Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 78 references

AAS2RTO: Automated Alert Streams to Real-Time Observations: Preparing for rapid follow-up of transient objects in the era of LSST

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simple multiplicative score can rank LSST transient alerts well enough that a 1.5-metre telescope catches about two type Ia supernovae per night within half a day of predicted peak brightness.

desk verdict Solid engineering paper whose headline yields rest on a self-consistent SALT validation; recommend peer review with a request for external peak-time checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06968 v1 pith:FX6RWAI5 submitted 2025-01-12 astro-ph.IM

Aidan Sedgewick , Christa Gall , Luca Izzo , Adriano Agnello , Charlotte R. Angus , Jens Hjorth , Arthur Kadela This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords transientfollow-upLSSTZwickyFacilitytypeIasupernovaecandidateprioritisationgreedyschedulingSALTlightcurvefittingspectroscopicobservations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

With LSST expected to issue roughly ten million alerts per night, no single small telescope can spectroscopically follow everything; this paper introduces AAS2RTO, a Python prioritisation tool that reduces each candidate to one score and re-ranks the list whenever new alerts arrive. The score is a product of independent factors chosen by the user, so the same engine can serve very different science cases. For the worked example of catching type Ia supernovae near peak brightness with a 1.5-metre telescope, the paper reports that SALT2 lightcurve fits predict the peak epoch to within about $-2.1$ to $+1.3$ days (central 68%), and that replaying archival ZTF alerts yields an average of $\bar{N}=2.08\pm0.07$ candidates per night within half a day of the predicted peak. A simulation fed with mock LSST observations gives $2.05\pm0.04$ candidates per night within half a day of the true peak. The point is that a transparent, cheap ranking rule can keep a small telescope scientifically competitive in the LSST era.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AAS2RTO scoring function, a product of user-defined factors $S=S_{\rm base}\prod_i x_i$, embedded in a greedy dispatch loop that ingests broker alerts, pre-filters candidates, fits models, computes scores, and emits ranked lists per observatory. For the example science case the factors are $x_{\rm mag}$ (brightness relative to the limiting magnitude), $x_{\rm peak}$ (Gaussian proximity in time to the SALT2 peak estimate $t_0$), $x_{\rm rise}$ (fraction of brightening detections), $x_{\rm span}$ (a logistic penalty on transients older than the roughly 19-day rise time), and $x_{\rm vis}$ (a normalised measure of how soon the candidate sets below the minimum altitude). The SALT2 lightcurve fit supplies a single zero-phase parameter $t_0$ on which the peak factor depends; all factors multiply into one rankable number, and the ranked list is recomputed on every alert-arrival loop.

What would settle it

Replay AAS2RTO on archival ZTF alerts for SNe Ia whose peak epochs are known independently (for instance from high-cadence forced photometry interpreted with a different lightcurve model, or from spectroscopic velocity evolution), and count the fraction of ranked candidates that fall within half a day of those independent peak epochs; a catch fraction well below the reported value would show that the internal-consistency assumption is the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that prioritising transient candidates with a transparent multiplicative scoring function is enough to make rapid spectroscopic follow-up of LSST alerts feasible on a small telescope. Each candidate is scored as $S=S_{\rm base}\prod_i x_i$, where every factor $x_i$ encodes one observed or modelled property: brightness, proximity to the predicted peak, whether the lightcurve is still rising, age of the transient, and remaining visibility from the observing site. For the type Ia supernova example, the peak-timing factor $x_{\rm peak}$ is a Gaussian peaked at the latest SALT2 zero-phase estimate $t_0$ with width $\sigma=1$ day, so candidates are ranked by how close they are to the predicted peak and how soon they will set. Tested by replaying two years of ZTF alerts through the ranking loop, the paper finds that the SALT2 $t_0$ estimate at the true peak has a central-68% spread of $-2.1$ to $+1.3$ days, yielding $\bar{N}=2.08\pm0.07$ candidates per night within half a day of the predicted peak; the same machinery applied to simulated LSST data yields $2.05\pm0.04$ candidates per night within half a day of the true peak. The authors present these numbers as a demonstration of usable yield for follow-up, not as a measurement of the supernova rate.

