Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 33 references

Simulator proves 8000-supernova cosmology survey feasible

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 · glm-5.2

2026-07-08 07:14 UTC pith:LCJ266I7

load-bearing objection A well-built IFS simulator with a survey-feasibility claim that needs a reality check on observing efficiency the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06391 v1 pith:LCJ266I7 submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO

slicersim: A python package to simulate image slicer spectroscopic observations -- application to the Lazuli Spectrograph

M. Rigault , Y. Copin , G. Aldering , J. Edelstein , G. Furesz , J. Lasker , T. Miller , S. Perlmutter
show 3 more authors
A. Roy E. Schlawin G. Stefansson
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO
keywords integral field spectroscopyimage slicersimulationType Ia supernovaesurvey planningLazuli Space Observatoryexposure time calculatordetector noise model
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 presents slicersim, a Python package for simulating observations from integral field spectrographs that use an image-slicer design. The tool models the full chain from astrophysical scene through telescope optics, spectrograph dispersion, and detector readout, including thermal emission, photon noise, read noise, and dark current. The authors apply it to the planned Lazuli Space Observatory's slicer spectrograph and show that a cosmological survey of 8000 Type Ia supernovae spanning redshifts 0 to 1.5, each observed to a signal-to-noise ratio of 25 per resolution element in rest-frame optical wavelengths, would require approximately 1.5 years of on-sky time. This is the paper's central demonstration: that a space-based low-resolution integral field spectrograph can, in principle, collect a spectroscopic sample of supernovae large enough for next-generation dark-energy constraints within a realistic observing envelope. The package decomposes the variance budget into eight independent sources — target photon noise, background, host galaxy, telescope thermal emission, spectrograph thermal emission, detector dark current, read-out noise, and ROIC glow — allowing instrument designers and survey planners to identify which noise source dominates at which wavelength and to trade design parameters against survey yield.

Core claim

The central result is not a physical law but a feasibility demonstration: by constructing a modular simulation that traces photons from sky scene through telescope, slicer spectrograph, and H4RG detector with realistic noise models, the authors show that the Lazuli instrument as currently baselined can acquire spectra of 8000 Type Ia supernovae to SNR=25 per resolution element across the redshift range 0 to 1.5 in roughly 1.5 years of dedicated observing time. The simulation itself is the central object — it encodes the instrument's throughput, resolving power, detector read-out modes, thermal properties, and optical aberrations into a self-consistent framework where any parameter can be更改d和

What carries the argument

slicersim Python package

Load-bearing premise

The simulation's conclusions about survey feasibility rest on instrument performance parameters — throughput curves, detector quantum efficiency, read noise, dark current, thermal emissivities, and resolving power — that are described as realistic but are not the measured values of the as-built hardware. The model also currently omits slit-width diffraction, assumes a uniform line-spread function across the detector, and ignores inter-pixel capacitance, any of which could系统地

What would settle it

If the as-built Lazuli instrument's throughput, detector performance, or thermal background deviates significantly from the baseline parameters in Table 1, the exposure time estimates and hence the survey-feasibility conclusion could shift substantially. A test would be to re-run the survey simulation with measured end-of-integration values.

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

If this is right

  • Survey planners for Lazuli and similar future IFS missions can use the package to optimize the trade between exposure time, signal-to-noise threshold, and sample size before the instrument is built.
  • The variance decomposition tool can guide instrument design decisions — for example, whether to invest in lower read noise versus lower thermal emissivity — by showing which noise source dominates at the wavelengths of interest.
  • The simulation can generate synthetic detector images, enabling data-reduction pipelines and simulation-based inference methods to be developed and tested before first light.
  • Because the code is modular and not specific to Lazuli, it can be adapted to other integral field spectrographs, including ground-based or ELT-class instruments, by swapping the telescope, spectrograph, and detector configuration.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents slicersim, a Python package for simulating integral field spectrograph (IFS) observations, with a focus on the Lazuli Space Observatory's image slicer spectrograph. The package is modular, with components for the astrophysical scene, telescope, spectrograph, and detector. It models diffraction-limited PSFs, thermal emission, H4RG detector readout noise (using Rauscher and Kubik models), and supports SALT-based SN Ia templates. The authors demonstrate the tool's use as an exposure time calculator, for variance decomposition, and for survey planning, concluding that Lazuli could observe 8000 SNe Ia (z=0 to 1.5) at SNR=25 per resolution element in 1.5 years of on-sky time.

