ExoSim 2: the new Exoplanet Observation Simulator applied to the Ariel space mission

Andrea Bocchieri; Andrea Lorenzani; Andreas Papageorgiou; Enzo Pascale; Lorenzo V. Mugnai

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

ExoSim 2: the new Exoplanet Observation Simulator applied to the Ariel space mission

T0 review · 3 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 The paper presents ExoSim 2, a modular, publicly available exoplanet observation simulator that matches the Ariel radiometric model's photon conversion efficiency within 1%, saturation time within 5%, and noise estimates below 1 ppm for a…

desk verdict ExoSim 2 is a real, useful software contribution with public code and sensible consistency checks; the main gaps are a vague <1 ppm claim and an unpublished read-out simulator, both fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12809 v1 pith:MZOSQ5HZ submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EP

Lorenzo V. Mugnai , Andrea Bocchieri , Enzo Pascale , Andrea Lorenzani , Andreas Papageorgiou This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.EP

keywords exoplanettransitspectroscopyobservationsimulatorArielmissiontime-domainsimulationdetectornoisepointingjitternon-destructivereadssyntheticobservations

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

ExoSim 2 is a complete rewrite of the Exoplanet Observation Simulator, written in Python with a modular Task-based design, that produces time-resolved synthetic observations for transiting-exoplanet spectroscopy from space, ground, or sub-orbital platforms. The paper's central claim is that the simulator reproduces the expected Ariel payload performance: photon conversion efficiency agrees with ArielRad to within 1%, saturation time matches within the 5% validation threshold, and total noise estimates agree below 1 ppm for a 10-hour observation of a star like HD 209458 with jitter, photon, and read noise. The design goal is that each component can be replaced by a user-defined function, so the same workflow can be adapted to instruments other than Ariel. A jitter test case shows that including pointing jitter inflates the RMS of simulated transit light curves beyond photon and detector noise alone, which is exactly the kind of systematic that data-reduction pipelines need to remove.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the oversampled focal plane used as a library of pre-shifted images. During focal plane creation, ExoSim 2 convolves the illuminated field with an intra-pixel response function to produce osf×osf shifted versions of each frame, one per sub-pixel step. The sub-exposure block then simulates pointing jitter by picking the appropriate pre-shifted focal plane for each jitter position inside a sub-exposure and averaging, which avoids recomputing the PSF convolution at every time step. That jitter handling is carried by the chunked Signal and HDF5 data-cube structure, which keeps multi-gigabyte simulations tractable. The NDR block is the other load-bearing piece: it accumulates sub-exposures into ramps, adds detector noise, merges readout groups, and converts floating-point counts to integer ADU, producing data in the same format a real detector would output.