Load-bearing premise

The reported peak-timing precision is measured against the best SALT2 fit to the full lightcurve itself, so if that fitted peak is systematically offset from the true brightness peak for real supernovae (for example because of host-galaxy reddening, dust, or peculiar velocities), the number actually caught within half a day of peak would be smaller than the reported $\bar{N}=2.08\pm0.07$ per night.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claimed precision holds, a small single-object spectrograph can expect about two type Ia supernovae per night within half a day of predicted peak brightness, which is enough to sustain a modest spectroscopy program without large-facility time.
  • Because the score is recomputed whenever new alerts arrive, the ranked list tracks a transient's evolution and naturally drops candidates as they pass the peak.
  • The same factor framework transfers to other science cases: new criteria are added as factors, and candidates failing any factor are excluded or rejected rather than manually triaged.
  • The reported $\bar{N}=2.08\pm0.07$ is roughly half the volumetric SN Ia rate expected in the ZTF footprint, which the paper attributes to quality cuts and missed or poorly sampled lightcurves rather than to misclassification.
  • Replaying the ranking on mock LSST alerts gives nearly the same per-night catch rate as the ZTF replay, suggesting the yield is set mainly by alert cadence and peak-timing accuracy rather than by survey depth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if SALT2 $t_0$ carries a systematic offset for real SNe Ia (for instance from host-galaxy reddening, dust, or peculiar velocities), the real-time catch fraction would be lower than the reported internal-consistency value; a calibration against independently measured peak epochs could quantify and correct this.
  • Editorial extension: the same score design could be applied to other time-critical transients, such as kilonovae or tidal disruption events, by replacing the SALT peak factor with a model appropriate to those lightcurves; the visibility factor already generalises.
  • Editorial extension: a deep-learning predictor of peak epoch could be inserted as one factor, reserving full SALT fits for the few candidates that reach the top of the list, which would cut per-alert computation as LSST alert rates climb.
  • Editorial extension: the appendix's proposed saturation of the unbounded visibility factor, $\hat{x}_{\rm vis} = \min(x_{\rm vis}, A)$, would prevent a setting source from dominating the ranking solely because it is near the horizon.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents AAS2RTO, an open-source Python tool for prioritizing transient candidates from alert streams (ZTF now, LSST in the future), intended to support spectroscopic follow-up with the Danish 1.54m telescope. The core algorithm is a greedy ranking: each candidate receives a score S = S_base * x_i, where the factors x_i are user-defined and transparent, and the paper describes data ingestion from brokers (fink, ALeRCE, Lasair), ATLAS forced photometry, TNS crossmatching, SALT2/Bazin lightcurve fitting, and site-visibility factors. For the example science case of SNe Ia near peak brightness, the score includes factors xmag, xpeak, xrise and xspan. The paper validates the approach on two years of ZTF/fink archival alerts and on LSST OpSim mock observations, reporting a peak-time precision of -2.1 to +1.3 days (68% interval) and mean yields of N = 2.08 ± 0.07 SNe Ia per night within 0.5 days of the predicted peak (ZTF) and 2.05 ± 0.04 (LSST mock). The central claim is that AAS2RTO can deliver ranked lists of SNe Ia at the right phase for 1.5m-class spectroscopy.

