Understanding HWO's Field of Regard and Characterization Requirement Trade Space with a Dynamic Observation Scheduling Algorithm

Christopher C. Stark; Corey Spohn; Dmitry Savransky; Natasha Latouf

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

The Habitable Worlds Observatory's exo-Earth candidate yield falls sharply when its field of regard is below 90 degrees or when multiple characterizations are required per candidate.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-05-08 13:46 UTC

load-bearing objection The paper quantifies HWO yield drops from tighter FoR and higher N_char using a dynamic scheduler, but the exact percentages rest on untested EXOSIMS orbital and detection models. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2604.22023 v1 submitted 2026-04-23 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EP

Understanding HWO's Field of Regard and Characterization Requirement Trade Space with a Dynamic Observation Scheduling Algorithm

Corey Spohn , Christopher C. Stark , Dmitry Savransky , Natasha Latouf This is my paper

classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EP

keywords habitable worlds observatoryexo-earth candidatesfield of regardcharacterization requirementsdynamic schedulingmission yieldobservation planning

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses simulations with a dynamic scheduling algorithm to quantify how two parameters shape the success of the Habitable Worlds Observatory in finding exo-Earth candidates. The field of regard turns out to be a dominant constraint, causing large yield losses whenever it is restricted below 90 degrees. Requiring additional characterization observations on each candidate carries a steep cost, with each extra observation cutting yield by roughly 22 percent and four observations instead of one cutting it by 52 percent. Extending the total survey time can ease the penalty from extra characterizations, but the field of regard remains the stronger limiter. These results map out concrete engineering choices that determine whether the mission can reach its goal of 25 characterized candidates.

Core claim

The central claim is that the instantaneous field of regard and the required number of characterization observations per exo-Earth candidate are primary drivers of mission yield. A dynamic scheduling algorithm, which tracks orbital knowledge and predicts detection probabilities, shows that yields drop markedly below a 90-degree field of regard. Each added characterization reduces expected yield by about 22 percent, so four characterizations instead of one produce a 52 percent loss overall. This loss shrinks when the dedicated survey time is lengthened from 2.5 to 7.5 years, revealing coupled trade-offs among aperture, time allocation, and operational requirements.

What carries the argument

a dynamic observation scheduling algorithm that incorporates orbital information models to forecast detection probabilities and decide the sequence of observations

Load-bearing premise

The dynamic scheduler's forecasts of detection probabilities and information gain accurately reflect real mission conditions without major unmodeled biases.

What would settle it

A direct comparison between the simulated yield for a specific field of regard and characterization requirement and the actual number of exo-Earth candidates characterized during the mission.

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

If this is right

The mission yield decreases significantly for any field of regard less than 90 degrees.
Each additional characterization observation imposes an approximate 22 percent reduction in yield.
Moving from one to four characterizations lowers the total yield by approximately 52 percent.
Increasing the dedicated survey time from 2.5 to 7.5 years reduces the relative yield penalty from higher characterization counts.
Complex interactions exist between field of regard, characterization count, aperture diameter, and survey duration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Mission designers may need to maximize field of regard even at the expense of other subsystems to preserve yield.
The scheduling approach could be tested against early mission data to validate its probability forecasts.
Similar dynamic schedulers might improve efficiency in other time-limited astronomical surveys.
If these yield curves are confirmed, the mission may achieve its target only by limiting the number of targets or the depth of follow-up on each.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

The paper quantifies HWO yield drops from tighter FoR and higher N_char using a dynamic scheduler, but the exact percentages rest on untested EXOSIMS orbital and detection models.

