (§4.5) — identify verification gaps and operational risk, not circular reasoning. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate finding is a low non-circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear in this infrastructure paper. The ledger entries are domain assumptions about the fidelity of the underlying simulations, the halo finders, the Globus orchestration, and the toolkit's scaling behavior; none are ad hoc to this paper, but they are load-bearing for the portal's utility.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption HACC and CRK-HACC simulations faithfully represent the cosmological structure and astrophysical processes they are used to study.
    The data products are presented as reliable scientific datasets; invoked throughout Section 3, especially §3.1–3.5.
  • domain assumption FoF and spherical-overdensity halo finders produce complete and unbiased halo catalogs above the quoted mass thresholds.
    Halo catalogs, profiles, and particles are derived from these algorithms (§3.6.1); the §2.3 completeness inference relies on this.
  • domain assumption Globus Flows and Globus Compute endpoints will execute containerized jobs on facility schedulers (NERSC, ALCF, OLCF) with the claimed reliability and latency.
    The orchestration layer (§5.4) is the mechanism that makes the central 'analysis in minutes on HPC' claim work.
  • domain assumption The OpenCosmo toolkit's lazy-query engine preserves data semantics and correctness when scaling from serial to MPI execution across multiple nodes.
    The scale-agnostic claim (§2.1, §5.3) depends on this; no formal proof or comprehensive test suite is presented.
  • domain assumption CRK-HACC subgrid parameterizations (winds, AGN feedback) are varied over ranges that produce scientifically meaningful galaxy/hydro outputs.
    The SciDAC 128 SG5 suite's scientific value presupposes this; details are deferred to Ramachandra et al. 2026 (§3.5).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19060 in / 12804 out tokens · 116223 ms · 2026-08-01T21:27:44.613615+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmology is a precision observational science, and large simulations are necessary components of many analyses. These simulations are computationally expensive and produce massive, complex datasets; sharing them widely -- to enable further explorations, comparison with observations, and communication with general audiences -- is crucial to realizing their scientific value. In this paper, we introduce the OpenCosmo project, which provides flexible access to, and analysis of, flagship cosmological simulations performed with HACC. A web-based portal (https://opencosmo.science) serves custom subsets -- halo catalogs, profiles, particles, galaxy catalogs, and lightcone catalogs and maps -- from simulations including the two-trillion-particle Frontier-E gravity-only run, Last Journey, Discovery, and a 64-member hydrodynamic suite. A companion Python toolkit analyzes the returned data and scales without modification from laptop-sized subsets to full simulations on supercomputers. OpenCosmo supports multiple levels of interaction, from browser-based search and download to programmatic and AI-agent-driven workflows, by integrating with existing high-performance computing and data infrastructure. Its architecture, built on Globus services, provides a scalable and adaptable framework that can be extended to other scientific domains seeking to couple data sharing with computational capability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16059 by Andrew Hearin, Benoit C\^ot\'e, Ezar Shinabro, Gideon McFarland, Idunnuoluwa A. Adeniji, Katrin Heitmann, Manpreet Dhillon, Michael Buelhmann, Michael E. Papka, Patricia Larsen, Patrick R. Wells, Salman Habib, Thomas Uram, William M. Hicks.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: End-to-end workflow for computing the halo mass function for all halos in the Frontier-E GO (gravity-only) simulation with mass greater than 1013 M⊙. Left: The web portal query interface, where the user selects the Frontier-E GO simulation, redshift z = 0, and a group-scale halo mass constraint (M200c ≥ 1013 M⊙), while limiting the results to a maximum of 108 halos. Right: Code snippet demonstrating data r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: High-level goal buttons available to the user on the OpenCosmo web portal’s homepage. Bottom: One of the query cards displayed after clicking on the “Work with lightcones or CMB lensing maps (Gravity-Only)” goal. • Synthetic Galaxy Query: Queries synthetic galaxy catalogs produced using the Diffsky pipeline as de￾scribed in Section 3.3. Unlike the galaxies directly provided from the CRK-HACC simulatio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Screenshot of the web-based 3D viewer displaying dark matter, stars, and gas. Individual particles are colored by the magnitude of their velocity. desktop display so that collaborators can follow the ex￾ploration; an in-headset control panel exposes the most frequently used display parameters. The camera system provides preset orientations, pan￾ning, and user-selected pivot points for centering on and rota… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example code for computing the best-fit NFW profile and residuals from the measured profile with the OpenCosmo toolkit. The nfw function computes an ideal NFW profile based on the halo concentration, the radius r200c, the normalized halo radius bins, and the critical density of the Universe. The get nfw fit function computes these quantities from the stored data, passes them to the nfw function, and return… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Demonstration of transition from a full simulation to a single structure of interest. Top left: Density field of a 512 Mpc subvolume of the Frontier-E hydrodynamic simulation. Top right: Cluster-mass halos within a 40 Mpc sub-region of the same volume. Bottom: Image generated from particle data of the most massive halo in the 40 Mpc subfield. The code shown is the actual code used to perform this task. tur… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the OpenCosmo workflow. On the OpenCosmo portal, users authenticate through Globus with an approved identity provider. Depending on membership in various OpenCosmo Globus Groups, users have access to different facilities and tasks. Task submission is routed through Globus Flows to Globus Compute endpoints running at the facilities, where the tasks are scheduled and executed and the resultin… 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

