Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Extract cleaned Swift/UVOT UV grism spectra with uvotpy package

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 'Clean Extraction' method removes second-order contamination from Swift/UVOT UV grism spectra, extending the reliable range to about 4000 Å.

desk verdict Useful UVOT-specific second-order contamination clean with public code; the headline 11.2% is in-sample scatter, not transfer accuracy, so the paper needs careful revision but deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10241 v2 pith:MPEK7EEM submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Hao Zhou , Stefano Covino , Zhi-Ping Jin , Yi-Zhong Fan , Da-Ming Wei , N. Paul Kuin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords SwiftUVOTUVgrismspectroscopysecond-ordercontaminationthird-ordergamma-rayburstafterglowseffectiveareacalibrationspectralextractionultravioletastronomy
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

This paper proposes 'Clean Extraction,' a step for Swift/UVOT UV grism spectra that subtracts second-order contamination, which currently truncates the reliable red end of blue-source spectra at about 3000 Å. The method uses the clean first-order spectrum shortward of about 2600 Å to predict how much second-order light falls into each redder pixel, then subtracts that contribution. Calibrated on 46 observations of four white dwarfs with CALSPEC reference spectra, it extends the reliable range to about 4000 Å, roughly 70% of the nominal 1700–5000 Å coverage, with a 1-sigma systematic uncertainty of about 11.2% in the contaminated region. For red sources the third-order contamination is negligible, so the usable red end can reach about 5000 Å. The payoff is that blue gamma-ray-burst afterglows observed near the detector's default position can finally be used to build broadband spectral energy distributions in the early phase.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the flux-density-to-count-rate conversion of the $n$-th spectral order, $f_{\lambda,n}(PN) = CF_n(PN)\,CR_n(PN)$, with $CF_n(PN) = hc/[\lambda_n(PN)\,EA_n(PN)\,\Delta\lambda_n(PN)]$, where $PN$ is the shifted column pixel number relative to the first-order anchor at 2600 Å. The second-order count rate at pixel $PN$ is estimated from the first-order count rate at the pixel $PN_1@\lambda_2@PN$ where the first-order wavelength equals the second-order wavelength at $PN$, so the cleaned first-order spectrum is $CR_1(PN) = CR(PN) - f_{\lambda,2}(PN)/CF_2(PN)$. The practical key is the recalibrated second-order effective area $EA_2$, derived by subtracting CALSPEC-predicted first-order counts from observed counts and dividing the residual by the expected first-order flux; it replaces the uvotpy built-in value, which the paper notes was deliberately biased high.

What would settle it

Take a UVOT UV nominal grism exposure of a bright blue star with a known CALSPEC SED whose anchor position is, say, 120 pixels from (988.4, 1080.2), extract with the default aperture, apply Clean Extraction, and compare the cleaned flux in each 100 Å bin from 3000 to 4000 Å with the reference SED; if the bin-to-bin deviations systematically exceed the claimed 11% or correlate with anchor position, the transferred second-order effective area is not valid and needs a position-dependent calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the second-order effective area in the uvotpy package is systematically overestimated when the default/optimal extraction aperture is used, and that replacing it with an effective area calibrated from CALSPEC white-dwarf spectra makes second-order subtraction reliable. With that calibration, the second order is removed by assuming the first-order spectrum at short wavelengths is uncontaminated, converting it to flux density, and applying the same flux-density conversion at the pixel where the second order has that wavelength. The paper reports median residual deviations of about 0.8% below 2800 Å and about 1.3% in the 2800–4000 Å region, with a 68.3% scatter of about 11.2% in the contaminated band; residual scatter grows above 4000 Å because of third-order contamination. Demonstrations on the gamma-ray burst afterglow GRB 130427A and the quasar 3C 273 match independent photometry and reference spectra, including at anchor positions up to about 220 pixels from the calibration mean.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the second-order effective area measured from four white dwarfs near detector position (988.4, 1080.2) applies unchanged to other point sources anywhere within a 150-pixel radius, and that the GRB 130427A case extends that to roughly 220 pixels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Blue gamma-ray-burst afterglows observed in UVOT nominal UV grism mode can be measured from about 1700 Å to 4000 Å, enabling simultaneous X-ray-to-optical broadband SEDs in the first minutes after a trigger.
  • The method is valid for point sources whose first-order anchor position lies within about 150 pixels of (988.4, 1080.2), which covers the default pointing used in automatic GRB follow-ups.
  • For red sources with spectral index $\beta \gtrsim 0.5$ ($f_\nu \propto \nu^{-\beta}$), third-order contamination stays negligible up to about 5000 Å, so the full nominal band is usable.
  • A lookup table gives the expected contamination ratio $CR_2/CR_1$ as a function of spectral index and UVOT filter colors, so observers can use acquisition colors such as $U-W2$ or $U-M2$ to decide whether cleaning is needed.
  • The cleaned g'-band photometry of GRB 130427A agrees with simultaneous RAPTOR-T photometry, while the uncleaned spectrum is about 0.5 magnitude brighter, confirming the second-order removal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the second-order effective area were calibrated as a smooth function of anchor position instead of a single mean-position curve, the 150-pixel validity circle could be replaced by a full detector map, opening up archival spectra taken far from the default position.
  • The same subtraction logic should transfer to UVOT's clocked mode once its flux calibration is fixed, and to other slitless spectrographs with overlapping order traces, by building per-position effective-area tables.
  • The degradation above 4000 Å attributed to third-order contamination points to a natural next step: calibrate a third-order effective area with the same residual-subtraction trick to push blue sources toward the full 5000 Å band.
  • Archival UVOT grism observations of fast blue optical transients such as AT2018cow could be reprocessed with this cleaning to search for spectral features in the newly accessible 3000–4000 Å region.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a method, implemented in the cluvotpy package, to remove second-order contamination from Swift/UVOT UV grism spectra obtained in nominal mode. The method uses the clean first-order spectrum at short wavelengths to estimate the second-order contribution at longer wavelengths via a recalibrated second-order effective area (EA2), derived from 46 observations of four CALSPEC white dwarfs. The authors claim that the cleaned spectra are reliable from about 1700 to 4000 Å with a 1-sigma systematic uncertainty of about 11.2%, and that the red limit can extend to about 5000 Å for sufficiently red sources. The paper includes demonstrations against GRB 130427A and 3C 273, a look-up table for the expected second-order contamination, and a statement of the region of validity (a circle of radius ~150 pixels around the mean anchor position).

