Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

DAmodel: Hierarchical Bayesian Modelling of DA White Dwarfs for Spectrophotometric Calibration

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single hierarchical Bayesian model jointly infers white dwarf, dust, and instrument parameters to build an all-sky network of 35 spectrophotometric standards with sub-0.004 magnitude residuals.

desk verdict Solid, transparent hierarchical calibration paper—real advance, but the sub-4 mmag headline is in-sample and the 1.7–32 µm SEDs are unvalidated extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08809 v3 pith:YTHZLJW6 submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.SRstat.AP

Benjamin M. Boyd , Gautham Narayan , Kaisey S. Mandel , Matthew Grayling , Abhijit Saha , Tim Axelrod , Thomas Matheson , Edward W. Olszewski
show 12 more authors
Annalisa Calamida Aaron Do Ralph C. Bohlin Jay B. Holberg Ivan Hubeny Susana Deustua Armin Rest Christopher W. Stubbs Aidan Berres Mai Li John W. Mackenty Elena Sabbi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.COastro-ph.SRstat.AP
keywords hierarchicalBayesianmodelspectrophotometriccalibrationDAwhitedwarfsphotometriczeropointscount-ratenonlinearityinterstellardustextinctionHST/WFC3spectralenergydistributionstandards
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 presents DAmodel, a hierarchical Bayesian framework that calibrates 35 DA white dwarfs—32 faint standards and three bright primary standards—as a single all-sky network of spectrophotometric standards. The model jointly infers each star's effective temperature, surface gravity, dust extinction, and dust-law parameter together with the instrumental quantities that corrupt the photometry: band zeropoints, cycle-to-cycle sensitivity changes, and the near-infrared count-rate nonlinearity. The output is a set of calibrated spectral energy distributions spanning 912 Å to 32 µm, and the paper reports that synthetic photometry from these SEDs matches the observed HST photometry with less than 0.004 mag RMS on average from the UV to the NIR. The paper states this is the first framework to jointly infer photometric zeropoints and white dwarf parameters from photometry and spectroscopy at once. A sympathetic reader would care because a faint, all-sky, sub-percent flux scale is exactly what next-generation surveys and space observatories need to avoid percent-level calibration systematics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a hierarchical Bayesian forward model. A grid of non-local thermodynamic equilibrium white dwarf atmosphere spectra is interpolated in surface gravity and effective temperature, reddened by a parametrized dust extinction curve with per-star $A_V$ and $R_V$, and scaled by an achromatic pseudo-distance modulus. The photometric likelihood for each of six HST/WFC3 bands is a Student-$t$ distribution whose location combines a band zeropoint, a cycle-dependent sensitivity offset, and a count-rate nonlinearity term in the near-infrared F160W band. The spectroscopic likelihood convolves the synthetic SED with a Gaussian line-spread function and adds a ten-knot cubic spline to absorb residual instrumental and model systematics in each observed spectrum. Population hyperparameters sit above the object-level dust parameters, and the full posterior is sampled with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo on a GPU, yielding roughly 2000 effective posterior samples for all 35 objects in about half an hour.