Significance. If the reported yields are taken at face value, AAS2RTO is a practically useful, low-cost component of the LSST follow-up ecosystem, and the transparent multiplicative-factor design and public repository are genuine strengths. The paper is also commendable for stating explicit assumptions and limitations in §3.4, including the idealised nature of the mock LSST alert stream and the assumption that every detection is a valid, correctly classified supernova alert. The main quantitative deliverable—an expected rate of SNe Ia observable near peak—is, however, currently calibrated only against the SALT2 model itself, not against independently measured peak epochs; this limits the strength of the central quantitative claim but does not undermine the software framework. The archival ZTF experiment is internally consistent and provides a reproducible benchmark that will be useful to the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3.1, Eq. (6), Figs. 6–7] The reference peak t*_0 is obtained by fitting SALT2 to the full available lightcurve, while the real-time t0 used in the xpeak factor (Eq. 6) comes from the same SALT2 model fit to truncated data. The quoted 68% interval of -2.1 to +1.3 days therefore measures the agreement between truncated and full SALT2 fits, not the accuracy of the predicted peak relative to the true maximum of the supernova. A systematic offset in SALT2 t0 (from template mismatch, host-galaxy extinction, stretch–colour degeneracy, or redshift assumptions) would shift the scheduled observations away from true peak even when the truncated fit agrees with the full fit. The paper's own Fig. 6 shows a median offset of about -2 days at phase -6 days, so the real-time schedule is systematically early relative to the nominal peak; this propagates directly into the yield N = 2.08 ± 0.07 if 'within 0.5 days' is interpreted as true peak. I request either an external validation against independent peak epochs (e.g., high-cadence photometric maxima from other surveys or template-independent estimates) or a rewording of the claims to state that the quoted precision is an internal SALT consistency measure.
  2. [§3.4, Figs. 10–11] The LSST mock evaluation is generated using SALT3 templates and compared against the simulation-input SALT t0, so it cannot test the systematic offset identified in §3.3.1. In addition, the mock assumes that every photometric detection is a valid alert, is correctly classified as a supernova, and is not affected by host-galaxy masking; the authors acknowledge these limitations in §3.4, but they are load-bearing for the extrapolated LSST yield of 2.05 ± 0.04. I recommend presenting the LSST numbers as an end-to-end test of the pipeline's self-consistency under LSST cadence, not as a prediction of the rate of observations at true peak brightness, or adding an external validation that does not rely on the same SALT templates used for prediction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption reads 'An sketch'; it should read 'A sketch'.
  2. [§3.1] There is a duplicated article in 'such as the the one suggested in Bazin et al. (2011)'.
  3. [Eq. (5)] As written, xmag = 10^(0.5*(18.5-m)) is positive for all magnitudes, yet the text states that candidates with m > 18.5 mag are 'flagged so that their final score will be negative'. Please clarify whether the implementation applies a separate sign flag or modify Eq. (5) to include the exclusion.
  4. [§3 and Conclusions] The magnitude limit is stated inconsistently: §3 gives a faint limit of i < 18.5 mag, Eq. (5) uses the latest ZTF g/r detection, and the Conclusions state r > 18.5 mag. Please harmonize the notation and specify which band is used for the 18.5 mag limit.
  5. [Fig. 7 caption] The phrase 'maximum model g measurement' is ambiguous; it would be clearer to say 'brightest model-predicted g-band magnitude'.
  6. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.2)] The behaviour of the saturation function for xvis/A << 1 is described as 'approaches zero', which is true but could be stated more informatively as '∩ xvis ≈ xvis in that limit', as the text later notes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the peak-timing evaluation is a SALT-internal convergence test that the paper explicitly labels as such, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction.

full rationale

AAS2RTO's scoring factors (Eqs. 5-10) are hand-specified, not fitted to the test data, and the main evaluations use independent archival ZTF alerts and an external OpSim schedule. The apparent self-reference is Sect. 3.3.1, where the reference peak t*_0 is the SALT2 fit to the full lightcurve while the real-time estimate t0 comes from the first N detections. This is not circular by construction: the truncated fit does not see the future detections that determine t*_0, so the quoted -2.1/+1.3 day spread is a meaningful convergence statistic; the paper explicitly states the estimates are 'not intended to be precise or final measurements' and are 'a useful tool to aid in prioritisation.' The LSST mock (Sect. 3.4) generates photometry from SALT templates and tests recovery of the input SALT zero-phase; that is an idealized parameter-recovery test, and the paper explicitly calls it a 'toy model' and warns that performance on real data 'will likely be different.' If SALT2 t0 is systemically offset from the true SN Ia peak, the 0.5-day capture rates would be optimistic, but that is an external-validity/correctness limitation, not a circular reduction of the paper's predictions to its inputs. There are no load-bearing self-citations: references to fink (Möller et al. 2021), SALT (Guy et al. 2005, 2007), Taylor et al. (2021), and OpSim are external software/model/data sources, not results derived in this paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are hand-chosen scoring constants and quality cuts, not fitted to optimize the reported yields. The domain assumptions are standard for survey-simulation studies and are mostly flagged by the authors, though they are load-bearing for the quantitative rate predictions.