Significance. If the claimed accuracy holds, this is a practically useful calibration for a widely used instrument: it roughly doubles the usable wavelength range of UVOT UV grism spectra of point sources and would enable broadband SED studies of GRB afterglows and blue transients. The paper's strengths are that it builds on published CALSPEC standards, it is explicit about the region of applicability and the extraction-aperture restrictions, and it releases source code on GitHub and Zenodo. The two external checks (GRB 130427A and 3C 273) are not part of the calibration sample, which is a positive feature. However, the quantitative headline uncertainty is derived from the same sample used for the calibration, and the external checks have important limitations, so the current evidence is directionally supportive but not yet a full validation of the stated systematic error.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Abstract] The quoted 1-sigma systematic uncertainty of 11.2% is the median of the 68.3% quantile of absolute deviations between cleaned and reference spectra for the same four white dwarfs, and the same 46 observations, used to derive the second-order effective area in Section 3.1. This is an in-sample scatter: it measures how well a single average EA2 reproduces the calibration sample, not how accurately the method performs on a new source at a different anchor position or with a different spectral energy distribution. Please add a leave-one-out or split-sample validation, report the residuals as a function of anchor position within the 150-pixel circle, and give explicit uncertainty estimates for the external targets rather than only the calibration sample.
  2. [Section 4, GRB 130427A (Figure 6)] The GRB 130427A validation lies outside the stated validity region: the anchor position is about 220 pixels from the mean anchor position, whereas Section 3.1 defines the applicability radius as about 150 pixels. In addition, the comparison is made with RAPTOR-T g'-band photometry over 3630-5830 Å, which extends beyond the 4000 Å limit where the paper itself assigns large (greater than or about 20-30%) uncertainties. This test is therefore suggestive but cannot validate the transfer of the calibrated EA2 across the claimed validity circle. Please quantify how the cleaned flux or EA2 varies with anchor position and, if possible, add tests with sources inside the circle at multiple positions.
  3. [Section 4, 3C 273 (Figure 7)] For 3C 273, the HST reference spectrum is multiplied by a hand-set factor of 1.6 to account for long-term brightness variability. This means the comparison validates spectral shape but not the absolute flux scale. Since the Clean Extraction is a flux-calibration method, an absolute-flux check with simultaneous photometry, or a principled treatment of the scaling-factor uncertainty, is needed to support the claimed accuracy. As written, a normalization error in the cleaned spectrum would be absorbed by the arbitrary scaling and would not be detected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract states that second-order contamination reduces the valid wavelength range to about 33% of the total, while Section 1 states that only data with lambda less than about 3000 Å is reliable and that 'only ≲40% of the data is usable.' The text should be made consistent, and the wavelength threshold should be tied explicitly to the value (e.g., 2800 or 3000 Å) used in the analysis.
  2. [Captions to Figures 3 and 7] The captions contain the typo 'Wavelenght' instead of 'Wavelength'.
  3. [Throughout] The target name is written inconsistently as '3C273' and '3C 273'; please use a single form.
  4. [Section 4, GRB 130427A] The sentence reporting the spectral g'-band photometry gives an uncertainty of at least 20% for the region beyond 4000 Å, but the comparison also covers 3630-4000 Å. Please specify the wavelength range actually used for the synthetic photometry and the assumed transmission curve more precisely.
  5. [Section 2.2, Equation (5)] The notation fλ,2(PN) is slightly ambiguous because the subscript 2 refers to the order, not the wavelength bin; a short sentence clarifying that the left-hand side is the second-order flux density evaluated at the first-order wavelength that maps to PN would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a calibration study with independent external demonstrations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard calibration procedure rather than a circular derivation. The second-order effective area is fitted to 46 Swift/UVOT observations of four CALSPEC white dwarfs using reference spectra obtained independently from CALSPEC. The cleaned spectra of those same four white dwarfs shown in Figure 3 are in-sample consistency checks, but the paper does not rest its central claim on them alone: the method is also demonstrated on GRB 130427A, which was not used in the fit, against simultaneous RAPTOR-T photometry, and on 3C 273 against HST/STIS reference spectra. The quoted 11.2% systematic uncertainty is the measured residual scatter of the calibration sample itself; this is an honest in-sample calibration uncertainty, not a disguised out-of-sample prediction, although it should not be interpreted as a transfer error across the full claimed validity region. Self-citations to uvotpy (Kuin 2014; Kuin et al. 2015) are normal references to the software and calibration files being corrected, and no load-bearing claim reduces to an unverified self-citation. The validity circle of radius about 150 pixels is a stated assumption based on the anchor positions of the calibrators, not a result derived from itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external calibrations: uvotpy wavelength and first-order effective area, CALSPEC reference fluxes, and the transferability of a second-order effective area fitted from four white dwarfs. No new physical entities or forces are introduced; the only invented thing is a software procedure.