What would settle it

Measure one or two network stars with JWST in the 1.7–5 µm range and compare the observed fluxes with the published SEDs; discrepancies above about 0.01 mag would show that the extrapolated portion of the SEDs is not reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single hierarchical model can simultaneously infer the astrophysical parameters of all 35 white dwarfs and the instrumental systematics of their observations, and that doing so produces the lowest photometric residuals yet reported for this network. Using six HST/WFC3 bands, ground-based optical spectra, and HST/STIS ultraviolet spectra, the paper obtains average residual RMS below 4 mmag from the UV to the NIR, with the biggest improvements coming from letting the dust parameter $R_V$ vary per star and from jointly estimating the F160W count-rate nonlinearity. The analysis also shows that adding the ultraviolet spectra changes the inferred extinction by about 10% on average and strengthens the Lyman-$\alpha$ feature by about 12%, and it recovers a count-rate nonlinearity of $-3.19 \pm 0.31$ mmag/mag, consistent with independent calibrations of the same instrument effect.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption, acknowledged in Section 4.5, is that the SED models extrapolate correctly to wavelengths with no data coverage: the data stop near 1.7 µm, while the published SEDs extend to 32 µm, so the infrared end depends entirely on the theoretical white dwarf grid and the adopted dust extinction law.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 35 calibrated SEDs give JWST, the Legacy Survey of Space and Time, and the Roman Space Telescope a shared, faint, all-sky flux scale for cross-calibration.
  • Because the model infers zeropoints, time-dependent sensitivities, and the F160W count-rate nonlinearity from the data itself, the sub-0.004 mag residuals do not depend on those instrument systematics being known in advance.
  • The 10% average shift in inferred extinction when STIS ultraviolet data are added shows that ultraviolet spectroscopy is needed to separate dust from intrinsic temperature in hot DA white dwarfs.
  • Allowing $R_V$ to vary per star rather than fixing it at 3.1 improves residuals most in the ultraviolet and near-infrared bands, identifying fixed dust-law assumptions as a major limiting systematic in earlier work.
  • The demonstration population-level inference of dust parameters shows the same framework can be used to study Milky Way dust properties from samples of white dwarfs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the internal consistency survives independent checks, the network could bring survey cross-calibration systematics below the roughly 0.01–0.015 mag level that currently matters for supernova cosmology.
  • The dependence of the inferred F160W count-rate nonlinearity on the dust model suggests that near-infrared spectroscopy of the network stars would break the remaining degeneracy and yield a more instrument-independent calibration.
  • Applying the same GPU-accelerated machinery to the larger samples of DA white dwarfs now available from wide-field surveys could turn the population dust inference into a volume-limited measurement free of the selection effects the paper notes.
  • A direct JWST photometric check of a few network stars in bands beyond 1.7 µm would test the extrapolated part of the SEDs and the adopted dust law, which the paper identifies as the main unmeasured assumption.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents DAmodel, a hierarchical Bayesian framework that jointly models HST/WFC3 photometry, ground-based optical spectra, and HST/STIS UV spectra for 32 faint DA white dwarfs plus three CALSPEC primaries. The model simultaneously infers per-object WD parameters (Teff, log g, AV, RV), per-band photometric zeropoints and cycle offsets, excess dispersion, and a count-rate nonlinearity coefficient for F160W, as well as per-spectrum normalisation, broadening, and cubic-spline residuals. The authors report an average unweighted RMS residual of 3.9 mmag between observed and synthetic HST/WFC3 photometry across six bands, and they publish SEDs from 912 Å to 32 µm. They also compare synthetic photometry with DES, SDSS, PS1, Gaia, and DECaLS, and they demonstrate consistency with Axelrod et al. (2023) when the same modelling assumptions are used.

Significance. The framework is a genuine methodological advance for astronomical spectrophotometric calibration: it is the first to jointly infer photometric systematics and WD/dust parameters in a single hierarchical model with HMC, it provides a reproducible GPU-accelerated implementation, and it reports careful convergence diagnostics (Rhat < 1.02 for 3653 parameters, no divergent transitions). The data and code are publicly released, which strengthens the paper's usefulness. If the internal consistency results hold, the network would provide a valuable set of faint all-sky standards for LSST, Roman, and JWST. However, the headline precision is an in-sample metric computed on the same photometry used to fit the parameters, the F160W count-rate nonlinearity is sensitive to dust modelling assumptions at a level exceeding its statistical error, and the 1.7–32 µm portion of the published SEDs is a pure extrapolation with no data leverage. These points do not invalidate the methodology but they do require the accuracy claims to be scaled back and a systematic error budget to be added.