What would settle it

Run the sequential pixel-readout simulator, which the paper says exists, on jitter timelines where the non-destructive-read cadence approaches the per-pixel read time and compare its output noise with ExoSim 2's instantaneous-readout NDRs: a difference exceeding the expected photon noise would show that the approximation fails in that regime. A second check is to inject a slow pointing drift, which the paper's high-frequency module cannot model, and see whether the resulting jitter noise changes the sub-ppm agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, ExoSim 2 is a validated end-to-end, time-domain simulator rather than a static radiometric model. Its focal-plane block produces three oversampled images from the target source, background point sources, and foreground diffuse light; the sub-exposure block adds astronomical time variability and pointing jitter; and the NDR block accumulates sub-exposures into non-destructive reads with dark current, shot noise, and read noise, merges groups in the MULTIACCUM style, and converts counts to ADU. The validation claims are quantitative: automated tests keep the photon conversion efficiency difference from ArielRad under 1%, saturation time is consistent within the 5% threshold used in the ArielRad paper, and a 10-hour HD 209458-like simulation including jitter, photon, and read noise differs from ArielRad's noise estimate by below 1 ppm. The instantaneous-readout approximation is defended by a separate pixel-sequential read-out simulator, to be published elsewhere, that reportedly finds negligible differences against photon noise for realistic jitter timelines. The paper also states a limitation: the high-frequency module cannot simulate slow pointing drift.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that reading out all detector pixels at the same instant, at each read of the exposure ramp, produces the same jitter-induced noise as the real sequential pixel-by-pixel readout; the paper rests this on a separate, not-yet-published read-out simulator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Researchers can prototype and test Ariel data-reduction and detrending pipelines on realistic synthetic observations before the mission launches.
An instrument team can replace individual tasks such as PSF, background, noise, or light curve and reuse the same three-step workflow for other missions such as EXCITE or JWST.
The three independent execution steps mean a user can generate a focal plane once and then explore many readout strategies, jitter realizations, or noise seeds without a full re-run.
Automated validation tests comparing ExoSim 2 to ArielRad protect future code releases from silently drifting away from the validated radiometric agreement.
The jitter test case gives a concrete estimate of how much pointing jitter inflates transit light-curve residuals, setting a target for detrending techniques.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural stress test for the instantaneous-readout assumption is to push NDR cadence down toward the per-pixel read time; the forthcoming sequential read-out simulator should be checked there, since the current paper only reports the regime where jitter timescales are very different.
Because the paper's noise-agreement claim excludes slow pointing drift by design, the 1 ppm agreement describes a jitter-only error budget; adding a drift model could widen the gap.
The astronomical-signal module decouples the target light curve from the instrument model, so the same machinery should be able to simulate other time-domain phenomena, such as eclipsing binaries or microlensing events, by swapping in a different light-curve task.
The stored jitter timelines and random seeds make the simulations reproducible, so once real Ariel data exist, a direct comparison of predicted versus observed jitter noise would test the whole chain.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

ExoSim 2 is a genuine software contribution: a from-scratch Python rewrite with Task classes, chunked HDF5 storage, an oversampled-shift jitter algorithm, and an astronomical-signal injection module. The code is public, automated tests exist with good coverage, and the benchmarks show reasonable scaling. Validation is mostly consistency checking — against ArielRad, an analytic Gaussian blur, and batman — and for a simulator paper that is the right kind of evidence. I think the central claim that the code behaves as intended holds up.

Soft spots are concentrated in the validation sections. The abstract's <1 ppm noise agreement with ArielRad is too thin: we are told 'different independent data reduction pipelines' were used, but not which, using what metric, or with what uncertainties. That should be pinned down. The instantaneous-readout approximation rests on a separate read-out simulator that is not in this paper and not yet published; the authors say the differences are negligible compared to photon noise, but show no numbers. The B2-phase payload configurations are in a restricted repository, so the exact figures are not reproducible. Section 5 is admirably candid about missing slow drift, persistence, 1/f, and crosstalk.

The stress-test concern about sequential readout interacting with jitter at the NDR cadence is plausible but not, on reading, a demonstrated flaw. The authors have at least looked at the question; the problem is that the evidence is invisible. That is a reporting gap, not a load-bearing error. I would not call the paper circular: comparing against ArielRad is a heritage check, and the agreement with the analytic Gaussian and batman gives some independence.

Bottom line: this is a paper for the exoplanet instrumentation community, and it deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review, with the expectation that the <1 ppm claim gets concrete detail, the read-out simulator results get shown or cited, and the restricted payload data gets a synthetic substitute. Once those are in place, it is a solid, citable software paper.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ExoSim 2, a complete Python 3 rewrite of the Exoplanet Observation Simulator, designed for spectro-photometric time-series observations of transiting exoplanets and applied to the Ariel space mission. The authors describe the modular Task-based architecture, the Signal data-cube class, and a three-step workflow that generates focal planes, sub-exposures with pointing jitter, and non-destructive reads (NDRs) with detector noise. Validation is presented against the ArielRad radiometric model for photon conversion efficiency, saturation time, signal levels, and a claimed sub-ppm noise comparison; against an analytic Gaussian-blur/jitter model; and against batman-generated transit signals. The paper also reports computational benchmarks and an example use case comparing jitter and no-jitter light curves.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, ExoSim 2 is a valuable community resource: it is open source, modular, user-extensible, memory-efficient for large time-series data cubes, and accompanied by automated regression tests and documentation. The analytical Gaussian-jitter test and the noise-free batman comparison are appropriate internal consistency checks, and the benchmark results on thread scaling are useful for users planning large simulations. The main external validation, however, is a same-heritage comparison with ArielRad, so the paper's quantitative claims need to be presented with enough detail to be reproduced and assessed.