free parameters (6)
  • xmag reference magnitude (18.5 mag) = 18.5 mag
    Hand-chosen limit for DK1.54m spectroscopy threshold; factor xmag = 10^(0.5*(18.5-m)).
  • xpeak amplitude A and width sigma = A = 30, sigma = 1 day
    Hand-chosen to weight candidates near fitted peak t0; minimum value 0.01 set at about 4 days from t0.
  • xspan logistic parameters = xm = 25 days, r = -1 day^-1
    Hand-chosen to decline after 20 days, motivated by typical SN Ia rest-frame rise time around 19 days.
  • xrise rejection threshold = 0.4
    Hand-chosen; candidates with all x_k^rise < 0.4 and N_k > 2 are rejected as likely declining.
  • visibility altitude limits = amin = 30 deg, aref = 90 deg
    Hand-chosen; candidates below altitude 30 deg are excluded, and aref normalises the visibility factor.
  • SN Ia fit quality cuts = chi2_nu < 5.0, duration < 120 d, gap < 20 d, >=8 detections for fitting
    Hand-chosen selection criteria applied to ZTF lightcurves before scoring evaluation, intended to remove stochastic and variable sources.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ZTF alert streams and broker annotations are representative of future LSST alert streams.
    Invoked in Sect. 2.1 to justify using ZTF as the testbed; LSST will be deeper and faster, so contamination, early-phase behavior, and alert rates will differ.
  • domain assumption SALT2/SALT3 templates are adequate to model lightcurves of unclassified candidates, including non-Ia SNe.
    Sect. 3.1 states SALT is used for all candidates because spectral type is unknown; non-Ia SNe will be poorly fit, potentially biasing t0 estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper Every simulated LSST detection is a valid alert, correctly classified as a supernova, with no host-galaxy masking.
    Explicitly assumed in Sect. 3.4; the authors note this will have little impact near peak but would matter for young SNe.
  • domain assumption OpSim baseline simulation is a realistic stand-in for actual LSST operations.
    Used in Sect. 3.4 to generate visit times, filters, and depths; actual LSST cadence may change during operations.
  • domain assumption Volumetric SN Ia rates from Dilday et al. (2008) and Frohmaier et al. (2019) are accurate.
    Used to compute expected SN Ia counts in the ZTF footprint and the LSST mock; systematic rate uncertainties propagate to the yield expectations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AAS2RTO: Automated Alert Streams to Real-Time Observations: Preparing for rapid follow-up of transient objects in the era of LSST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FX6RWAI5

@misc{pith2026250106968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AAS2RTO: Automated Alert Streams to Real-Time Observations: Preparing for rapid follow-up of transient objects in the era of LSST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FX6RWAI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06968}
}
read the original abstract