major comments (4)
  1. The published SEDs extend to 32 µm, and the abstract claims calibration 'from 912 Å to 32 µm', but no observation used in the fit covers wavelengths longward of ~1.6 µm (F160W). The 1.7–32 µm region is therefore a pure extrapolation of the Tlusty v208 grid and the Gordon et al. (2023) extinction law. The paper itself states in Sec. 4.5 that 'it is important that our models extrapolate well to wavelengths where we do not have data coverage', and Sec. 5 lists NIR spectroscopy as future work. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing: the stated readiness for JWST calibration depends on sub-percent accuracy exactly in the 1.7–5 µm region where the network has zero photometric or spectroscopic leverage. I recommend that the abstract and Sec. 4.1 explicitly separate the data-constrained range (912 Å–1.6 µm) from the model-extrapolated range, and either provide external IR validation (e.g., WISE/Spitzer photometry if available) or state the assumed accuracy of the extrapolation as a limitation.
  2. The reported F160W count-rate nonlinearity αF160W = −3.19 ± 0.31 mmag/mag (Table 2) shifts to −2.12 ± 0.30 mmag/mag when the model is changed to the Fitzpatrick (1999) dust law, a constant RV = 3.1, and no STIS data, as stated in Sec. 4.3. This ~1.1 mmag/mag model dependence is larger than the statistical uncertainty and is acknowledged in the text. Since the CRNL correction is applied to all F160W photometry entering the fit and the published SEDs, this systematic should be propagated into the reported F160W synthetic photometry and into the residual RMS claims; otherwise the sub-percent NIR accuracy implied by Fig. 7 is not established. I request a systematic error term for αF160W, or a sensitivity analysis over dust laws and RV priors, and a corresponding statement about the external accuracy of the F160W band.
  3. The headline '<0.004 mag RMS' is computed on the same HST/WFC3 photometry that defines the fitted zeropoints, cycle offsets, CRNL, and WD parameters; it is an in-sample goodness-of-fit statistic, not an independent accuracy metric. The external survey residuals (Figs. 9 and I1–I4) show biases of 10–40 mmag in several bands, and the paper attributes most of this to the choice of CALSPEC system, which is plausible but not demonstrated at the <4 mmag level. The manuscript should either present a cross-validation or held-out subset of stars/epochs, or relabel the RMS claim as an internal consistency measure, so that the precision claim does not overstate the demonstrated accuracy.
  4. The 10-knot cubic spline in flux space is inferred jointly with dust parameters from the same spectra, and the STIS splines reach ~60% of the maximum flux at short wavelengths (Fig. G1). The paper argues that the splines do not trace Balmer or 2175 Å features, and that inferred parameters do not change drastically with or without STIS (Fig. 6), but these tests do not directly show that the splines fail to absorb continuum slope that the model would otherwise attribute to AV or RV. Given that the optical splines show the largest deviations at the blue edges and the dust parameters largely determine the UV/NIR SED shape, I ask for a validation experiment (e.g., varying the number and placement of knots, or comparing against a GP-based fit) to demonstrate that the inferred dust parameters and the published SEDs are not sensitive to the spline flexibility.
minor comments (5)
  1. The text says 'the Figures in Appendix 4.4' but the relevant figures are in Appendix I; please correct the cross-reference.
  2. The caption contains the typo 'multiple levels of of hierarchy'; remove the duplicated 'of'.
  3. The presentation of νF160W as '15.35 26.04 −6.57' is confusing; format as a median with 16th and 84th percentiles (e.g., 15.35^{+10.69}_{-8.91}) consistently with the note.
  4. The notation for the SED is inconsistent: F(λ; logg, Teff, AV, RV, µ) in Sec. 3.1 becomes F(λ; ΘWD, µ) in Eq. (3), and the convolution kernel in Eq. (6) is written as N(λ|0, σR(FWHM)^2) rather than with the explicit FWHM dependence. Please standardise the notation for readability.
  5. 'publically available' should be 'publicly available'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: DAmodel is a joint fit with external validation; the 32 um extrapolation is a model-risk limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper is a joint-fit calibration, not a derivation, and its central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The WD parameters (log g, Teff, AV, RV, mu), photometric zeropoints ZX, cycle offsets DeltaZ, and CRNL alpha_F160W are all inferred from the same HST photometry and spectra, so the quoted <0.004 mag RMS is an in-sample fit residual; however, the paper consistently labels these as residuals rather than predictions, and it provides external validation through independent survey comparisons (DES, SDSS, PS1, Gaia DR3, DECaLS), agreement of the inferred CRNL with Bohlin & Deustua (2019) and Riess et al. (2019), and zeropoint agreement with Calamida et al. (2022a) and Marinelli et al. (2024). The 912 A-32 um SEDs are extrapolated beyond F160W using the Tlusty v208 grid and the Gordon et al. (2023) extinction law; the paper explicitly acknowledges this in Sec. 4.5 ('it is important that our models extrapolate well to wavelengths where we do not have data coverage, which is heavily reliant on the accuracy of the dust relation') and lists NIR spectroscopy as future work. That is an unverified-model risk, not circular reasoning, because the extrapolation rests on external model grids rather than on the paper's own fitted values. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its input by construction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation; the self-citations to Narayan et al. (2019) and Axelrod et al. (2023) are transparent methodological/data antecedents, and matching their modelling assumptions reproduces their parameters (Fig. B2). The in-sample residual caveat is a limitation of any calibration fit but does not rise to definitional or construction-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on five physical and mathematical assumptions plus an ad hoc statistical flexibility term. The model does not invent new physics; it interpolates an external model grid, applies an external dust law, ties to the CALSPEC system, and absorbs spectral mismatches with fitted splines. None of these are machine-checked, and several are explicitly caveated in the paper.