major comments (3)

[§3.1] The <1 ppm noise-difference claim is the strongest quantitative validation in the paper, but it is not supported by the manuscript as written. The text says that 'different independent data reduction pipelines' were developed and that differences between ExoSim 2 and ArielRad noise estimates are below 1 ppm for a 10 hr HD 209458-like observation, yet it does not define the noise metric (per-pixel, per spectral bin, or broadband), identify which channels and readout modes were used, specify how jitter, photon noise, and read noise were included, or describe what the pipelines did. Please provide a figure or table of the comparison, define the metric exactly, and state the noise model and reduction steps; otherwise this central claim cannot be reproduced or independently assessed.
[§3.2] The instantaneous-readout approximation is load-bearing for the NDR simulation, but the only support is a statement that a separate, unpublished read-out simulator found sequential versus instantaneous readout differences 'negligible compared to the photon noise' across 'various realistic jitter timelines.' No jitter power spectra, readout cadences, quantitative differences, or thresholds are given. Because the detector row read time (~0.1 s) is close to the NDR sub-exposure timescale, the interaction of jitter power at ~0.1 s with sequential readout is precisely the regime that matters. Please include a representative comparison figure, describe the jitter timelines tested, and specify the criterion used to define 'negligible.'
[Data Availability] The B2-phase payload configurations that define the simulated Ariel channels are stored in a restricted-access repository, so the central validation cannot be reproduced by an external user despite the paper's stated goal of reproducibility. Given that this is a software paper whose validation depends on those configurations, I ask that the authors provide an anonymized or reduced version of the configuration used for the ArielRad and batman comparisons, or at least a machine-readable summary of the key optical and detector parameters, so that the validation is repeatable by the community.

minor comments (6)