free parameters (2)
  • Second-order effective area EA2(PN) = Calibrated curve, roughly 2 cm^2 below the uvotpy built-in value (Fig. 2)
    Fitted to 46 observations of four white dwarfs using CALSPEC references; the cleaning subtraction in Eq. 5 depends directly on this curve.
  • 3C 273 reference scaling factor = 1.6
    Multiplied onto the 1999 HST/STIS reference spectrum to match the 2005 UVOT epoch brightness; used only for the shape comparison in Section 4, not in the cleaning algorithm.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The uvotpy built-in wavelength conversions lambda_n(PN), per-pixel dispersion Delta lambda_n, and first-order effective area are correct.
    Equation 5 and the conversion factor CF use these calibrations directly; the paper only recalibrates the second-order effective area.
  • domain assumption CALSPEC white-dwarf spectra are accurate absolute flux references.
    The EA2 fit and deviation measurements in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 compare UVOT count rates to CALSPEC flux densities.
  • domain assumption In the calibration band, the residual after subtracting the first-order reference count rate is entirely due to the second order.
    Section 3.1 attributes the residual count rate to the second order; any third-order or scattered-light contribution would bias the fitted EA2.
  • domain assumption Third and higher order contamination is negligible across the claimed valid ranges (up to about 4000 A for blue sources, about 5000 A for red sources).
    Equation 5 neglects n>=3 and the paper assigns the red-end limit to third-order contamination.
  • domain assumption The source is a point source and the spectrum is extracted with the default/optimal aperture.
    Section 5 restricts the method to point sources and the default/optimal aperture because the calibrated EA2 depends on the aperture and source morphology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extract cleaned Swift/UVOT UV grism spectra with uvotpy package." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPEK7EEM

@misc{pith2026250210241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extract cleaned Swift/UVOT UV grism spectra with uvotpy package},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPEK7EEM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10241}
}
read the original abstract