free parameters (7)
  • Per-band WFC3 zeropoints Z_X (F275W, F336W, F475W, F625W, F775W, F160W) = 23.978 to 25.789 mag, Table 2
    Inferred simultaneously with WD parameters; anchors network to CALSPEC at F475W. These are outputs of the fit rather than independent inputs.
  • Hubble cycle zeropoint offsets DeltaZ^c_X (Cycle 20 and 22 relative to Cycle 25) = -0.025 to +0.072 mag, Table 2
    Model time-dependent WFC3 sensitivity and UVIS1/UVIS2 differences; directly absorb instrument drift.
  • F160W count-rate nonlinearity coefficient alpha_F160W = -3.19 +/- 0.31 mmag/mag
    Key NIR systematic; authors show it shifts to -2.12 +/- 0.30 mmag/mag under different dust and prior modeling choices, so the quoted uncertainty is conditional.
  • Excess dispersion sigma_int and Student-t dof nu per WFC3 band = 0.5-6.79 mmag; nu 1.2-15.4
    Added scatter terms fit to photometric residuals; their size matches the headline RMS.
  • Cubic spline coefficients per observed spectrum (M=10 knots per spectrum) = not tabulated individually; Figure G1
    Nuisance surface added to synthetic spectra to absorb residual wavelength-dependent systematics; central to the spline and astrophysics degeneracy.
  • Spectrum normalization gamma_j_s and broadening FWHM_j_s per spectrum = inferred, not tabulated
    Per-spectrum scaling and line-spread smoothing parameters; degenerate with absolute flux zero-points of spectra.
  • Per-object parameters Teff, log g, A_V, R_V, mu (x35 objects) = Table 1, e.g. Teff 19,900-66,900 K, AV 0-0.37 mag
    Central outputs, not free in the pejorative sense; included because the calibrated SEDs depend on the joint posterior of these fitted parameters.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Tlusty v208 NLTE grid accurately predicts DA WD SEDs over 15,000-70,000 K and 7 < log g < 9.5, including Lyman-alpha.
    Grid is interpolated to form the unreddened SED in Section 3.1; inaccuracies propagate directly to all calibrated SEDs, especially in the UV.
  • domain assumption The Gordon et al. (2023) extinction relation is valid and extrapolatable across 912 angstroms to 32 micrometers.
    Equation (1) applies this relation; Section 4.5 admits results depend on it when no NIR data constrain longer wavelengths.
  • domain assumption The three CALSPEC primary SEDs and their F475W magnitudes (Bohlin et al. 2020) provide a correct absolute tie.
    Equation (5) sets primary standard magnitudes constant; any error in the CALSPEC absolute scale enters all network SEDs.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual wavelength-dependent structure in each observed spectrum is instrumental or model error and can be represented by a 10-knot cubic spline without absorbing Balmer, Lyman-alpha, or dust-bump signal.
    Equations (8)-(9) add the spline to the synthetic spectrum; Section 4.2 argues the splines are smooth and do not trace astrophysical features, but this is a modeling assertion rather than a proven fact.
  • domain assumption Population priors R_V ~ TruncatedNormal(3.1, 0.18) and exponential A_V scale 0.1 mag from Schlafly et al. 2016 are appropriate.
    Section 3.5 sets these fixed for main results; they constrain R_V at the population level and only weakly inform individual R_V values.
  • standard math Conditional independence and Student-t error assumptions in the graphical model adequately capture correlations in photometric and spectroscopic pixels.
    Section 3.4 assumes conditional independence of all observations; if unknown shared systematics remain, quoted uncertainties are underestimated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DAmodel: Hierarchical Bayesian Modelling of DA White Dwarfs for Spectrophotometric Calibration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTHZLJW6

@misc{pith2026241208809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DAmodel: Hierarchical Bayesian Modelling of DA White Dwarfs for Spectrophotometric Calibration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTHZLJW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08809}
}
abstract