[§2.1] There is a missing space in 'The currentExoSim 2' at the beginning of the last paragraph of Section 2.1.
[§2.2] There is a formatting error in 'float64 values8 (64 bits = 8 bytes)'; the '8' should be separated as '(64 bits = 8 bytes)'.
[§3.3] The target name is written as 'HD 209858 b' in the first paragraph; this should be 'HD 209458 b'.
[Table 1] The row for 40 threads appears twice in Table 1; the duplicate row should be removed.
[Equation (5)] In Equation (5), the product symbol is rendered as 'Q' in the text; please use the proper ∏ notation.
[§5] The paper correctly states in Section 5 that the high-frequency module cannot simulate slow pointing drift, but this limitation is important enough to be highlighted in Section 2.2 as well, since users setting up jitter simulations need to know the applicable regime before running the code.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ExoSim 2's validation rests on independent comparisons (ArielRad, an analytic Gaussian solution, and the batman transit model), not on a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This paper is a software description and validation study rather than a derivation of a scientific result from assumed conclusions. The central claims are that ExoSim 2 reproduces ArielRad's photon conversion efficiency, saturation time, and signal estimates within stated thresholds (Section 3.1), that the instantaneous-readout approximation is acceptable (Section 3.2), and that the astronomical signal module matches batman (Section 3.3). None of these claims reduce, by construction or by definition, to the inputs of ExoSim 2. The ArielRad comparison is a consistency check between two independently implemented codebases: ArielRad is a separately published radiometric model, and although it shares heritage and authors with ExoSim 2, the paper does not claim that ExoSim 2 inherits ArielRad's outputs by construction; it runs both tools and compares results. The Gaussian-blur test in Section 3.2 is an external analytic benchmark, and the transit validation in Section 3.3 uses the independent batman package. The paper openly notes limitations, including the inability to simulate slow pointing drift, postponed noise models such as 1/f noise and persistence, and the deferred detrending analysis in Bocchieri et al. (in preparation). These are evidence-completeness or validation-strategy concerns, not circularity. The instantaneous read-out justification relies on an unpublished separate read-out simulator, and the <1 ppm noise comparison is not fully described, but an unsupported or missing validation step is not the same as a conclusion equivalent to its premises. No equation in the paper is shown to be equal to its inputs by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on modeling assumptions, including instantaneous readout, Gaussian jitter, point sources, and the use of ArielRad as a reference, rather than on fitted parameters. The only fitted quantity identified is the zodiacal scaling coefficient A, which is not part of the validation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Zodiacal foreground scaling coefficient A = not fixed, fitted to target sky position or set in configuration
Introduced in Equation 4 to scale the modified MIRI zodiacal model to the Kelsall model. It is an input to the foreground simulation, not to the central validation claim.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Detector readout can be approximated as instantaneous and simultaneous across all pixels.
Section 2.2 assumes this for NDR generation; Section 3.2 defends it using a separate, not-yet-published read-out simulator.
domain assumption Pointing jitter can be represented by shifting precomputed oversampled focal planes at 1 kHz and averaging, without recomputing point-spread functions.
Section 2.2 and Figure 12 describe this algorithm; it is validated only for Gaussian jitter against a Gaussian filter within 6%, and slow drift is excluded in Section 5.
domain assumption ArielRad is an accurate reference for photon conversion efficiency, saturation time, and noise.
Section 3.1 uses ArielRad thresholds; ArielRad shares development heritage and authors with ExoSim 2, so agreement is a consistency check rather than independent on-sky validation.
domain assumption A noise-free, jitter-free simulation with a batman light curve is sufficient to validate the astronomical-signal module.
Section 3.3 deliberately disables noise and jitter and assumes perfectly reduced data to isolate instrument line-shape effects.
domain assumption Only point sources are supported in the current version of the simulator.
Section 2.1 states that diffuse sources and imaging support will be added later; this limits the simulator to transit spectroscopy scenarios like the ones studied here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ExoSim 2: the new Exoplanet Observation Simulator applied to the Ariel space mission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZOSQ5HZ

@misc{pith2026250112809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ExoSim 2: the new Exoplanet Observation Simulator applied to the Ariel space mission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZOSQ5HZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12809}
}

read the original abstract

ExoSim 2 is the next generation of the Exoplanet Observation Simulator (ExoSim) tailored for spectro-photometric observations of transiting exoplanets from space, ground, and sub-orbital platforms. This software is a complete rewrite implemented in Python 3, embracing object-oriented design principles, which allow users to replace each component with their functions when required. ExoSim 2 is publicly available on GitHub, serving as a valuable resource for the scientific community. ExoSim 2 employs a modular architecture using Task classes, encapsulating simulation algorithms and functions. This flexible design facilitates the extensibility and adaptability of ExoSim 2 to diverse instrument configurations to address the evolving needs of the scientific community. Data management within ExoSim 2 is handled by the Signal class, which represents a structured data cube incorporating time, space, and spectral dimensions. The code execution in ExoSim 2 follows a three-step workflow: the creation of focal planes, the production of Sub-Exposure blocks, and the generation of non-destructive reads (NDRs). Each step can be executed independently, optimizing time and computational resources. ExoSim 2 has been extensively validated against other tools like ArielRad and has demonstrated consistency in estimating photon conversion efficiency, saturation time, and signal generation. The simulator has also been validated independently for instantaneous read-out and jitter simulation, and for astronomical signal representation. In conclusion, ExoSim 2 offers a robust and flexible tool for exoplanet observation simulation, capable of adapting to diverse instrument configurations and evolving scientific needs. Its design principles and validation results underscore its potential as a valuable resource in the field of exoplanet research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10686-020-09690-9