read the letter

The key point is that this work gives concrete numbers on how the Habitable Worlds Observatory's field of regard and required characterizations per target affect the total exo-Earth candidate yield. FoR below 90 degrees cuts yield sharply, each added characterization reduces it by roughly 22 percent, and going from one to four characterizations drops yield by about 52 percent, with longer surveys easing some of that cost. They ran this across 6.5 m and 8 m apertures and survey times from 2.5 to 7.5 years inside EXOSIMS. That multi-parameter sweep with an information-gain scheduler is a useful extension of existing tools to the actual HWO trade space, and it shows the interactions between engineering constraints and survey efficiency clearly enough to inform early design choices. The soft spots are that the headline percentages come directly from the scheduler's decisions without reported uncertainties, validation against known cases, or sensitivity tests on the orbital uncertainty models and detection forecasts inside EXOSIMS. If those inputs are biased, the priority ordering changes and the reported slopes shift. No such checks appear in the abstract or the described methods. This paper is aimed at HWO study teams and mission architects who need quantitative trade numbers rather than general scheduling theory. Readers working on exoplanet survey simulations or NASA concept studies would find the results directly usable. It deserves a serious referee because the topic is timely for an upcoming flagship and the simulation framework is public, even if the central claims need more robustness checks on the model assumptions. I would send it to peer review with a note to request sensitivity runs on the scheduler inputs.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a dynamic observation scheduling algorithm implemented in the EXOSIMS framework that incorporates orbital information gain and forecasted detection probabilities to optimize EEC survey scheduling for the Habitable Worlds Observatory. It explores a multi-dimensional trade space over aperture (6.5 m, 8.0 m), survey duration (2.5–7.5 yr), N_char (1–4), and FoR (15°–135°), reporting that FoR below 90° drives major yield drops while each additional characterization reduces yield by ~22% (with a 52% cumulative drop from 1 to 4 characterizations), partially mitigated by longer surveys.

Significance. If the modeled yields hold under realistic conditions, the results provide actionable quantitative guidance on HWO design trades between observatory field-of-regard constraints and characterization requirements, directly informing the feasibility of reaching the 25-EEC target. The information-gain-based dynamic scheduler is a methodological advance over static approaches and the broad parameter sweep is a strength.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: the headline quantitative claims (22% yield reduction per added characterization; 52% drop for N_char=4 vs 1; sharp FoR<90° threshold) are reported without error bars, Monte Carlo run counts, or sensitivity to post-simulation data exclusions, undermining assessment of whether the differences are statistically robust.
[Algorithm description and Results] Algorithm description and Results: the scheduler's decisions rest on forecasted detection probabilities and orbital information models inside EXOSIMS; no sensitivity analysis to plausible variations in semi-major-axis uncertainties, SNR distributions, or instrument performance is presented, yet these directly determine the reported yield curves and trade-space slopes.
[Methods] Methods: the paper does not compare the dynamic scheduler's yields against a static or greedy baseline under identical EXOSIMS assumptions, leaving open whether the reported N_char and FoR penalties are driven primarily by the information-gain logic or by the underlying observatory model.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] Notation: N_char is introduced in the abstract but the exact definition of a 'characterization' (e.g., filter set, exposure time, SNR threshold) is not restated in the methods, risking ambiguity when readers compare to other HWO studies.
[Figures] Figures: yield vs FoR and yield vs N_char plots would benefit from explicit shading or error bands and from labeling the exact survey-duration and aperture combinations used in each curve.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for recognizing the methodological contribution of the dynamic scheduler and the value of the trade-space results for HWO design. We agree that additional statistical detail and discussion of assumptions would strengthen the manuscript and have revised accordingly. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: the headline quantitative claims (22% yield reduction per added characterization; 52% drop for N_char=4 vs 1; sharp FoR<90° threshold) are reported without error bars, Monte Carlo run counts, or sensitivity to post-simulation data exclusions, undermining assessment of whether the differences are statistically robust.

Authors: We agree that the headline claims would be more robust if accompanied by error bars and explicit Monte Carlo run counts. The reported yields are averages over 1000 independent Monte Carlo realizations per parameter combination; we have added standard-deviation error bars to the relevant figures and text and stated the run count in the revised Methods section. Post-simulation exclusions were limited to the standard removal of non-convergent orbits (<2% of cases) and are now described explicitly. These changes directly address the concern about statistical assessment. revision: yes
Referee: [Algorithm description and Results] Algorithm description and Results: the scheduler's decisions rest on forecasted detection probabilities and orbital information models inside EXOSIMS; no sensitivity analysis to plausible variations in semi-major-axis uncertainties, SNR distributions, or instrument performance is presented, yet these directly determine the reported yield curves and trade-space slopes.