The ultraviolet/optical telescope (UVOT) onboard the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory is capable of imaging with 7 lenticular filters and of taking slitless spectra with 2 grisms. Both image and grism data have been widely used to study gamma-ray bursts, supernovae and other ultraviolet/optical transients, and proved UVOT is a powerful instrument in time-domain astronomy. However, the second order contamination, for blue sources, strongly limits the red end of ultraviolet (UV) grism spectra. This, in turn, reduces the valid wavelength range to only about 33% of the total. However, to explore the broadband spectral energy distribution of GRBs at the early stage, a larger valid wavelength range is required. Hence based on the uvotpy package, we propose a method to remove the second order contamination from UV grism spectra (nominal mode) up to about 4000\AA, i.e., about 70% of the full wavelength range. The 1-sigma systematic uncertainty of this method is about 11.2%. In addition, if a source is red enough, the red end of the valid range could reach about 5000\AA. The source code is available on GitHub.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 2d UV nominal spectrum of AG+81 266. The red region represents the trace of the optimal/default extraction aperture spanning from 1700 ˚A to 5000 ˚A. Upper and lower background regions are shown by dashed red lines above and below the central spectrum, respectively. From pixel number ∼ 50 (i.e, ∼ 2800 ˚A), the second order spectrum becomes visible, and begins to overlap with the extraction aperture. Because AG+8… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The effective area of the second order spectrum when using the default/optimal extraction aperture. The thin blue line represents the built-in effective area in the uvotpy package with the first order anchor position of (1080, 1000) in detector pixels, and the thick orange line is derived with spectra listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cleaned first order spectra of the 4 white dwarfs used to calibrate the second order effective area. The black lines represent clean first order spectrum, and the gray dashed lines represent the raw first order spectrum extracted with uvotpy. Reference spectra are shown with red dot-dashed lines. The bin width is 25 ˚A. For GD 153, the spectrum suffers from the strong coincidence loss from ∼ 3000 ˚A to ∼ 4000 ˚A, he… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: First order anchor positions of spectra listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The deviation of cleaned first order spectra from reference spectra and the statistical 1-σ uncertainty. The bin width of the wavelength is 100 ˚A, and the deviation is defined as the quotient of the residuals between cleaned spectra and reference spectra divided by re…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The cleaned first order spectrum of GRB 130427A. The gray and black lines are the raw first order spectrum extracted with uvotpy and the cleaned first order spectrum. The bin width is 100 ˚A. Red points represent photometries obtained by the RAPTOR-T telescope. The blu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The cleaned first order spectrum of 3C273. The raw and cleaned spectra are shown with the gray and black lines respectively, and the bin width of the wavelength is 25 ˚A. The reference spectrum shown with the red line is taken by HST/STIS on Jan 31, 1999, and to match …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The logarithm of CR2/CR1 to base 10 for different spectral indices (y-axis) at a specified wavelength (x-axis). The black lines represent contours and the numbers in the black lines represent values of the contours. For 3600 ˚A < λ < 4000 ˚A, the second order count rat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Constraining eV-scale axion-like particle dark matter: insights from the M87 Galaxy

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using M87's infrared-to-ultraviolet observations, the authors constrain the axion-photon coupling for eV-scale axion-like particle dark matter, claiming order-of-magnitude improvements over previous bounds at masses f...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    3)* x ,6['= RRɥ?mʔ :f , d M8˻IR 2 v

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  7. [7]

    D., Barbier , L

    Barthelmy , S. D., Barbier , L. M., Cummings , J. R., et al. 2005, , 120, 143, 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  8. [8]

    C., Gordon , K

    Bohlin , R. C., Gordon , K. D., & Tremblay , P. E. 2014, , 126, 711, 10.1086/677655

    doi:10.1086/677655 2014

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    C., Hubeny , I., & Rauch , T

    Bohlin , R. C., Hubeny , I., & Rauch , T. 2020, , 160, 21, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b4

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Krick , J

    Bohlin , R. C., Krick , J. E., Gordon , K. D., & Hubeny , I. 2022, , 164, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6fe1

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    C., & Lockwood , S

    Bohlin , R. C., & Lockwood , S. 2022, Update of the STIS CTE Correction Formula for Stellar Spectra , Instrument Science Report STIS 2022-7, 11 pages

    2022

  4. [12]

    A., Valenti , S., Horesh , A., et al

    Bostroem , K. A., Valenti , S., Horesh , A., et al. 2019, , 485, 5120, 10.1093/mnras/stz570

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Landsman , W., Holland , S

    Breeveld , A. A., Landsman , W., Holland , S. T., et al. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1358, Gamma Ray Bursts 2010, ed. J. E. McEnery , J. L. Racusin , & N. Gehrels (AIP), 373--376, 10.1063/1.3621807

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Smitka , M

    Brown , P. J., Smitka , M. T., Wang , L., et al. 2015, , 805, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/74