Sarkar, S., Pascale, E., Papageorgiou, A., Johnson, L.J., Waldmann, I.: ExoSim: the Exoplanet Observation Simulator. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10686-020-09690-9

work page
[2]

PASP 129(976), 064501 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 arXiv:1702.01820 [astro-ph.IM]

Batalha, N.E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., Stevenson, K.B., Lewis, N.K., Kalirai, J., Earl, N., Greene, T., Albert, L., Nielsen, L.D.: Pan- dExo: A Community Tool for Transiting Exoplanet Science with JWST & HST. PASP 129(976), 064501 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 arXiv:1702.01820 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2017
[3]

Alfnoor: assessing the information content of Ariel's low resolution spectra with planetary population studies

Mugnai, L.V., Al-Refaie, A., Bocchieri, A., Changeat, Q., Pascale, E., Tinetti, G.: Alfnoor: Assessing the Information Content of Ariel’s Low-resolution Spectra with Planetary Population Studies. AJ 162(6), 288 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-3881/ac2e92 arXiv:2110.00503 [astro-ph.EP]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[4]

Alfnoor: A Retrieval Simulation of the Ariel Target List

Changeat, Q., Al-Refaie, A., Mugnai, L.V., Edwards, B., Waldmann, I.P., Pascale, E., Tinetti, G.: Alfnoor: A Retrieval Simulation of the Ariel Target List. AJ 160(2), 80 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab9a53 arXiv:2003.01839 [astro-ph.EP] 29

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[5]

Experimental Astronomy (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-023-09911-x

Bocchieri, A., Mugnai, L.V., Pascale, E., Changeat, Q., Tinetti, G.: Detecting molecules in ariel low resolution transmission spectra. Experimental Astronomy (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-023-09911-x

work page doi:10.1007/s10686-023-09911-x 2023
[6]

ApJ 817(1), 17 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/17 arXiv:1511.05528 [astro- ph.EP]

Greene, T.P., Line, M.R., Montero, C., Fortney, J.J., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Luther, K.: Characterizing Transiting Exoplanet Atmospheres with JWST. ApJ 817(1), 17 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/17 arXiv:1511.05528 [astro- ph.EP]

arXiv 2016
[7]

ApJ 698(1), 519–527 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/519 arXiv:0903.3371 [astro-ph.IM]

Kaltenegger, L., Traub, W.A.: Transits of Earth-like Planets. ApJ 698(1), 519–527 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/519 arXiv:0903.3371 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2009
[8]

The PLATO Simulator: modelling of high-precision high-cadence space-based imaging

Marcos-Arenal, P., Zima, W., De Ridder, J., Aerts, C., Huygen, R., Samadi, R., Green, J., Piotto, G., Salmon, S., Catala, C., Rauer, H.: The PLATO Simulator: modelling of high-precision high-cadence space-based imaging. A&A 566, 92 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201323304 arXiv:1404.1886 [astro-ph.IM]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

Show all 33 references

[9]

Experimental Astronomy 38(1-2), 249–330 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4 arXiv:1310.0696 [astro-ph.EP]

Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., Appourchaux, T., Benz, W., Brandeker, A., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Deleuil, M., Gizon, L., Goupil, M.-J., G¨ udel, M., Janot-Pacheco, E., Mas-Hesse, M., Pagano, I., Piotto, G., Pollacco, D., Santos, ˙C., Smith, A., Su´ arez, J.-C., Szab´ o, ...

