Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Chromatic Effects Across the Roman Focal Plane: Implications for Supernova Photometry and Measurements of Cosmological Parameters

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Uncorrected detector-to-detector filter wavelength shifts on Roman would bias dark-energy parameters beyond statistical errors; the absolute 0.06% calibration floor does not.

desk verdict Solid, mission-relevant quantification: uncorrected Roman FPA chromatic shifts alone can exceed the statistical floor on w0–wa; the 20% characterization requirement is the usable takeaway. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08886 v1 pith:NAMXPKSX submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.CO

Rujuta Purohit , Dillon Brout , Daniel Scolnic , Richard Kessler , Jillian Paulin , Stefano Casertano , Nora F. Sherman , Rebekah Hounsell
show 9 more authors
Eric R. Switzer Benjamin M. Rose Masao Sako Lauren Aldoroty Kene Anumba Maria Acevedo David Rubin Russell E. Ryan Jr. The Roman Supernova Cosmology Project Infrastructure Team
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords TypeIasupernovaeRomanSpaceTelescopechromaticeffectsphotometriccalibrationdarkenergyfocal-planevariationsHLTDS
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

Roman's High-Latitude Time Domain Survey will deliver thousands of Type Ia supernovae for dark-energy measurements, but those measurements are only as good as the photometric calibration. This paper shows that spatial variations in filter edge wavelengths across the eighteen detectors produce redshift-dependent distance errors large enough to shift the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters by more than the survey's expected statistical uncertainty. The same analysis finds that the already-achieved 0.06% absolute wavelength calibration is tight enough that a uniform residual offset remains negligible. Using detector-specific filter curves recovers unbiased cosmology, and the wavelength shifts need only be known to about 20% of their measured amplitude to keep the systematic below the statistical floor. The practical message is that chromatic effects must be treated as a required part of Roman supernova cosmology pipelines, not an optional refinement.

What carries the argument

SCA-specific filter transmission curves obtained by a linear edge-to-edge mapping of the measured TVAC red and blue edges onto the reference SCA-2 bandpass, applied inside end-to-end SNANA simulations of the Sundial HLTDS cadence.

What would settle it

Apply the same SCA-specific curves to an independent high-SNR stellar sample (or an early on-orbit standard-star campaign) and check whether the predicted color-dependent magnitude offsets match the observed photometry at the few-millimag level across the focal plane.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

If left uncorrected, the measured FPA-dependent wavelength shifts (ranging roughly +6 to -80 Å across the 18 SCAs) introduce a redshift-dependent distance-modulus bias that propagates to Δw0 ≈ -0.066 and Δwa ≈ 0.236, exceeding the forecast statistical uncertainties of 0.025 and 0.114 and rendering the survey systematics-limited. Detector-specific filter curves recover unbiased constraints, and characterization of the shifts to within ~20% keeps the bias below the statistical noise floor; the coherent 0.06% absolute-calibration residual is already subdominant.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that a simple linear stretch of the two measured filter edges fully captures every SCA's true transmission, including unmodeled ripple and higher-order coating variations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper quantifies how wavelength-dependent filter transmission variations across Roman's 18 SCAs affect SN Ia photometry and cosmology for the HLTDS. Using controlled SNANA/Pippin simulations with identical seeds, SALT3-NIR light-curve fits, BBC bias corrections, and wfit cosmology, the authors compare a nominal (no-shift) case against FPA-dependent shifts (linear edge-to-edge maps of TVAC-measured red/blue edges relative to SCA 2) and coherent 0.06% absolute-wavelength offsets. Uncorrected FPA shifts produce a redshift-dependent distance-modulus bias that yields Δw0 ≈ −0.066 and Δwa ≈ 0.236 (CMB prior), exceeding the forecast statistical errors σstat,w0 = 0.025 and σstat,wa = 0.114. Detector-specific filter curves recover unbiased cosmology; a half-shift test shows near-linear scaling, implying that the FPA shifts must be known to ~20% to keep the systematic below the statistical floor. Coherent 0.06% offsets produce negligible bias (Δwa ≈ −0.0004).