Significance. The paper introduces a well-structured, publicly available simulation tool that addresses a practical need for IFS instrument design and survey planning. The modular API design and the inclusion of standard, well-tested physics models (Airy PSF, blackbody thermal emission, Rauscher/Kubik read-noise models, SALT templates) are strengths. The variance decomposition feature is particularly useful for instrument design trade studies. The code is released as a pip-installable package, supporting reproducibility. The application to the Lazuli SN Ia survey provides a concrete demonstration of the tool's capabilities.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.4: The survey feasibility claim of 1.5 years on-sky time for 8000 SNe Ia at SNR=25 is based on '100% of observing time.' The manuscript acknowledges this is illustrative, but the abstract states the result without this caveat. For a space mission, realistic duty cycles (Earth avoidance, slewing, calibration, target availability) are typically 40-70%, which would at minimum double the calendar time. The abstract should either include the 100% duty cycle qualifier or the body should provide a more realistic efficiency factor. As stated, the abstract's quantitative claim is misleading.
  2. §3.2 and §3.4: All per-target exposure times (Figures 6 and 8) assume SNe Ia at maximum light with stretch x1=0 and color c=0. Real surveys observe SNe across a range of phases, colors (c typically -0.1 to +0.3), and stretches. Redder SNe are significantly fainter. The survey time estimate in §3.4 does not account for this distribution. The authors should either (a) integrate over a realistic SN Ia property distribution when computing the total survey time, or (b) explicitly state in §3.4 and the abstract that the 1.5-year estimate assumes all targets are at peak brightness with nominal color and stretch, which is a best-case bound.
  3. §2.6.2: The spectrum extraction uses optimal extraction — the same PSF is used to generate the cube and to estimate the variance spectrum. The authors acknowledge this is a best-case bound. However, this choice directly affects all exposure time calculations and thus the survey feasibility claim. The manuscript should clarify the magnitude of this effect (e.g., how much longer exposure times would be with a more realistic extraction pipeline) or at minimum note in §3.4 that the survey time estimate assumes optimal extraction.
minor comments (7)
  1. §2.6.1: The omission of slit-width diffraction is acknowledged but its potential impact on exposure time estimates is not discussed. A brief note on the expected magnitude of this effect would help readers assess the robustness of the survey planning results.
  2. §2.6.1: The assumption of a uniform LSF across the detector is noted as a current limitation. The manuscript should briefly indicate how much the LSF is expected to vary across the field and whether this could systematically bias SNR estimates.
  3. Table 1: The 'optics: dispersed' row lists units as 'K', which appears to be a copy error; this parameter is a boolean indicating whether thermal emission is dispersed.
  4. Figure 2 caption: 'host-less' is used but the figure shows a point source only; consider clarifying that no host galaxy is included.
  5. §2.3.2: The anamorphic magnification is described as 2:1, but Table 1 lists 'anamorphism 2x1' — consistent terminology would help.
  6. The abstract states 'observed within the first few years of its operations' — given the 1.5-year on-sky estimate (which itself assumes 100% duty cycle), 'first few years' is optimistic and should be qualified.
  7. Several references appear to have formatting issues (e.g., 'A&A proofs: manuscript no. main' in the header, and some author lists are truncated). A proofreading pass would help.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and constructive comments. All three major points are well-taken and will be addressed in the revised manuscript. We agree that the survey feasibility claim as currently presented in the abstract is missing important caveats, and we will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.4: The survey feasibility claim of 1.5 years on-sky time for 8000 SNe Ia at SNR=25 is based on '100% of observing time.' The manuscript acknowledges this is illustrative, but the abstract states the result without this caveat. For a space mission, realistic duty cycles (Earth avoidance, slewing, calibration, target availability) are typically 40-70%, which would at minimum double the calendar time. The abstract should either include the 100% duty cycle qualifier or the body should provide a more realistic efficiency factor. As stated, the abstract's quantitative claim is misleading.