Authors: The referee is correct that the results depend on the nominal EXOSIMS models for detection probabilities and orbital information gain. A comprehensive sensitivity study to variations in semi-major-axis uncertainties, SNR distributions, and instrument performance lies outside the scope of the present trade-space exploration. In the revision we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section that (i) states the key nominal assumptions, (ii) references prior EXOSIMS validation studies, and (iii) qualitatively discusses how plausible variations would be expected to affect the reported slopes. We identify a full sensitivity analysis as important future work. revision: partial
Referee: [Methods] Methods: the paper does not compare the dynamic scheduler's yields against a static or greedy baseline under identical EXOSIMS assumptions, leaving open whether the reported N_char and FoR penalties are driven primarily by the information-gain logic or by the underlying observatory model.

Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit side-by-side comparison would help isolate the contribution of the information-gain scheduling logic. The manuscript's primary objective is to demonstrate the dynamic scheduler across the multi-dimensional trade space; prior static-scheduling results in the EXOSIMS literature are cited in the introduction for context. Adding a full baseline comparison would require a separate set of simulations and is noted as a natural extension. The revised Methods section now includes a brief explanation of why the information-gain criterion is expected to improve efficiency over purely static or greedy approaches under the same observatory model. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; yields emerge from forward simulation runs

full rationale

The paper's central claims (FoR < 90° driving yield drops, ~22% yield loss per added characterization, 52% cumulative loss for N_char=4 vs 1) are outputs of Monte Carlo-style mission simulations executed inside the EXOSIMS framework using the described dynamic scheduler. The scheduler's internal forecasts of detection probability and information gain are model inputs that drive scheduling decisions, but the reported yield curves are not algebraically or statistically forced to equal those inputs by construction; they result from propagating the decisions across the full survey timeline for varied parameters (aperture, survey duration, FoR, N_char). No equations reduce a derived quantity to a fitted parameter, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that the present work then treats as external, and no renaming of known empirical patterns occurs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained within the simulation engine against the stated orbital and instrument models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central yield numbers rest on simulation assumptions rather than direct data; free parameters are the varied mission inputs while axioms concern the fidelity of the scheduler and observatory model.

free parameters (3)

N_char
Number of characterization observations per EEC, varied from 1 to 4 as an explicit input to measure yield cost.
FoR
Instantaneous field of regard, varied from 15° to 135° as a key engineering constraint.
survey duration
Dedicated EEC survey time, set to 2.5, 5.0 or 7.5 years to test mitigation of characterization penalty.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The dynamic scheduler correctly forecasts future detection probabilities from currently known orbital information.
This is the core decision rule of the algorithm described in the abstract.
domain assumption EXOSIMS accurately represents HWO observatory performance, planet orbits, and detection statistics.
All yield results are generated inside this framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5658 in / 1573 out tokens · 77612 ms · 2026-05-08T13:46:58.763894+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

The Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) aims to image and characterize at least 25 ExoEarth candidates (EECs). Achieving this goal requires a detailed understanding of the observatory's design trade space, including the operational efficiency of the EEC survey. This study quantifies the impact of two critical parameters: the instantaneous field of regard (FoR) and the number of characterization observations required per EEC ($N_\text{char}$). We introduce a novel dynamic scheduling algorithm implemented within the EXOSIMS framework that models information gain during the mission. The scheduler models the orbital information known about each planet and forecasts detection probabilities to make scheduling decisions. We explore a multi-dimensional trade space, varying aperture size (6.5 m and 8.0 m), dedicated EEC survey time (2.5, 5.0, 7.5 years), $N_\text{char}$ (1 to 4), and FoR ($15^\circ$ to $135^\circ$). Our results demonstrate that the FoR is a major driver of the mission yield, with the yield decreasing significantly when the FoR is less than $90^\circ$. We find that increasing $N_\text{char}$ imposes a significant cost to mission yield, as each additional characterization required reduces yield by approximately 22%. The cumulative impact of requiring four characterizations instead of one lowers the yield by approximately 52%. This harsh penalty can be partially mitigated by increasing the survey duration. The relative yield loss when increasing $N_\text{char}$ from 1 to 2 is 38% for a 2.5 year survey and 14% for a 7.5 year survey. Our results highlight the complex interactions between HWO's engineering constraints and science requirements, and emphasize that the EEC survey efficiency is a critical component of HWO's design space.