Significance. Calibration systematics dominate modern SN Ia cosmology, and Roman's Stage-IV dark-energy goals make a quantitative assessment of FPA chromatic effects essential before launch. The work supplies a concrete, falsifiable requirement (characterize FPA wavelength shifts to ~20%) and demonstrates that the already-achieved pre-launch 0.06% absolute edge-wavelength precision is sufficient for the coherent residual. Strengths include the controlled identical-seed simulation design that isolates the transmission change, the half-shift scaling test, public SNANA/Pippin configuration files and detector-specific transmission curves, and an explicit path to on-orbit validation with stellar photometry. If the numerical results hold, the paper will be a required reference for the Roman SN cosmology pipeline and for the mission's systematic-error budget.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract vs. body sign inconsistency on Δwa: the abstract states Δwa = −0.236 while Table 2 and §3.3 report Δwa = +0.236 (and the abstract's Δw0 ~ −0.06 is consistent with Table 2's −0.066). The definition ΔX = X(nominal) − X(shifted) is given in Eqs. (9)–(11); the abstract must be brought into agreement with the body so that the central numerical claim is unambiguous.
  2. §2.2, Eqs. (1)–(3): the linear edge-to-edge map that matches only the red and blue 50% edges of SCA 2 is the load-bearing model of FPA-dependent transmission. The text itself notes that a full transmission model requires additional field dependence of the ripple and higher-order coating variations that are not yet included. Because the half-shift test (Table 2) already shows near-linear scaling of the cosmological bias, a short quantitative bound or sensitivity test on residual ripple (even a simple estimate of the mmag-level impact) would strengthen the claim that the 20% characterization requirement remains robust once the full optical model is available.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 4 caption and surrounding text: the best-fit cosmology line is described as a 'simple Roman-only sample MCMC' while the main cosmology results use wfit with BBC and a CMB prior; a one-sentence clarification of the difference would avoid confusion.
  2. Table 1 column headers and the COH-FIXED impact column: the sign convention for 'impact [mmag]' (nominal − shifted) should be stated explicitly so that positive/negative values can be compared directly with Figures 6–7.
  3. §2.4: the statement that SNANA supports at most 62 filters and that 9 unique SCA pairs reduce the set to 54 is useful; a brief note on whether the pairing is exact or approximate (and whether any residual SCA-to-SCA difference remains) would help reproducibility.
  4. §3.1 / Figure 7: the filter-dropout redshifts (z ~ 1.0, 1.8, 2.4) are correctly identified as the source of the >50 mmag outliers; a short remark that these outliers are excluded from the linear slope fits (as done for the Tripp components) would make the analysis chain fully transparent.
  5. References: Switzer et al. (2025) is the key laboratory source; ensure the citation is complete and that the GitHub optical-model link remains accessible for readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward simulation of laboratory-measured filter edges through an independent SNANA/BBC/wfit pipeline; outputs are not forced by construction from the inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a controlled forward model: TVAC-measured edge wavelengths (Switzer et al. 2025) are converted via a linear map (Eqs. 1–3) into per-SCA transmission curves, applied to identical-seed SNANA light-curve simulations of the Sundial HLTDS cadence, then processed through SALT3 fitting, BBC bias corrections, and wfit cosmology. The reported Δw0 ≈ −0.066 and Δwa ≈ 0.236 (and the 20 % characterization requirement from the half-shift test) are numerical outputs of that pipeline, not quantities that were fitted and then re-used as inputs, nor quantities that are definitionally identical to the input edge shifts. Self-citations (K25, Rose et al. 2025, Paulin in prep, Switzer et al. 2025) supply the observing strategy, simulation infrastructure, and laboratory filter data; none of them is a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the cosmological bias result. The linear edge-to-edge approximation is an acknowledged modeling choice (Section 2.2 notes that ripple/higher-order coating variations remain unmodeled), not a circular redefinition. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on laboratory TVAC edge wavelengths, a linear bandpass transformation, the SALT3-NIR model, perfect spectroscopic redshifts, and the absence of non-Ia contamination. These are standard domain assumptions for Roman SN simulations; no new free parameters are fitted to produce the bias numbers themselves.

free parameters (3)
  • per-SCA linear slope m and intercept C
    Determined by matching the two measured TVAC edge wavelengths of each SCA to the SCA-2 reference; any residual ripple or higher-order coating variation is absorbed into these two numbers.
  • 0.06% absolute edge-wavelength uncertainty
    Taken from Switzer et al. (2025) pre-launch TVAC precision and used as the width of the coherent-shift Gaussian; not re-fitted.
  • SALT3-NIR stretch and color population parameters
    Drawn from Popovic et al. (2023) / DES-SN5YR; fixed inputs that set the intrinsic scatter against which the chromatic bias is measured.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper A linear transformation of the SCA-2 bandpass that matches only the red and blue 50% edges fully represents the true SCA-dependent transmission (including ripple).
    Stated in §2.2; the paper itself notes that a full transmission model requires additional ripple modeling that is not yet included.
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic redshifts are known perfectly and there is no core-collapse or peculiar-Ia contamination.
    Explicitly adopted in §2.4 to isolate the chromatic photometric effect; real analyses will have photo-z and classification systematics.
  • domain assumption The SALT3-NIR spectral model remains valid when the observed-frame filters are shifted by tens of angstroms.
    Implicit throughout the light-curve fitting; filter-dropout outliers at z~1/1.8/2.4 already show model-edge effects.
  • domain assumption Water-ice accumulation and temporal evolution of the coatings can be ignored for the present bias estimate.
    Acknowledged in §4.2 as future work; the current claim is therefore a pre-launch snapshot.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chromatic Effects Across the Roman Focal Plane: Implications for Supernova Photometry and Measurements of Cosmological Parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAMXPKSX

@misc{pith2026260708886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chromatic Effects Across the Roman Focal Plane: Implications for Supernova Photometry and Measurements of Cosmological Parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAMXPKSX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08886}
}
abstract

Calibration uncertainties are the leading systematics in cosmological analyses using Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). For the \textit{Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (Roman)}, we quantify the impact of chromatic effects on SNe Ia photometry and derived cosmological parameters, using simulated light curves from the High-Latitude Time Domain Survey. We investigate two sources of wavelength-dependent bias: focal plane array (FPA)-dependent wavelength shifts arising from spatial variations across \textit{Roman's} 18 detectors, and coherent wavelength shifts corresponding to the measured $0.06\%$ uncertainty in absolute filter wavelength calibration. Using simulated SNe Ia light curves, we find that the FPA-dependent shifts -- which range from +6 to -80 $\rm \AA$ introduce a redshift-dependent distance modulus bias that, if left uncorrected, propagates to $\Delta w_0 \sim -0.06$ and $\Delta w_a = -0.236$, which are larger than the forecast statistical uncertainties of $\sigma_{\rm stat, w_0} = 0.025$ and $\sigma_{\rm stat, w_a} = 0.114$, rendering the survey systematics-limited. We probe the impact of chromatic effects by employing detector-specific filter curves that recover unbiased cosmological constraints; to remain below the statistical noise floor, FPA wavelength shifts must be characterized to within 20\%. In contrast, a coherent 0.06\% offset in filter wavelength calibration -- ranging from -3 to -11 $\rm \AA$ -- produces negligible redshift-dependent bias, with a minimal spread in $w_a$ ($\Delta w_a = -0.0004, \sigma_{w_{a,\rm sys}} = 0.114)$, demonstrating that the achieved pre-launch calibration precision is sufficient for this systematic to remain subdominant. Our results establish that chromatic effects are a required component of SN Ia cosmology with \textit{Roman}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Standard SN Ia spectrum at redshifts z = 0, 1, 3 with the Roman broadband filters overlaid. ifest as redshift-dependent biases in inferred distances. These uncertainties primarily affect cosmological con￾straints through two closely related mechanisms. First, cosmological constraints depend on comparing the rel￾ative brightnesses of SNe Ia at different redshifts. As the rest frame SN Ia spectrum is redshifted, we ob… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Filter edge wavelengths for each SCA in the F062 band. The left panel shows the red edge while the right panel shows the blue edge. These plots are created using the Roman WFI Optical Model developed in Switzer et al. (2025). variations across the optic surface. The edge wave￾lengths themselves are now known with a 0.06% pre￾cision. We utilize this precision as another constraint in our simulations by applying a “co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: The average wavelength shift for the FPA-dependent case in ˚A for each SCA with respect to the center of SCA 2 (which can be seen to have a shift of 0). Right: The average difference in red and blue edges for each SCA relative to SCA 2. filter with a width of the shifts given above. Each set of random shifts is used in a different realization of the simulation. The 0.06% uncertainty in the edge wavelength cali… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hubble diagram residuals (nominal - shifted) for both our simulations. Left panel shows the FPA-dependent shifts and right panel shows COH-FIXED shifts. The solid orange line connects the medians in each redshift bin. Since we have less data at z > 2.5, the errors are …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hubble diagram residuals in mmag of the nine realizations of our COH-RANDOM simulation. We observe a smaller spread as compared to the FPA shifted case which is consistent with the overall size of the filter shifts imple￾mented. redshift evolution of chromatic effects …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnitude difference between nominal and shifted filters for a standard Ia SN at z = 1. The wavelength shift used here is averaged over all SCAs for each filter. The x -axis shows the time of observation of the SN which is restricted to 10 days before and 20 days after…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnitude difference between nominal and FPA shifted filters for SNe Ia observed in each bandpass as a function of redshift. Given the wavelength coverage of each filter, we see that F062 drops off around z ∼ 1, F087 drops off at z ∼ 1.8, and F106 at z ∼ 2.4. The red d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The redshift dependence of ∆αx1, ∆βc, ∆mB, and ∆µ. Each point is an individual SN from our simulation for FPA-dependent shifts. The pink solid line connects the median difference for SNe in each redshift bin and the error bars represent the standard deviation of the im…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relative contours of cosmological parameters ΩM, w0, and wa for FPA-dependent shifts (blue) and CO￾H-RANDOM shifts (green) as compared to values obtained from the nominal simulation. For coherent (COH-RANDOM) shifts case, we also conduct two separate analyses: one wit…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Chromatic effects in F087-band photometry for stars as a function of stellar color (F062 − F106) for three representative SCAs. Each point represents a stellar spec￾trum from the Pickles library (Pickles 1998) spanning spec￾tral types O5 through M7. The magnitude diff…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 012, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/012 2025