2014 arXiv
[10]

The Journal of Open Source Software 6(57), 2287 (2021) https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02287

Martin-Lagarde, M., Cossou, C., Gastaud, R.: Exonoodle: Synthetic time-series spectra generator for transiting exoplanets. The Journal of Open Source Software 6(57), 2287 (2021) https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02287

2021 doi
[11]

In: Teuben, P.J., Pound, M.W., Thomas, B.A., Warner, E.M

Geers, V.C., Klaassen, P.D., Beard, S., European Consortium, M.: MIRISim: The JWST-MIRI Simulator. In: Teuben, P.J., Pound, M.W., Thomas, B.A., Warner, E.M. (eds.) Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, vol...

2019
[12]

Experimental Astronomy 46(1), 135–209 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

Tinetti, G., Drossart, P., Eccleston, P., Hartogh, P., Heske, A., Leconte, J., Micela, G., Ollivier, M., Pilbratt, G., Puig, L., Turrini, D., Vandenbussche, B., Wolken- berg, P., Beaulieu, J.-P., Buchave, L.A., Ferus, M., Griffin, M., Guedel, M., Justtanont, K., Lagage, P.-O.,...

2018
[13]

AJ 157(6), 242 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-3881/ab1cb9 arXiv:1905.04959 [astro-ph.EP]

Edwards, B., Mugnai, L., Tinetti, G., Pascale, E., Sarkar, S.: An Updated Study of Potential Targets for Ariel. AJ 157(6), 242 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-3881/ab1cb9 arXiv:1905.04959 [astro-ph.EP]

2019 arXiv
[14]

Experimental Astronomy 50(2-3), 303–328 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-020-09676-7 arXiv:2009.07824 [astro-ph.IM]

Mugnai, L.V., Pascale, E., Edwards, B., Papageorgiou, A., Sarkar, S.: ArielRad: the Ariel radiometric model. Experimental Astronomy 50(2-3), 303–328 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-020-09676-7 arXiv:2009.07824 [astro-ph.IM]

2020 arXiv
[15]

Experimental Astronomy40(2- 3), 601–619 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-015-9471-0 arXiv:1406.3984 [astro-ph.IM]

Pascale, E., Waldmann, I.P., MacTavish, C.J., Papageorgiou, A., Amaral-Rogers, A., Varley, R., Coud´ e du Foresto, V., Griffin, M.J., Ollivier, M., Sarkar, S., Spencer, L., Swinyard, B.M., Tessenyi, M., Tinetti, G.: EChOSim: The Exoplanet Characterisation Observatory software ...

2015 arXiv
[16]

Exoplanet characterisation observatory

Tinetti, G., Beaulieu, J.P., Henning, T., Meyer, M., Micela, G., Ribas, I., Stam, D., Swain, M., Krause, O., Ollivier, M., Pace, E., Swinyard, B., Aylward, A., van Boekel, R., Coradini, A., Encrenaz, T., Snellen, I., Zapatero-Osorio, M.R., Bouwman, J., Cho, J.Y.-K., Coud´ e de...

2012 arXiv
[17]

In: European Planetary Science Congress, pp

Mugnai, L.V., Pascale, E., Edwards, B., Papageorgiou, A., Sarkar, S.: Perfor- mance simulations tools for Space Telescopes applied to Ariel space mission. In: European Planetary Science Congress, pp. 2021–182 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 5194/epsc2021-182

2021
[18]

Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2210.006 (2022)

Mugnai, L.V., Pascale, E., Edwards, B., Papageorgiou, A., Sarkar, S.: Exo- Rad2: Generic point source radiometric model. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2210.006 (2022)

2022
[19]

In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Perrin, M.D

Stotesbury, I., Edwards, B., Lavigne, J.-F., Pesquita, V., Veilleux, J., Windred, P., Al-Refaie, A., Bradley, L., Ma, S., Savini, G., Tinetti, G., Birnstiel, T., Dodson-Robinson, S., Ercolano, B., Feliz, D., Hernitschek, N., Holdsworth, D., Jiang, I.-G., Griffin, M., Lowson, N...