    Authors: The referee is correct. The abstract currently states the 1.5-year on-sky time without the critical qualifier that this assumes 100% observing efficiency. We will revise the abstract to explicitly state that this figure assumes 100% duty cycle (i.e., on-sky time, not calendar time). We will also add a sentence in §3.4 noting that realistic space mission duty cycles of 40–70% would correspondingly increase the calendar time, and that such efficiency factors are outside the scope of slicersim's current simulation but should be applied by the user when translating on-sky time to mission duration. We agree that without this qualifier, the abstract's claim is misleading. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.2 and §3.4: All per-target exposure times (Figures 6 and 8) assume SNe Ia at maximum light with stretch x1=0 and color c=0. Real surveys observe SNe across a range of phases, colors (c typically -0.1 to +0.3), and stretches. Redder SNe are significantly fainter. The survey time estimate in §3.4 does not account for this distribution. The authors should either (a) integrate over a realistic SN Ia property distribution when computing the total survey time, or (b) explicitly state in §3.4 and the abstract that the 1.5-year estimate assumes all targets are at peak brightness with nominal color and stretch, which is a best-case bound.

    Authors: This is a fair point. The current survey time estimate does assume all SNe are at maximum light with nominal SALT parameters (x1=0, c=0), which is indeed a best-case bound. A full integration over the SN Ia property distribution (phase, color, stretch) and their correlations is beyond the scope of this paper, which is primarily a software description. However, we agree that the assumption must be stated explicitly. We will add clear language in both §3.4 and the abstract noting that the 1.5-year estimate assumes all targets are at peak brightness with nominal color and stretch, and therefore represents a lower bound on the required survey time. We will also note that slicersim fully supports varying these parameters (the SALT model accepts phase, x1, c as inputs), so a more realistic integration can be performed in future work. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §2.6.2: The spectrum extraction uses optimal extraction — the same PSF is used to generate the cube and to estimate the variance spectrum. The authors acknowledge this is a best-case bound. However, this choice directly affects all exposure time calculations and thus the survey feasibility claim. The manuscript should clarify the magnitude of this effect (e.g., how much longer exposure times would be with a more realistic extraction pipeline) or at minimum note in §3.4 that the survey time estimate assumes optimal extraction.

    Authors: We agree that this assumption should be flagged more prominently, particularly given its direct impact on the survey time estimate. The manuscript already acknowledges in §2.6.2 that the extraction is optimal and represents a best-case bound. We will add an explicit note in §3.4 that the survey time estimate assumes optimal extraction (i.e., perfect knowledge of the PSF used for both forward simulation and extraction). Regarding the magnitude of the effect: quantifying it rigorously requires implementing a realistic extraction pipeline with PSF mismatches, which is planned for a future slicersim release (as noted in §2.6.2). We can provide a rough estimate based on the fact that optimal extraction recovers essentially all the signal within the PSF, whereas a simple aperture extraction with a sub-optimal aperture typically loses 5–15% of the signal, which would increase exposure times by approximately 10–30%. We will include this estimate as a rough guide while noting that a precise quantification requires further development. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: slicersim's survey feasibility result is computed from externally specified instrument parameters and standard SN Ia templates, not from a fitted or self-defined model.

full rationale

The paper presents slicersim, a simulation tool, and uses it to estimate the on-sky time required to observe 8000 SNe Ia with the Lazuli spectrograph. The derivation chain is straightforward: instrument parameters (throughput curves, detector QE, read noise, dark current, thermal emissivities, resolving power) are externally specified design values in Table 1 and Fig. 5, not quantities derived from the paper's own equations. The SN Ia spectral templates come from external sources (SALT model: Guy et al. 2007, 2010; Kenworthy et al. 2021). The exposure time calculator (Section 3.2) computes signal and variance from first-principles photon counting (Eq. 1) combined with these external inputs. The survey time estimate in Section 3.4 is then a straightforward integration of per-target exposure times over a uniform redshift distribution. No parameter is fitted to the survey outcome and then presented as a prediction. The Roy et al. 2026 citation for the Lazuli instrument design is a companion paper, but it provides the physical instrument specification (external input), not a result that slicersim claims to derive or validate. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the throughput curves are 'not the actual values of the as-built instruments' and that the estimates are illustrative, not forecasts. The 100% duty cycle assumption is an optimistic simplification, but it is stated openly and is not a circularity issue. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks: the instrument parameters are design specifications, the SN templates are from the literature, and the variance model follows standard detector physics (Rauscher et al. 2007; Kubik et al. 2016). No step in the chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. All modeled components (telescope, spectrograph, detector, scene elements) correspond to real hardware or standard astrophysical sources. The free parameters are instrument design specifications loaded from configuration files, not values fitted to data to make the simulation agree with observations. The ad-hoc axioms are simplifications acknowledged by the authors, not postulates introduced to force a desired result.