We use hierarchical Bayesian modelling to calibrate a network of 32 all-sky faint DA white dwarf (DA WD) spectrophotometric standards ($16.5 < V < 19.5$) alongside three CALSPEC standards, from 912 \r{A} to 32 $\mu$m. The framework is the first of its kind to jointly infer photometric zeropoints and WD parameters (surface gravity $\log g$, effective temperature $T_{\text{eff}}$, extinction $A_V$, dust relation parameter $R_V$) by simultaneously modelling both photometric and spectroscopic data. We model panchromatic Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field Camera 3 (HST/WFC3) UVIS and IR photometry, HST/STIS UV spectroscopy and ground-based optical spectroscopy to sub-percent precision. Photometric residuals for the sample are the lowest yet yielding $<0.004$ mag RMS on average from the UV to the NIR, achieved by jointly inferring time-dependent changes in system sensitivity and WFC3/IR count-rate nonlinearity. Our GPU-accelerated implementation enables efficient sampling via Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, critical for exploring the high-dimensional posterior space. The hierarchical nature of the model enables population analysis of intrinsic WD and dust parameters. Inferred spectral energy distributions from this model will be essential for calibrating the James Webb Space Telescope as well as next-generation surveys, including Vera Rubin Observatory's Legacy Survey of Space and Time and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08809 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Coordinates and Gaia G band brightness of the DA white dwarfs in our network. The red stars illustrate the CALSPEC primary standards that have brightnesses 11.7< G <13.3. of 32 faint (16.5 < V < 19.5) DA white dwarfs to be used as spectrophotometric standards (Narayan et al. 2016, 2019; Calamida et al. 2019, 2022b; Axelrod et al. 2023). This group of DA WDs, illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualisation of available data for WDFS0458-56. The coloured circles represent HST/WFC3 UVIS and IR photometry, increasing in wavelength from left to right. Highlighted in green is the ground-based optical spectrum from the Southern Astrophysical Research (SOAR) telescope. Shaded in pink is the new HST/STIS UV spectrum that we have also obtained for 18 other faint DA WD sources. Under-plotted in black is our SED mo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Probabilistic graphical model (directed acyclic graph) illustrating the relationships between parameters in our hierarchical Bayesian model. In the diagram we see multiple levels of of hierarchy where the top level population dust parameters (µRV ,σRV ,τ) influence each WD’s extinction. The object-level parameters (µs,T s eff, log g s ,As V ,Rs V ) determine the SED of each individual WD. The nuisance parameters (ϵ … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of SEDs inferred with and without using STIS UV spectra. Both SEDs were also inferred using optical spectra and HST/WFC3 photometry. The red line shows the average flux ratio as a function of wavelength, while the grey shows the range of ratios across the network…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing inferred parameters with and without STIS UV spectra. Inferences in top row use a constant RV = 3.1 for all objects, whilst the bottom row experiments jointly inferred the RV dust ratio for each object. of the motivation behind obtaining UV spectra where dust…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Final residual results achieved when using our model. Results show unweighted mean and RMS residuals for the 32 faint DA WDs, excluding the three bright CALSPEC standards. Scatter points are arranged in order of brightness, ending with the dimmest object. The results w…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between photometric residuals of this work and Axelrod et al. (2023). The blue and green experiments utilised the STIS UV spectra for the 19 objects that had it, whilst the others experiments only used optical spectra. The blue and orange experiments used a …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Photometric residuals when comparing our synthetic DES photometry with real DES observations (Abbott et al. 2021) for the faint DA WD standards that had coverage. Objects are arranged in order of brightness, ending with the dimmest object. We presented the unweighted m…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The ratio of Gordon et al. (2023) dust relation with Fitzpatrick (1999) dust relation, evaluated at different AV and RV values. We see moderate discrepancies in the UV and strong discrepancies in the NIR. and NIR wavelengths, which are critical regimes for robust infe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparing inferred parameters when using Gordon et al. (2023) dust relation and Fitzpatrick (1999) dust relation. of extending our model to simultaneously infer its own dust relation. 5 FUTURE WORK It is a priority to obtain NIR spectra for our faint DA WD standards i…

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. A Simulation Based Inference Approach to Modelling of Type Ia Supernova Populations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A simulation-based inference pipeline (Stjörnumál) fits SN Ia dust and intrinsic scatter models to DES 5-year data, enabling fast Bayesian model comparison across seven SN Ia population models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...20A 255, 20