2022
[20]

In: Evans, C.J., Bryant, J.J., Motohara, K

Nagler, P.C., Bernard, L., Bocchieri, A., Butler, N., Changeat, Q., D’Alessandro, A., Edwards, B., Gamaunt, J., Gong, Q., Hartley, J., Helson, K., Jensen, L., Kelly, D.P., Klangboonkrong, K., Kleyheeg, A., Lewis, N.K., Li, S., Line, M., Maher, S.F., McClelland, R., Miko, L.R.,...

2022
[21]

MNRAS 491(1), 378–397 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2958 arXiv:1910.11344 [astro-ph.EP]

Sarkar, S., Madhusudhan, N., Papageorgiou, A.: JexoSim: a time-domain sim- ulator of exoplanet transit spectroscopy with JWST. MNRAS 491(1), 378–397 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2958 arXiv:1910.11344 [astro-ph.EP]

2020 arXiv
[22]

MNRAS 508(1), 433–452 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2472 arXiv:2109.00561 [astro-ph.EP]

Sarkar, S., Madhusudhan, N.: JexoSim 2.0: end-to-end JWST simulator for exo- planet spectroscopy - implementation and case studies. MNRAS 508(1), 433–452 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2472 arXiv:2109.00561 [astro-ph.EP]

2021 arXiv
[23]

Astronomy & Astrophysics 577, 42 (2015) https://doi.org/10

Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., Chabrier, G.: New evolutionary models for 33 pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen- burning limit. Astronomy & Astrophysics 577, 42 (2015) https://doi.org/10. 1051/0004-6361/201425481

2015
[24]

In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Perrin, M.D

Bocchieri, A., Mugnai, L.V., Pascale, E.: PAOS: a fast, modern, and reliable Python package for physical optics studies. In: Coyle, L.E., Matsuura, S., Perrin, M.D. (eds.) Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, vol. 13092, p. 130924....

2024 doi
[25]

In: Oschmann, J

Glasse, A.C.H., Bauwens, E., Bouwman, J., Detre, ¨O., Fischer, S., Garcia-Marin, M., Justannont, K., Labiano, A., Nakos, T., Ressler, M., Rieke, G., Scheithauer, S., Wells, M., Wright, G.S.: The throughput and sensitivity of the JWST mid- infrared instrument. In: Oschmann, J. ...

2010
[26]

Kelsall, T., Weiland, J.L., Franz, B.A., Reach, W.T., Arendt, R.G., Dwek, E., Freudenreich, H.T., Hauser, M.G., Moseley, S.H., Odegard, N.P., Silverberg, R.F., Wright, E.L.: The COBE Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment Search for the Cosmic Infrared Background. II. Model of...

1998 arXiv
[27]

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 614(1), 17–27 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

Conway, J.T.: Analytical solution for the solid angle subtended at any point by an ellipse via a point source radiation vector potential. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 614(1), 17–27 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nima.2009.11.075

2010 doi
[28]

PASP 119(854), 466–475 (2007) https://doi.org/10

Barron, N., Borysow, M., Beyerlein, K., Brown, M., Lorenzon, W., Schubnell, M., Tarl´ e, G., Tomasch, A., Weaverdyck, C.: Subpixel Response Measurement of Near-Infrared Detectors. PASP 119(854), 466–475 (2007) https://doi.org/10. 1086/517620 arXiv:astro-ph/0611339 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[29]

https://github.com/ HDFGroup/hdf5

The HDF Group: Hierarchical Data Format, Version 5. https://github.com/ HDFGroup/hdf5
[30]

Rauscher, B.J., Fox, O., Ferruit, P., Hill, R.J., Waczynski, A., Wen, Y., Xia- Serafino, W., Mott, B., Alexander, D., Brambora, C.K., Derro, R., Engler, C., Garrison, M.B., Johnson, T., Manthripragada, S.S., Marsh, J.M., Marshall, C., Martineau, R.J., Shakoorzadeh, K.B., Wilso...