free parameters (7)
  • Lazuli throughput curves (bol/eol) = See Fig. 5; wavelength-dependent
    Effective total throughput for each Lazuli field, loaded from configuration files. These are design estimates, not fitted to data.
  • Detector QE ('H4RG17') = Wavelength-dependent, see Fig. 5
    Quantum efficiency curve for the H4RG-10 detector baselined for Lazuli. Design specification, not fitted.
  • Dispersion curve ('dispersion_offner') = Pixel-based, see Table 1
    Wavelength solution mapping wavelength to detector pixels. Derived from optical model.
  • Optics temperatures = [230, 228, 228, 226, 229] K
    Temperatures of spectrograph optical elements for thermal emission calculation. Design specifications.
  • Optics emissivities = [0.05, 0.05, 0.03, 0.03, 0.03]
    Emissivities of optical elements for thermal model. Design assumptions.
  • z_switch (narrow to wide field) = 0.8
    Redshift at which the survey switches from narrow to wide field. Chosen by the authors for survey optimization (Section 3.4).
  • SN Ia SALT parameters (stretch, color) = 0, 0
    Default stretch and color for the SN Ia template used in the survey simulation. Standard assumption for a 'typical' SN Ia.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Rauscher et al. (2007) and Kubik et al. (2016) read-noise models accurately describe H4RG detector variance
    Section 2.4: the variance of each pixel is computed using these models. The paper notes they agree within a few percent.
  • domain assumption The Airy disk model is sufficient for the Lazuli PSF (no atmospheric perturbation, diffraction-limited at 500 nm)
    Section 2.2: slicersim models the PSF as an Airy disk convolved with a Gaussian jitter. Valid for a space telescope but an approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Slit-width diffraction is negligible
    Section 2.6.1: 'the diffraction induced by the slit width itself is ignored.' This simplification could affect the accuracy of the simulated LSF.
  • ad hoc to paper The LSF is uniform across the detector
    Section 2.6.1: 'all spectra have the same LSF, which effectively means that the spectrograph-induced PSF is uniform across the detector.' Noted as a simplification to be improved.
  • ad hoc to paper Inter-pixel capacitance and other complex detector effects are negligible for survey planning
    Section 2.4: 'More complex detector effects that affect variance, such as pixel correlations (e.g. inter-pixel capacitance) are ignored in the current version.'