  2. [2]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  3. [3]

    2026, AJ, 171, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae3714 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Aldoroty, L., Scolnic, D., Kannawadi, A., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae3714 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae3714 2026

  4. [4]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423413

    Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423413

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423413 2014

  5. [5]

    C., Gordon, K

    Bohlin, R. C., Gordon, K. D., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2014, PASP, 126, 711

    2014

  6. [6]

    R., & Scolnic, D

    Brout, D., Hinton, S. R., & Scolnic, D. 2021, ApJL, 912, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf4db

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf4db 2021

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bcc

    Brout, D., Taylor, G., Scolnic, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bcc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bcc 2022

  8. [8]

    L., Rykoff, E

    Burke, D. L., Rykoff, E. S., Allam, S., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9f22 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9f22 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  2. [10]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066930

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066930

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2122, doi: 10.21105/joss.02122

    Hinton, S., & Brout, D. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2122, doi: 10.21105/joss.02122

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Hinton, S. R. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 00045, doi: 10.21105/joss.00045

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/79

    Hlozek, R., Kunz, M., Bassett, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/79

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    J., et al

    Hounsell, R., Scolnic, D., Foley, R. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac08b

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    O., Scolnic, D

    Jones, D. O., Scolnic, D. M., Foley, R. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bec

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.04402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04402

    Kessler, R., Hounsell, R., Joshi, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.04402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.04402

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/56

    Kessler, R., & Scolnic, D. 2017, ApJ, 836, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/56

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace34d

    Kessler, R., Vincenzi, M., & Armstrong, P. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace34d

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Cinabro, D., et al

    Kessler, R., Bernstein, J. P., Cinabro, D., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1028, doi: 10.1086/605984

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    A., & Hlozek, R

    Kunz, M., Bassett, B. A., & Hlozek, R. A. 2007, PhRvD, 75, 103508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.103508

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 5329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz619

    Lasker, J., Kessler, R., Scolnic, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz619

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    G., Murakami, Y

    Marlin, E. G., Murakami, Y. S., Brout, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.21903, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.21903

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Kessler, R., et al

    Marriner, J., Bernstein, J. P., Kessler, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/72

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Bennett, C., et al

    Mosby, G., Rauscher, B. J., Bennett, C., et al. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 046001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.6.4.046001

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Oke, J. B. 1974, ApJS, 27, 21, doi: 10.1086/190287

    1974 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1833

    OpenUniverse, LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, Roman HLIS Project Infrastructure, et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1833

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 565, doi: 10.1086/307221

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565, doi: 10.1086/307221

    1999 doi

  21. [29]

    Pickles, A. J. 1998, PASP, 110, 863, doi: 10.1086/316197

    1998 doi

  22. [30]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Jones, D. O., Kenworthy, W. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f9

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca273

    Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., & Scolnic, D. 2023, ApJ, 945, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca273

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf14f

    Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., Scolnic, D., & Lu, L. 2021, ApJ, 913, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf14f

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, A&A, 694, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450391

    Popovic, B., Rigault, M., Smith, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450391

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009, doi: 10.1086/300499

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al

    Rose, B. M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.03081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.03081 17

    2021 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    M., Vincenzi, M., Hounsell, R., et al

    Rose, B. M., Vincenzi, M., Hounsell, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade1d6

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5

    Rubin, D., Aldering, G., Betoule, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    F., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., Juri´ c, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/158

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/117

    Scolnic, D., Casertano, S., Riess, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/117

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Jones, D

    Scolnic, D. M., Jones, D. O., Rest, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.5422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.5422

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Breckinridge, J., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.5422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.5422

    2013 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    R., Bray, E., Will, S

    Switzer, E. R., Bray, E., Will, S. D., et al. 2025, ApOpt, 64, 10525, doi: 10.1364/AO.569503

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    E., et al

    Taylor, G., Lidman, C., Tucker, B. E., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4111–4122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab962

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    O., Popovic, B., et al

    Taylor, G., Jones, D. O., Popovic, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad320

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Cosmological Analysis and Systematic Uncertainties

    Vincenzi, M., Brout, D., Armstrong, P., et al. 2024, The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Cosmological Analysis and Systematic Uncertainties. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02945

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2008, Phys

    Wang, Y. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123525

    2008

  42. [50]

    2025, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope: Wide Field Instrument Calibration Touchstone Field Recommendations, Tech

    Williams, B., Bellini, A., Walth, G., et al. 2025, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope: Wide Field Instrument Calibration Touchstone Field Recommendations, Tech. rep. https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/calibration/ WFI Touchstone Fields RevA 2025-03-31.pdf

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.