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  3. [3]

    G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...02..021A 2025, 021

    Adame A. G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...02..021A 2025, 021

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  4. [4]

    V., Leistedt B., Mortlock D., Leja J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5c69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..274...12A 274, 12

    Alsing J., Thorp S., Deger S., Peiris H. V., Leistedt B., Mortlock D., Leja J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5c69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..274...12A 274, 12

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad5c69 2024

  5. [5]

    Axelrod T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951...78A 951, 78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd333 2023

  6. [6]

    arXiv:1701.02434

    Betancourt M., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1701.02434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170102434B p. arXiv:1701.02434

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.02434 2017

  7. [7]

    J., Byrne S., Girolami M., 2014, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1411.6669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1411.6669B p

    Betancourt M. J., Byrne S., Girolami M., 2014, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1411.6669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1411.6669B p. arXiv:1411.6669

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1411.6669 2014

  8. [8]

    Betoule M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...552A.124B 552, A124

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220610 2013

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Machine Learning Res., 20, 28:1

    Bingham E., et al., 2019, J. Machine Learning Res., 20, 28:1

    2019

  2. [10]

    C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147..127B 147, 127

    Bohlin R. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147..127B 147, 127

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Deustua S

    Bohlin R. C., Deustua S. E., 2019, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1b50 , 157, 229

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Gordon K

    Bohlin R. C., Gordon K. D., Tremblay P. E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/677655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..711B 126, 711

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Hubeny I., Rauch T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160...21B 160, 21

    Bohlin R. C., Hubeny I., Rauch T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160...21B 160, 21

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad93d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169...40B 169, 40

    Bohlin R. C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad93d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169...40B 169, 40

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    B \"o ker T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..82B 661, A82

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Grayling M., Thorp S., Mandel K

    Boyd B. M., Grayling M., Thorp S., Mandel K. S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240715923B p. arXiv:2407.15923

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bradbury J., et al., 2018, JAX : composable transformations of P ython+ N um P y programs, http://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  10. [18]

    Brout D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..110B 938, 110

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Calamida A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..199C 872, 199

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Calamida A., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac73f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...32C 164, 32

    doi

  13. [21]

    Calamida A., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac96f4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940...19C 940, 19

    doi

  14. [22]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Marshall H

    Chen Y., Meng X.-L., Wang X., van Dyk D. A., Marshall H. L., Kashyap V. L., 2019, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.2018.1528978 , 114, 1018

    2019

  16. [24]

    M., Mandel K

    Czekala I., Andrews S. M., Mandel K. S., Hogg D. W., Green G. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812..128C 812, 128

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    arXiv:2401.02929

    DES Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240102929D p. arXiv:2401.02929

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Decleir M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930...15D 930, 15

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    arXiv:2409.18668

    Dhawan S., Popovic B., Goobar A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240918668D p. arXiv:2409.18668

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA&A..41..241D 41, 241

    Draine B. T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA&A..41..241D 41, 241

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J., Roweth D., 1987, @doi [Phys.\ Lett.\ B] 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91197-X , 195, 216

    Duane S., Kennedy A., Pendleton B. J., Roweth D., 1987, @doi [Phys.\ Lett.\ B] 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91197-X , 195, 216

    1987 doi

  22. [30]

    Efstathiou G., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538..875E 538, 875

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2758E 534, 2758

    Elms A. K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2758E 534, 2758

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346993 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..66E 681, A66

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Mortlock D

    Feeney S. M., Mortlock D. J., Dalmasso N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty418 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3861F 476, 3861

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    1999 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Massa D., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...307..286F 307, 286

    Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...307..286F 307, 286

    1986 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Massa D., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJS...72..163F 72, 163

    Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJS...72..163F 72, 163

    1990 doi

  29. [37]

    L., Massa D., Gordon K

    Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., Gordon K. D., Bohlin R., Clayton G. C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..108F 886, 108

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251....7F 251, 7

    Flewelling H. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251....7F 251, 7

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    B., Mandel K

    Foster J. B., Mandel K. S., Pineda J. E., Covey K. R., Arce H. G., Goodman A. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1606F 428, 1606

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    B., 1992, @doi [Statistical Science] 10.1214/ss/1177011136 , 7, 457