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 20743 in / 3123 out tokens · 375570 ms · 2026-07-08T07:14:23.196395+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Integral Field Spectroscopy (IFS) is a key technique to study galaxies, stellar and planetary systems, and transients, by spatially splitting the scene and dispersing this light onto the detector. This technique is now central for many modern telescopes, including the Lazuli Space Observatory which will host a low spectral-resolution image slicer spectrograph. To prepare for future IFS-equipped instruments and to better understand the systematics of current ones, realistic simulations are needed. We present slicersim, a Python package designed to simulate IFS observations. slicersim is a modular and flexible tool that allows the user to build a scene, define a telescope, a spectrograph, and a detector, and to simulate the resulting observation, including various sources of noise and instrumental effects. The package is designed to be easily extensible to any IFS, with a current focus on that from the Lazuli Space Observatory. In this paper, we present the structure and logic of the package, detailing its main components, and providing an example of its usage. Using slicersim we demonstrate the feasibility of a large cosmology campaign on Lazuli -- a sample of 8000 Type~Ia Supernovae uniformly distributed between $z=0$ and $z=1.5$, observed within the first few years of its operations for a typical average signal-to-noise of 25 per resolution element rest-frame optical wavelengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06391 by A. Roy, E. Schlawin, G. Aldering, G. Furesz, G. Stefansson, J. Edelstein, J. Lasker, M. Rigault, S. Perlmutter, T. Miller, Y. Copin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the slicersim code structure. Elements in boxes are classes, and arrows show the connec￾tions between them, such that a Scene has a PointSource, a Background and a Host instance as attributes. The Simulation is the cornerstone class of the package and Target is a top level class to simplify the user experi￾ence. The LazuliTarget, which inher￾its Target provides additional Lazuli specific fu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of a simulated slicer cube observing a host-less z = 1 Type Ia Supernovae observed using two nmd=(64, 8, 0) H4RG ramps (48 min). This assumes the Lazuli IFS narrow-field (2.3" x 4.6" field of view) current best estimate configuration (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two Type Ia Supernovae spectra (z = 0.7, in blue; z = 1.2, in orange) simulated as observed with the Lazuli narrow-field slicer using two nmd=(64, 8, 0) H4RG ramp, corresponding to a 2900 s exposure time. For the z = 1.2 case see an illustration of the cube in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the Lazuli two-channel slicer data. In this illustration aberrations from the spectrograph have been removed to illustrate the incoming PSF (airy) and background contributions (host galaxy, astrophysical or thermal) have been switched off to avoid signal offset between the two channels. The left panel show the 2D scene averaged between 1600 nm and 1700 nm, as projected onto the slicer plane… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of default assumptions for the Lazuli IFS simula￾tions; end-of-life (e.o.l) and beginning-of-life (b.o.l). Top: Spectrograph resolving power (R = λ ∆λ ). Bottom: Absolute transmission of the tele￾scope plus IFS instrument, then that combined with the detector quan￾tum efficiency to give the net IFS efficiency. Performances are expected to only slight decrease from beginning to end of life oper… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of a z = 1 Type Ia Supernova simulated in the con￾text of the Lazuli Space Observatory integral field spectrograph. Top: Simulated spectrum requesting an average signal to noise of 20 per res￾olution elements in the rest-frame λ ∈ [400, 680]nm wavelength range. Bottom: Signal to noise spectrum. The corresponding observer-frame wavelength are highlighted in bold-orange. The horizontal line show… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Details of the variance contributions for a z = 1 Type Ia Su￾pernova observation acquired by the Lazuli narrow field in 72.4 min (three (64, 8, 0) ramps, as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] 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

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    W., Amanullah, R., et al

    Aldering, G., 2001, LBNL report number LBNL-51157 Aldering, G., Akerlof, C. W., Amanullah, R., et al. 2002, Proc. SPIE, 4835,

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    2002, Proc

    doi:10.1117/12.456562 Aldering, G., Adam, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2002, Proc. SPIE, 4836,

    work page doi:10.1117/12.456562 2002

  3. [3]

    1995, A&AS, 113,

    doi:10.1117/12.458107 Bacon, R., Adam, G., Baranne, A., et al. 1995, A&AS, 113,

    work page doi:10.1117/12.458107 1995

  4. [4]

    2001, MNRAS, 326,

    Bacon, R., Copin, Y ., Monnet, G., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326,

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    and Prestwich, A

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04612.x. Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7735, 773508. doi:10.1117/12.856027 Barbary et al. 2023, Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8393360. Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568,...

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04612.x 2001

  6. [6]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 1,

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/126 Bongard, S., Soulez, F., Thiébaut, É., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1,

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/126 2011

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19480.x Boone, K. 2021, AJ, 162, 6,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19480.x 2011

  8. [8]

    2021, AJ, 912,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2a2d Boone, K., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2021, AJ, 912,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2a2d 2021

  9. [9]

    Burgaz, U., Maguire, K., Dimitriadis, G., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b. Burgaz, U., Maguire, K., Dimitriadis, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A9. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450386 Cappellari, Michele & Copin, Yannick 2003, MNRAS, 342(2), 345â ˘A¸ S354. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x Courtes, G. 1982, IAU Colloquium 67: Instrumentation for Astronomy with Large Optical Telescopes, 92,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b 2025

  10. [10]

    doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7787-7_16 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 1, L14. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f Dimitriadis, G., Burgaz, U., Deckers, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A10. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451852 Drory, N., MacDonald, N., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 2,

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7787-7_16 2024

  11. [11]

    2006, Proc

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/77 Ealet, A., Prieto, E., Bonissent, A., et al. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6265, 626533. doi:10.1117/12.671465 Euclid Collaboration, Cogato, F., Kubik, B., et al. 2026, , arXiv:2602.03574. Filippenko, A. V . 1997, ARA&A, 35,