2007 arXiv
[31]

In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, pp

Lam, S.K., Pitrou, A., Seibert, S.: Numba: A llvm-based python jit compiler. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, pp. 1–6 (2015)

2015
[32]

PASP 127(957), 1144 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1086/684082 arXiv:1509.06264 [astro- ph.IM]

Rauscher, B.J.: Teledyne H1RG, H2RG, and H4RG Noise Generator. PASP 127(957), 1144 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1086/684082 arXiv:1509.06264 [astro- ph.IM]

2015 arXiv
[33]

PASP 127(957), 1161 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1086/683602 arXiv:1507.08285 [astro- ph.EP] 35

Kreidberg, L.: batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python. PASP 127(957), 1161 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1086/683602 arXiv:1507.08285 [astro- ph.EP] 35

2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10686-020-09690-9

Sarkar, S., Pascale, E., Papageorgiou, A., Johnson, L.J., Waldmann, I.: ExoSim: the Exoplanet Observation Simulator. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10686-020-09690-9

work page

[2] [2]

PASP 129(976), 064501 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 arXiv:1702.01820 [astro-ph.IM]

Batalha, N.E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., Stevenson, K.B., Lewis, N.K., Kalirai, J., Earl, N., Greene, T., Albert, L., Nielsen, L.D.: Pan- dExo: A Community Tool for Transiting Exoplanet Science with JWST & HST. PASP 129(976), 064501 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 arXiv:1702.01820 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2017

[3] [3]

Alfnoor: assessing the information content of Ariel's low resolution spectra with planetary population studies

Mugnai, L.V., Al-Refaie, A., Bocchieri, A., Changeat, Q., Pascale, E., Tinetti, G.: Alfnoor: Assessing the Information Content of Ariel’s Low-resolution Spectra with Planetary Population Studies. AJ 162(6), 288 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-3881/ac2e92 arXiv:2110.00503 [astro-ph.EP]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

Alfnoor: A Retrieval Simulation of the Ariel Target List

Changeat, Q., Al-Refaie, A., Mugnai, L.V., Edwards, B., Waldmann, I.P., Pascale, E., Tinetti, G.: Alfnoor: A Retrieval Simulation of the Ariel Target List. AJ 160(2), 80 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab9a53 arXiv:2003.01839 [astro-ph.EP] 29

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

Experimental Astronomy (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-023-09911-x

Bocchieri, A., Mugnai, L.V., Pascale, E., Changeat, Q., Tinetti, G.: Detecting molecules in ariel low resolution transmission spectra. Experimental Astronomy (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-023-09911-x

work page doi:10.1007/s10686-023-09911-x 2023

[6] [6]

ApJ 817(1), 17 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/17 arXiv:1511.05528 [astro- ph.EP]

Greene, T.P., Line, M.R., Montero, C., Fortney, J.J., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Luther, K.: Characterizing Transiting Exoplanet Atmospheres with JWST. ApJ 817(1), 17 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/17 arXiv:1511.05528 [astro- ph.EP]

arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

ApJ 698(1), 519–527 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/519 arXiv:0903.3371 [astro-ph.IM]

Kaltenegger, L., Traub, W.A.: Transits of Earth-like Planets. ApJ 698(1), 519–527 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/519 arXiv:0903.3371 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2009

[8] [8]

The PLATO Simulator: modelling of high-precision high-cadence space-based imaging

Marcos-Arenal, P., Zima, W., De Ridder, J., Aerts, C., Huygen, R., Samadi, R., Green, J., Piotto, G., Salmon, S., Catala, C., Rauer, H.: The PLATO Simulator: modelling of high-precision high-cadence space-based imaging. A&A 566, 92 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201323304 arXiv:1404.1886 [astro-ph.IM]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014