    Gelman A., Rubin D. B., 1992, @doi [Statistical Science] 10.1214/ss/1177011136 , 7, 457

    1992

  36. [44]

    D., 2024a, dust\_extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4658887 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13333814

    Gordon K. D., 2024a, dust\_extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4658887 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13333814

    doi

  37. [45]

    D., 2024b, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.07023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JOSS....9.7023G 9, 7023

    Gordon K. D., 2024b, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.07023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JOSS....9.7023G 9, 7023

    doi

  38. [46]

    D., Cartledge S., Clayton G

    Gordon K. D., Cartledge S., Clayton G. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705.1320G 705, 1320

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916...33G 916, 33

    Gordon K. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916...33G 916, 33

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..267G 163, 267

    Gordon K. D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..267G 163, 267

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Clayton G

    Gordon K. D., Clayton G. C., Decleir M., Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., Misselt K. A., Tollerud E. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...86G 950, 86

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    arXiv:2410.13747

    Grayling M., Popovic B., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241013747G p. arXiv:2410.13747

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    S., Dhawan S., Uzsoy A

    Grayling M., Thorp S., Mandel K. S., Dhawan S., Uzsoy A. S. M., Boyd B. M., Hayes E. E., Ward S. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531..953G 531, 953

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    arXiv:1208.4012

    Green J., et al., 2012, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1208.4012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1208.4012G p. arXiv:1208.4012

    2012 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    W., Stubbs C

    High F. W., Stubbs C. W., Rest A., Stalder B., Challis P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/1/110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138..110H 138, 110

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    D., Gelman A., 2014, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15, 1593

    Hoffman M. D., Gelman A., 2014, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15, 1593

    2014

  47. [55]

    B., Bergeron P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.1221H 132, 1221

    Holberg J. B., Bergeron P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.1221H 132, 1221

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    B., Wesemael F., Wegner G., Bruhweiler F

    Holberg J. B., Wesemael F., Wegner G., Bruhweiler F. C., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...293..294H 293, 294

    1985 doi

  49. [57]

    Hounsell R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac08b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867...23H 867, 23

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    Hubeny I., Lanz T., 2017, A brief introductory guide to TLUSTY and SYNSPEC ( @eprint arXiv 1706.01859 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.01859

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    arXiv:2104.02829

    Hubeny I., Allende Prieto C., Osorio Y., Lanz T., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2104.02829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210402829H p. arXiv:2104.02829

    2021 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    Leistedt B., Alsing J., Peiris H., Mortlock D., Leja J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9d99 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..264...23L 264, 23

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Hendry M

    Loredo T. J., Hendry M. A., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1911.12337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191112337L p. arXiv:1911.12337

    2019 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    arXiv:2408.14466

    Loredo T., Budavari T., Kent D., Ruppert D., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.14466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240814466L p. arXiv:2408.14466

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    S., Stevenson K

    Lustig-Yaeger J., Sotzen K. S., Stevenson K. B., Luger R., May E. M., Mayorga L. C., Mandt K., Izenberg N. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..140L 163, 140

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    S., Wood-Vasey W

    Mandel K. S., Wood-Vasey W. M., Friedman A. S., Kirshner R. P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704..629M 704, 629

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    S., Narayan G., Kirshner R

    Mandel K. S., Narayan G., Kirshner R. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731..120M 731, 120

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    S., Foley R

    Mandel K. S., Foley R. J., Kirshner R. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...75M 797, 75

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    S., Scolnic D

    Mandel K. S., Scolnic D. M., Shariff H., Foley R. J., Kirshner R. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842...93M 842, 93

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    S., Thorp S., Narayan G., Friedman A

    Mandel K. S., Thorp S., Narayan G., Friedman A. S., Avelino A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3496 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3939M 510, 3939

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535..254M 535, 254

    Manser C. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535..254M 535, 254

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    C., Trotta R., Berkes P., Starkman G

    March M. C., Trotta R., Berkes P., Starkman G. D., Vaudrevange P. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19584.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2308M 418, 2308

    2011

  64. [72]

    Marinelli M., Bajaj V., Calamida A., Mack J., 2024, Time-Dependent Sensitivity of the WFC3/IR Detector , Instrument Science Report WFC3 2024-06, 56 pages

    2024

  65. [73]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac230a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..254M 162, 254

    Marshall H. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac230a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..254M 162, 254