30 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., Adamow, M., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 063530, doi: 10.1103/z2q4-qcdq

    doi:10.1103/z2q4-qcdq 2026

  2. [2]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  3. [3]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3118 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Chaves-Montero, J. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3118 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3118 2022

  4. [4]

    D., Pope, A., Alarcon, A., et al

    Beltz-Mohrmann, G. D., Pope, A., Alarcon, A., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 74, doi: 10.33232/001c.140866

    doi:10.33232/001c.140866 2025

  5. [5]

    2014, IEEE Cloud Computing, 1, 46, doi: 10.1109/MCC.2014.52

    Chard, K., Tuecke, S., & Foster, I. 2014, IEEE Cloud Computing, 1, 46, doi: 10.1109/MCC.2014.52

    work page doi:10.1109/mcc.2014.52 2014

  6. [6]

    2020, in Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing (HPDC ’20) (ACM), 65–76, doi: 10.1145/3369583.3392683

    Chard, R., Babuji, Y., Li, Z., et al. 2020, in Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing (HPDC ’20) (ACM), 65–76, doi: 10.1145/3369583.3392683

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    2023, Future Generation Computer Systems, 142, 393, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2023.01.010

    Chard, R., Pruyne, J., McKee, K., et al. 2023, Future Generation Computer Systems, 142, 393, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2023.01.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2023.01.010 2023

  8. [8]

    Dalcin, L., & Fang, Y.-L. L. 2021, Computing in Science & Engineering, 23, 47, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3083216

    arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168

    doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  10. [10]

    1996, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-96), 226–231

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., & Xu, X. 1996, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-96), 226–231

    1996

  11. [11]

    D., Buehlmann, M., et al

    Frontiere, N., Emberson, J. D., Buehlmann, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca58d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca58d 2023

  12. [12]

    D., Buehlmann, M., et al

    Frontiere, N., Emberson, J. D., Buehlmann, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21921

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    D., Buehlmann, M., et al

    Frontiere, N., Emberson, J. D., Buehlmann, M., et al. 2025, in Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC ’25) (ACM), 25–35, doi: 10.1145/3712285.3771786 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    2016, NewA, 42, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.06.003

    Habib, S., Pope, A., Finkel, H., et al. 2016, NewA, 42, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.06.003

    doi:10.1016/j.newast.2015.06.003 2016

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, doi: 10.21105/astro.2105.05859

    Alarcon, A. 2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, doi: 10.21105/astro.2105.05859

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    D., Finkel, H., et al

    Heitmann, K., Uram, T. D., Finkel, H., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 244, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3724

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab3724 2019

  18. [18]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4da1

    Heitmann, K., Finkel, H., Pope, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4da1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4da1 2019

  19. [19]

    2021, ApJS, 252, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcc67

    Heitmann, K., Frontiere, N., Rangel, E., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcc67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abcc67 2021

  20. [20]

    W., & Eastwood, J

    Hockney, R. W., & Eastwood, J. W. 1988, Computer Simulation Using Particles (Adam Hilger, Bristol)

    1988

  21. [21]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c Juri´ c, M., Ciardi, D., Dubois-Felsmann, G., & Guy, L. 2019, LSST Science Platform Vision Document, Tech. Rep. LSE-319, NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, doi: 10.7192...

    arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    P., Adams, G

    Klimeck, G., McLennan, M., Brophy, S. P., Adams, G. B., & Lundstrom, M. S. 2008, Computing in Science & Engineering, 10, 17, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2008.120

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2008.120 2008

  23. [23]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 24, doi: 10.21105/astro.2302.04194

    Korytov, D., Rangel, E., Bleem, L., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 24, doi: 10.21105/astro.2302.04194

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    D., Beckman, R

    McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., & Conover, W. J. 1979, Technometrics, 21, 239, doi: 10.1080/00401706.1979.10489755

    arXiv 1979

  25. [25]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  26. [26]

    Nikutta, R., Fitzpatrick, M., Scott, A., & Weaver, B. A. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 33, 100411, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100411

    arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1833 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Collaboration, The Roman HLIS Project Infrastructure, The Roman RAPID Project Infrastructure Team, & The Roman Supernova Cosmology Project Infrastructure Team. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1833 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1833 2025

  28. [28]

    2026, arXiv e-prints

    Ramachandra, N., Frontiere, N., Buehlmann, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07306

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4fe

    Sultan, I., Frontiere, N., Habib, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4fe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4fe 2021

  30. [30]

    2020, Astronomy and Computing, 32, 100391, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100391 The Galaxy Community

    Tallada, P., Carretero, J., Casals, J., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 32, 100391, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100391 The Galaxy Community. 2026, Nucleic Acids Research, 54, W105, doi: 10.1093/nar/gkag469 18 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. 2025, The American Science Cloud, DOE National Laboratory Program Announcement LAB 25-3555, U.S. D...

    arXiv 2020