The upcoming Vera C. Rubin Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) will discover tens of thousands of astrophysical transients per night, far outpacing available spectroscopic follow-up capabilities. Carefully prioritising candidates for follow-up observations will maximise the scientific return from small telescopes with a single-object spectrograph. We introduce AAS2RTO, an astrophysical transient candidate prioritisation tool written in Python. AAS2RTO is flexible in that any number of criteria that consider observed properties of transients can be implemented. The visibility of candidates from a given observing site is also considered. The prioritised list of candidates provided by AAS2RTO is continually updated when new transient data are made available. Therefore, it can be applied to observing campaigns with a wide variety of scientific motivations. AAS2RTO uses a greedy algorithm to prioritise candidates. Candidates are represented by a single numerical value, or `score'. Scores are computed by constructing simple numerical factors which individually consider the competing facets of a candidate which make it suitable for follow-up observation. AAS2RTO is currently configured to work primarily with photometric data from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), distributed by certified LSST community brokers. We provide an example of how AAS2RTO can be used by defining a set of criteria to prioritise observations of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) close to peak brightness, in preparation for observations with the spectrograph at the Danish-1.54m telescope. Using a sample of archival alerts from ZTF, we evaluate the criteria we have designed to estimate the number of SNe Ia that we will be able to observe with a 1.5m telescope. Finally, we evaluate the performance of our criteria when applied to mock LSST observations of SNe Ia.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An sketch of the logic behind automated observations using AAS2RTO and the Danish-1.54m. Green boxes indicate data compiled by AAS2RTO. White boxes are out of the scope of AAS2RTO. The steps made by AAS2RTO in the grey box are detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The prioritisation loop of AAS2RTO. First, data is compiled (step (1); Sect. 2.1) from broadcasting services (e.g. ZTF/LSST bro￾kers) and non-broadcasting services (e.g. ATLAS/TNS). A pre-filtering step (step (2)) identifies new candidates which can immediately be re￾moved without detailed modelling or visibility considerations. Theoret￾ical models (e.g. lightcurve fits) are fit to new candidates (step (3)), or cand… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The altitude of three hypothetical candidates (T1, T2, T3) from La Silla on the spring equinox. The current time tobs is indicated, and tSS and tSR are the sunset and sunrise time respectively. The shaded grey regions are day and twilight (the Sun’s altitude a > −18◦ , when astro￾nomical observations are not possible). The shaded region under each altitude curve between tobs and tSR is Avis, computed in Eq. 12. The … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of SALT2 stretch parameter x1 (left panel) and colour parameter c (right panel) for all lightcurves with eight or more detections, for the sample of 2205 lightcurves which meet our criteria (black), and for the subset of 1377 which are spectroscopicall…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our sample of SNe Ia selected from fink (central circle, red), and the overlap with the TNS spectroscopically confirmed sample of SNe Ia (left circle, green), and SNe non-Ia (right circle, blue). Our distributions of both stretch x1 and colour c parameters have heavier…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The convergence SALT2 zero-phase parameter t0 to the final ‘best’ estimate, t ∗ 0 , as a function of SN phase. We compute the differ￾ence in days between the ‘latest’ value of t0 (the value using the first N detections in g and r) and t ∗ 0 . The horizontal dashed line…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the same statistic as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Frequency of number of candidates per day (24 hour period) within a half, one and two days of the current predicted peak (in black, red and blue respectively). These measurements are made only for days where ZTF alerts were delivered. The mean number of candidates per …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper panel: The median (black line) of the normalised distribu￾tions of all SNe Ia scores per night, log10 (S Ia). The shaded grey region shows the central 68% of the distributions. Lower panel: the normalised distribution of scores of candidates within one day of t ∗…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Convergence of estimate of time to peak, t0 − t ∗ 0 for simulated LSST SNe Ia lightcurves. Here, t ∗ 0 is the zero-phase parameter used as input to generate the simulated observations. We have plotted only 5% of the points in light grey. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of cand…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The number of expected candidates within half, one and two days of the peak from simulated LSST observations. There are a mean of 2.05 ± 0.04 within 0.5 days of the true peak, 4.12 ± 0.06 within one day of the peak, and 8.2 ± 0.1 within two days of the peak (indicated…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Malanchev, K., Sharief, S., et al

    Aleo, P. D., Malanchev, K., Sharief, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 9

    2023

  2. [2]

    I., Klougart, J., et al

    Andersen, J., Andersen, M. I., Klougart, J., et al. 1995, The Messenger, 79, 12

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Automated scheduler for the SOXS instrument: design and performance

    Asquini, L., Landoni, M., Young, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17262

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Asquini, L., Landoni, M., Young, D., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12189, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VII, 121890A Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    2016, SNCosmo: Python li- brary for supernova cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017

    Barbary, K., Barclay, T., Biswas, R., et al. 2016, SNCosmo: Python li- brary for supernova cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    2011, A&A, 534, A43

    Bazin, G., Ruhlmann-Kleider, V ., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A43

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Bellm, E. C. 2016, PASP, 128, 084501

    2016

  8. [8]

    Biswas, B., Ishida, E. E. O., Peloton, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A77

    work page 2023

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Black, P. E. 2005, Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures [NIST online] Article number, page 15 of 18 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2005

  2. [10]

    2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Bloemen, S., Groot, P., Nelemans, G., & Klein-Wolt, M. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 496, Living Together: Planets, Host Stars and Binaries, ed. S. M. Rucinski, G. Torres, & M. Zejda, 254

    2015

  3. [11]

    L., et al

    Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2014, Nature, 508, 72

    2014

  4. [12]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 110

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 110

    2022

  5. [13]