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/77 2006

  12. [12]

    M., et al

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 Folatelli, G., Morrell, N., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 1,

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 2013

  13. [13]

    A., Sharma, Y ., et al

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/53 Fremling, C., Miller, A. A., Sharma, Y ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895,

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/53 2020

  14. [14]

    2012, Science, 337, 6097,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8943 Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 6097,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8943 2012

  15. [15]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 16 —

    doi:10.1126/science.1203601 Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 7501,

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1203601 2014

  16. [16]

    ZTF-SEDm Type Ia supernova sample for Twins Embedding spectrophotometric standardisation

    doi:10.1038/nature13304 Ganot, C., Copin, Y ., Rigault, M., et al. 2025, , arXiv:2512.07696. Glasse, A., Rieke, G. H., Bauwens, E., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 953,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/nature13304 2025

  17. [17]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    doi:10.1086/682259 Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 466,

    work page doi:10.1086/682259 2019

  18. [18]

    Mellieret al.[Euclid], Astron

    doi:10.1051/0004- 6361:20066930 Guy, J., Sullivan, M., Conley, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A7. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201014468 Ives, D., Alvarez, D., Bezawada, N., et al. 2020, Proc. SPIE, 11454, 114541S. doi:10.1117/12.2562772 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 2,

    work page doi:10.1051/0004- 2010

  19. [19]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 Kenworthy, W. D., Jones, D. O., Dai, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2022

  20. [20]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac30d8 King, I. R. 1983, PASP, 95,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac30d8 1983

  21. [21]

    Towards An Integrated Optical Transient Utility

    doi:10.1086/131139 Kubik, B., Barbier, R., Chabanat, E., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 968, 104504. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/968/104504 Kulkarni, S. R. 2020, , arXiv:2004.03511. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2004.03511 Lezmy, J., Copin, Y ., Rigault, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A43. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244740 Maguire, K., Sullivan, M., Pan, Y .-C., et al. 2014, MNRAS...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/131139 2016

  22. [22]

    & de Boissière, T

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1607 Möller, A. & de Boissière, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1607 2020

  23. [23]

    A., Peretz, E., Gao, G., et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3312 Pasquale, B. A., Peretz, E., Gao, G., et al. 2024, Proc. SPIE, 13096, 1309660. doi:10.1117/12.3019837 Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3312 2024

  24. [24]

    The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98 Popovic, B., Shah, P., Kenworthy, W. D., et al. 2025, arXiv:2511.07517. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.07517 Rauscher, B. J., Fox, O., Ferruit, P., et al. 2007, PASP, 119, 857,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98 2025

  25. [25]

    doi:10.1086/520887 Rauscher 2010, PASP, 122, 896,

    work page doi:10.1086/520887 2010

  26. [26]

    doi:10.1086/656514 Regan, M. W. & Bergeron, L. E. 2020, J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst., 6, 016001. doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.6.1.016001 Rowe, B. T. P., Jarvis, M., Mandelbaum, R., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Com- puting, 10,

    work page doi:10.1086/656514 2020

  27. [27]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.02556

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 Roy, A., Feldman, S., Klupar, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.02556. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.02556. Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., Blagorodnova, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A115. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935344 Rigault, M., Smith, M., Goobar, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450388 Rubin, D., A...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 2015

  28. [28]

    2022, A&A, 662, A112

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7b7f Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A112. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 Silverman, J. M., Foley, R. J., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7b7f 2022

  29. [29]

    MNRAS , author =

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21270.x Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv:1503.03757. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 Stein, G., Seljak, U., Böhm, V ., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 1,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21270.x 2012

  30. [30]

    BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy.As- trophys

    doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/ac7c08 Thatte, N., Tecza, M., Schnetler, H., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538- 2021

  31. [31]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 1,

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5215 Vincenzi, M., Brout, D., Armstrong, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 1,

    work page doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5215 2024

  32. [32]

    The Lazuli Space Observatory: Opportunities for time-domain and multi-messenger astronomy

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6c Wevers, T., Maccarone, T. J., Palmese, A., et al. 2026, arXiv:2606.17136. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.17136 Zieleniewski, S., Thatte, N., Kendrew, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 4,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6c 2026

  33. [33]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1860 Article number, page 10 of 10

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1860