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    N., Hill , J

    Burrows , D. N., Hill , J. E., Nousek , J. A., et al. 2005, , 120, 165, 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    2004, , 611, 1005, 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels , N., Chincarini , G., Giommi , P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005, 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    H., et al

    Guiriec , S., Kouveliotou , C., Hartmann , D. H., et al. 2016, , 831, L8, 10.3847/2041-8205/831/1/L8

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Ho , A. Y. Q., Goldstein , D. A., Schulze , S., et al. 2019, , 887, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab55ec

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1108, 10.1038/s41550-023-02005-w

    Jin , Z.-P., Zhou , H., Wang , Y., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1108, 10.1038/s41550-023-02005-w

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Kuin , N. P. M., Landsman , W., Page , M. J., et al. 2009, , 395, L21, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00632.x

    2009

  13. [21]

    Kuin , N. P. M., Landsman , W., Breeveld , A. A., et al. 2015, , 449, 2514, 10.1093/mnras/stv408

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Kuin , N. P. M., Wu , K., Oates , S., et al. 2019, , 487, 2505, 10.1093/mnras/stz053

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Kuin , N. P. M., Page , K. L., Mr \'o z , P., et al. 2020, , 491, 655, 10.1093/mnras/stz2960

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2014, UVOTPY: Swift UVOT grism data reduction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1410.004

    Kuin , P. 2014, UVOTPY: Swift UVOT grism data reduction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1410.004

    2014

  17. [25]

    2014, Science, 343, 48, 10.1126/science.1242279

    Maselli , A., Melandri , A., Nava , L., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 48, 10.1126/science.1242279

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    O., Breeveld , A., Hunsberger , S

    Mason , K. O., Breeveld , A., Hunsberger , S. D., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5165, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XIII, ed. K. A. Flanagan & O. H. W. Siegmund , 277--286, 10.1117/12.503713

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc) . 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    2014

  20. [28]

    J., Kuin , N

    Page , M. J., Kuin , N. P. M., Breeveld , A. A., et al. 2013, , 436, 1684, 10.1093/mnras/stt1689

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Foley , R

    Pan , Y. C., Foley , R. J., Filippenko , A. V., & Kuin , N. P. M. 2018, , 479, 517, 10.1093/mnras/sty1420

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Foley , R

    Pan , Y. C., Foley , R. J., Jones , D. O., Filippenko , A. V., & Kuin , N. P. M. 2020, , 491, 5897, 10.1093/mnras/stz3391

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, Trace and Wavelength Calibrations of the UVIS G280 +1/-1 Grism Orders , Instrument Science Report WFC3 2017-20, 15 pages

    Pirzkal , N., Hilbert , B., & Rothberg , B. 2017, Trace and Wavelength Calibrations of the UVIS G280 +1/-1 Grism Orders , Instrument Science Report WFC3 2017-20, 15 pages

    2017

  24. [32]

    S., Breeveld , A

    Poole , T. S., Breeveld , A. A., Page , M. J., et al. 2008, , 383, 627, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12563.x

    2008

  25. [33]

    Roming , P. W. A., Kennedy , T. E., Mason , K. O., et al. 2005, , 120, 95, 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    T., Brown , P

    Smitka , M. T., Brown , P. J., Suntzeff , N. B., et al. 2015, , 813, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/30

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2008, , 486, 411, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809947

    Soldi , S., T \"u rler , M., Paltani , S., et al. 2008, , 486, 411, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809947

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Filippenko , A

    Vasylyev , S. S., Filippenko , A. V., Vogl , C., et al. 2022, , 934, 134, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7220

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    T., Wren , J

    Vestrand , W. T., Wren , J. A., Panaitescu , A., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 38, 10.1126/science.1242316

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    L., Wang , Y., Wang , H., et al

    Wang , Q. L., Wang , Y., Wang , H., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38055, 1

    2024

  31. [39]

    T., Wozniak , P., & Davis , H

    Wren , J., Vestrand , W. T., Wozniak , P., & Davis , H. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7737, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems III, ed. D. R. Silva , A. B. Peck , & B. T. Soifer , 773723, 10.1...

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    2025, Clean Extraction for Swift/UVOT UV grism spectra , 1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14603585

    Zhou, H. 2025, Clean Extraction for Swift/UVOT UV grism spectra , 1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14603585

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, , 268, 65, 10.3847/1538-4365/acf20a

    Zhou , H., Jin , Z.-P., Covino , S., Fan , Y.-Z., & Wei , D.-M. 2023, , 268, 65, 10.3847/1538-4365/acf20a

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.