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    Narayan G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...67N 822, 67

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    Narayan G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..241...20N 241, 20

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8687O 527, 8687

    O'Brien M. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8687O 527, 8687

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2149O 535, 2149

    O'Callaghan M., Gilmore G., Mandel K. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2149O 535, 2149

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    arXiv:1912.11554

    Phan D., Pradhan N., Jankowiak M., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1912.11554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191211554P p. arXiv:1912.11554

    2019 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    E., Williams C

    Rasmussen C. E., Williams C. K. I., 2005, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning . The MIT Press, @doi 10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001 , https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001

    2005 doi

  72. [80]

    Riello M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...3R 649, A3

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    Riess A. G., Narayan G., Calamida A., 2019, Calibration of the WFC3-IR Count-rate Nonlinearity, Sub-percent Accuracy for a Factor of a Million in Flux , Instrument Science Report WFC3 2019-1, 13 pages

    2019

  74. [82]

    Rigault M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A...1R 694, A1

    2025 doi

  75. [83]

    Rodrigo C., Solano E., 2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society. p. 182

    2020

  76. [84]

    Rodrigo C., Solano E., Bayo A., 2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0 , IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012, @doi 10.5479/ADS/bib/2012ivoa.rept.1015R

    2012 doi

  77. [85]

    Rubin D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813..137R 813, 137

    2015 doi

  78. [86]

    C., Deustua S

    Rubin D., Aldering G., Bohlin R. C., Deustua S. E., Suzuki N., 2022a, Fundamentally More: Quadrupling the sample of CALSPEC fundamental white dwarfs , HST Proposal. Cycle 30, ID. \#17207

  79. [87]

    Rubin D., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7b7f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..263....1R 263, 1

    doi

  80. [88]

    arXiv:2311.12098

    Rubin D., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231112098R p. arXiv:2311.12098

    2023 doi arXiv

  81. [89]

    T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1147S 535, 1147

    Sahu S., Tremblay P.-E., Lallement R., Redfield S., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.1147S 535, 1147

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...78S 821, 78

    Schlafly E. F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...78S 821, 78

    2016 doi

  83. [91]

    Schlegel D., et al., 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 235.03

    2021

  84. [92]

    Scolnic D., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795...45S 795, 45

    2014 doi

  85. [93]

    Scolnic D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..117S 815, 117

    2015 doi

  86. [94]

    Scolnic D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..113S 938, 113

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    A., von Hippel T., Robinson E., Webster A., Stenning D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4374S 468, 4374

    Si S., van Dyk D. A., von Hippel T., Robinson E., Webster A., Stenning D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4374S 468, 4374

    2017 doi

  88. [96]

    A., von Hippel T., Robinson E., Jeffery E., Stenning D

    Si S., van Dyk D. A., von Hippel T., Robinson E., Jeffery E., Stenning D. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.1300S 480, 1300

    2018 doi

  89. [97]

    W., Brown Y

    Stubbs C. W., Brown Y. J., 2015, @doi [Modern Physics Letters A] 10.1142/S021773231530030X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MPLA...3030030S 30, 1530030

    2015 doi

  90. [98]

    S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2360T 517, 2360

    Thorp S., Mandel K. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2360T 517, 2360

    2022 doi

  91. [99]

    S., Jones D

    Thorp S., Mandel K. S., Jones D. O., Ward S. M., Narayan G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4310T 508, 4310

    2021 doi

  92. [100]

    S., Jones D

    Thorp S., Mandel K. S., Jones D. O., Kirshner R. P., Challis P. M., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.4016T 530, 4016

    doi

  93. [101]

    V., Deger S., Mortlock D

    Thorp S., Alsing J., Peiris H. V., Deger S., Mortlock D. J., Leistedt B., Leja J., Loureiro A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..145T 975, 145

    doi

  94. [102]

    Thrane E., Talbot C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2019.2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASA...36...10T 36, e010

    2019 doi

  95. [103]

    E., Bergeron P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696.1755T 696, 1755

    Tremblay P. E., Bergeron P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696.1755T 696, 1755

    2009 doi

  96. [104]

    Vehtari A., Gelman A., Simpson D., Carpenter B., B \"u rkner P.-C., 2021, @doi [Bayesian Analysis] 10.1214/20-BA1221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021BayAn..16..667V 16, 667

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.