    2021, AJ, 162, 231

    Carrasco-Davis, R., Reyes, E., Valenzuela, C., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 231

    2021

  6. [14]

    2014, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Delgado, F., Saha, A., Chandrasekharan, S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9150,

    2014

  7. [15]

    Denny, R. B. 2004, Society for Astronomical Sciences Annual Symposium, 23, 35

    2004

  8. [16]

    Denny, R. B. 2006, Dispatch Scheduling of Automated Telescopes [revised], http://scheduler.dc3.com/Scheduler2006.pdf

    2006

  9. [17]

    D., Kochanek, C

    Desai, D. D., Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 5016

    2024

  10. [18]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 2228

    Dhawan, S., Goobar, A., Smith, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2228

    2022

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Dilday, B., Kessler, R., Frieman, J. A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 262

    2008

  12. [20]

    J., Dhillon, V

    Dyer, M. J., Dhillon, V . S., Littlefair, S., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10704, Observa- tory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VII, 107040C

    2018

  13. [21]

    J., Dhillon, V

    Dyer, M. J., Dhillon, V . S., Littlefair, S., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 11452, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VI, ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ibsen, 114521Q

    2020

  14. [22]

    E., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Firth, R. E., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3895 Förster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242 Fredslund Andersen, M., Handberg, R., Weiss, E., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 045003

    2015

  15. [23]

    A., Sharma, Y ., et al

    Fremling, C., Miller, A. A., Sharma, Y ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 32

    2020

  16. [24]

    E., et al

    Frohmaier, C., Sullivan, M., Nugent, P. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2308

    2019

  17. [25]

    2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Gal-Yam, A. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 53, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 423.05

    2021

  18. [26]

    W., Wambsganss, J., et al

    Giannini, E., Schmidt, R. W., Wambsganss, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A49

    2017

  19. [27]

    & Tamassia, R

    Goodrich, M. & Tamassia, R. 2014, Algorithm Design and Applications (Wiley)

    2014

  20. [28]

    L., Bellm, E., Guy, L., Dubois-Felsmann, G., & the Data Manage- ment System Science Team

    Graham, M. L., Bellm, E., Guy, L., Dubois-Felsmann, G., & the Data Manage- ment System Science Team. 2020, DMTN-102

    2020

  21. [29]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    2018

  22. [30]

    2008, in J

    Grundahl, F., Arentoft, T., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2008, in J. Phys. Conf. Ser., V ol. 118, 012041

    2008

  23. [31]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 11

    2007

  24. [32]

    2005, A&A, 443, 781

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Nobili, S., Regnault, N., & Pain, R. 2005, A&A, 443, 781

    2005

  25. [33]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  26. [34]

    N., Tonry, J

    Heinze, A. N., Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 241

    2018

  27. [35]

    A., Tsapras, Y ., et al

    Hundertmark, M., Street, R. A., Tsapras, Y ., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A55

    2018

  28. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  29. [37]

    L., Negueruela, I., Campana, S., et al

    Israel, G. L., Negueruela, I., Campana, S., et al. 2001, A&A, 371, 1018 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2001

  30. [38]

    O., Foley, R

    Jones, D. O., Foley, R. J., Narayan, G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 143

    2021

  31. [39]

    & Young, A

    Kasten, F. & Young, A. T. 1989, Appl. Opt., 28, 4735

    1989

  32. [40]

    D., Jones, D

    Kenworthy, W. D., Jones, D. O., Dai, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 265

    2021

  33. [41]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.07170

    Lampoudi, S., Saunders, E., & Eastman, J. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.07170

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Leoni, M., Ishida, E. E. O., Peloton, J., & Möller, A. 2022, A&A, 663, A13

    2022

  35. [43]

    2021, AJ, 161, 107

    Matheson, T., Stubens, C., Wolf, N., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 107

    2021

  36. [44]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61 Möller, A. & de Boissière, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4277 Möller, A., Peloton, J., Ishida, E. E. O., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3272

    2010

  37. [45]

    M., Tollerud, E., Sip˝ocz, B., et al

    Morris, B. M., Tollerud, E., Sip˝ocz, B., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 128

    2018

  38. [46]

    T., Guffanti, A., & Sarkar, S

    Nielsen, J. T., Guffanti, A., & Sarkar, S. 2016, Scientific Reports, 6, 35596

    2016

  39. [47]

    2020, in Snowmass2021 - Letter of

    Nugent, P., Aldering, G., Diehl, T., et al. 2020, in Snowmass2021 - Letter of

    2020

  40. [48]

    2000, Mem

    Patat, F., Augusteijn, T., Böhnhardt, H., et al. 2000, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 71, 307

    2000

  41. [49]

    2001, ApJ, 555, 900

    Patat, F., Cappellaro, E., Danziger, J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 900

    2001

  42. [50]

    A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2020

  43. [51]

    J., Scheirich, P., et al

    Pravec, P., Meyer, A. J., Scheirich, P., et al. 2024, Icarus, 418, 116138

    2024

  44. [52]

    2014, Icarus, 233, 48

    Pravec, P., Scheirich, P., ˇDurech, J., et al. 2014, Icarus, 233, 48

    2014

  45. [53]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

    2020

  46. [54]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 108

    Rana, J., Singhal, A., Gadre, B., Bhalerao, V ., & Bose, S. 2017, ApJ, 838, 108

    2017

  47. [55]

    A., Jegou Du Laz, T., et al

    Rehemtulla, N., Miller, A. A., Jegou Du Laz, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 7

    2024

  48. [56]

    T., Matheson, T., Mighell, K

    Ridgway, S. T., Matheson, T., Mighell, K. J., Olsen, K. A., & Howell, S. B. 2014, ApJ, 796, 53

    2014

  49. [57]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Li, W., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 2675

    1999

  50. [58]

    Russeil, E., Ishida, E. E. O., Le Montagner, R., Peloton, J., & Moller, A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.10987

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Samson, R. J. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 3349, Observatory Operations to Optimize Scientific Return, ed. P. J. Quinn, 282–290 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Reyes, I., Valenzuela, C., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 141

    1998

  52. [60]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Schipani, P., Campana, S., Claudi, R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10702, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107020F

    2018

  53. [61]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  54. [62]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 113

    Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Carr, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 113

    2022

  55. [63]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48

    2014

  56. [64]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  57. [65]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002

    2020

  58. [66]

    W., Williams, R

    Smith, K. W., Williams, R. D., Young, D. R., et al. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 26

    2019

  59. [67]

    2016, Astronomy and Com- puting, 15, 90

    Solar, M., Michelon, P., Avarias, J., & Garces, M. 2016, Astronomy and Com- puting, 15, 90

    2016

  60. [68]

    I., et al

    Southworth, J., Tregloan-Reed, J., Andersen, M. I., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4205

    2016

  61. [69]

    2023, ApJ, 956, L34

    Srivastav, S., Moore, T., Nicholl, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, L34

    2023

  62. [70]

    Steele, I. A. & Carter, D. 1997, in Telescope Control Systems II, V ol. 3112, SPIE, 222–233

    1997

  63. [71]

    A., Bowman, M., Saunders, E

    Street, R. A., Bowman, M., Saunders, E. S., & Boroson, T. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V , ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ibsen, 1070711

    2018

  64. [72]

    2019, The Messenger, 175, 58

    Swann, E., Sullivan, M., Carrick, J., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 58

    2019

  65. [73]

    E., et al

    Taylor, G., Lidman, C., Tucker, B. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4111

    2021

  66. [74]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505

    2018

  67. [75]

    1998, A&A, 331, 815 Van Rossum, G

    Tripp, R. 1998, A&A, 331, 815 Van Rossum, G. & Drake, F. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual: (Python Docu- mentation Manual Part 2), Documentation for Python (CreateSpace Indepen- dent Publishing Platform)

    1998

  68. [76]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  69. [77]

    Young, A. T. & Irvine, W. M. 1967, AJ, 72, 945

    1967

  70. [78]

    Young, D. R. 2023, Sherlock, 10.5281/zenodo/7970743 Article number, page 16 of 18 Aidan Sedgewick iD et al.: AAS2RTO: Automated Alert Streams to Real-Time Observations Fig. A.1. Messages sent using a Slack ‘bot’. They contain lightcurve figures produced by AAS2RTO alongside so...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.