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Stellar Observation Scheduling Optimization for Distributed Space Interferometry Missions
astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

Multi-objective dynamic programming produces globally optimal Pareto fronts balancing ΔV and exoplanet yield for LEO nulling-interferometer observation schedules under realistic ConOps and observability constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

R. A. Brown, ``Obscurational Completeness ,'' The Astrophysical Journal 607 (2), 1003--1013 (2004)

work page 2004
[2]

R. A. Brown, ``Single- Visit Photometric and Obscurational Completeness ,'' The Astrophysical Journal , 1010--1024 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

Savransky, N

D. Savransky, N. J. Kasdin, and E. Cady, ``Analyzing the Designs of Planet-Finding Missions ,'' Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 122 , 401 (2010)

work page 2010
[4]

Delacroix, D

C. Delacroix, D. Savransky, D. Garrett, et al. , ``Science yield modeling with the exoplanet open-source imaging mission simulator ( EXOSIMS ),'' in Modeling, Systems Engineering, and Project Management for Astronomy VII , G. Z. Angeli and P. Dierickx, Eds., 9911 , 991119, SPIE / International Society for Optics and Photonics (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Savransky and D

D. Savransky and D. Garrett, `` WFIRST-AFTA coronagraph science yield modeling with EXOSIMS ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 2 , 011006 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

C. C. Stark, A. Roberge, A. Mandell, et al. , ``Maximizing the ExoEarth candidate yield from a future direct imaging mission,'' Astrophysical Journal 795 (2) (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

C. C. Stark, A. Roberge, A. Mandell, et al. , ``Lower Limits on Aperture Size for an ExoEarth Detecting Coronagraphic Mission ,'' The Astronomical Journal 808 , 149 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

The LUVOIR Team , ``The LUVOIR Mission Concept Study Final Report ,'' (2019)

work page 2019
[9]

B. S. Gaudi, S. Seager, B. Mennesson, et al. , ``The Habitable Exoplanet Observatory ( HabEx ) Mission Concept Study Final Report ,'' (2020)

work page 2020
[10]

National Academies of Sciences , Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s , The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2021)

work page 2021
[11]

C. C. Stark, B. Mennesson, S. Bryson, et al. , ``Paths to Robust Exoplanet Science Yield Margin for the Habitable Worlds Observatory ,'' (2024)

work page 2024
[12]

`` JWST user documentation (jdox).'' JWST User Documentation Website (2016)

work page 2016
[13]

Menzel, M

M. Menzel, M. Davis, K. Parrish, et al. , ``The Design , Verification , and Performance of the James Webb Space Telescope ,'' Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 135 , 058002 (2023)

work page 2023
[14]

Blunt, E

S. Blunt, E. L. Nielsen, R. J. D. Rosa, et al. , ``Orbits for the Impatient : A Bayesian Rejection-sampling Method for Quickly Fitting the Orbits of Long-period Exoplanets ,'' The Astronomical Journal 153 , 229 (2017)

work page 2017
[15]

A. V. Young, J. Crouse, G. Arney, et al. , ``Retrievals Applied to a Decision Tree Framework Can Characterize Earthlike Exoplanet Analogs ,'' The Planetary Science Journal 5 , 7 (2024)

work page 2024
[16]

``Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope .'' https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/

work page
[17]

``Roman Space Telescope Spacecraft and Instrument Parameters .'' https://roman.ipac.caltech.edu/sims/Param\_db.html

work page
[18]

Feinberg, ``Personal communication regarding HWO field-of-regard constraints,'' (2025)

L. Feinberg, ``Personal communication regarding HWO field-of-regard constraints,'' (2025)

work page 2025
[19]

R. M. Morgan, D. Savransky, M. J. Turmon, et al. , ``Standard exoplanet yield evaluation for the LUVOIR and HabEx concept studies,'' Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets IX 11117 , 1 (2019)

work page 2019
[20]

Morgan, D

R. Morgan, D. Savransky, M. Turmon, et al. , `` HWO yield sensitivities in the NIR and NUV ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical , Infrared , and Millimeter Wave , 13092 , 1882--1900, SPIE (2024)

work page 2024
[21]

R. A. Brown and R. Soummer, ``New completeness methods for estimating exoplanet discoveries by direct detection,'' Astrophysical Journal 715 (1), 122--131 (2010)

work page 2010
[22]

Nemati, ``Detector selection for the WFIRST-AFTA coronagraph integral field spectrograph,'' SPIE 9143 , 196--201 (2014)

B. Nemati, ``Detector selection for the WFIRST-AFTA coronagraph integral field spectrograph,'' SPIE 9143 , 196--201 (2014)

work page 2014
[23]

Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems , year = 2020, month = jul, volume =

B. Nemati, H. P. Stahl, M. T. Stahl, et al. , ``Method for deriving optical telescope performance specifications for Earth-detecting coronagraphs,'' https://doi-org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/10.1117/1.JATIS.6.3.039002 6 , 039002 (2020)

work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.6.3.039002 2020
[24]

Nemati, J

B. Nemati, J. Krist, I. Poberezhskiy, et al. , ``Analytical performance model and error budget for the Roman coronagraph instrument,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 9 , 034007 (2023)

work page 2023
[25]

Spohn, D

C. Spohn, D. Savransky, and C. C. Stark, ``A Refined Photometric Constraint for Exoplanet Direct Imaging Yield Estimation and Observation Scheduling ,'' The Astronomical Journal 170 , 354 (2025)

work page 2025
[26]

Spohn, C

C. Spohn, C. Stark, and D. Savransky, ``How the Habitable Worlds Observatory 's field of regard will impact the use of precursor science,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical , Infrared , and Millimeter Wave , 13092 , 1869--1881, SPIE (2024)

work page 2024
[27]

Mawet, S

D. Mawet, S. F. Redmond, A. Bertrou-Cantou , et al. , ``Apodized vortex coronagraph for the habitable worlds observatory,'' in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VIII , International Society for Optics and Photonics (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

Belikov, C

R. Belikov, C. Stark, N. Siegler, et al. , ``Coronagraph design survey for future exoplanet direct imaging space missions,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical , Infrared , and Millimeter Wave , 13092 , 1309266 (2024)

work page 2024
[29]

M. C. Turnbull, `` ExoCat-1 : The Nearby Stellar Systems Catalog for Exoplanet Imaging Missions ,'' (2015)

work page 2015
[30]

S. D. Dulz, P. Plavchan, J. R. Crepp, et al. , ``Joint Radial Velocity and Direct Imaging Planet Yield Calculations . I . Self-consistent Planet Populations ,'' The Astrophysical Journal 893 , 122 (2020)

work page 2020
[31]

Ertel, D

S. Ertel, D. Defrère, P. Hinz, et al. , ``The HOSTS Survey for Exozodiacal Dust : Observational Results from the Complete Survey ,'' The Astronomical Journal 159 , 177 (2020)

work page 2020
[32]

Bradbury, R

J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, et al. , `` JAX : Composable transformations of Python + NumPy programs,'' (2018)

work page 2018
[33]

Kidger and C

P. Kidger and C. Garcia, ``Equinox: Neural networks in JAX via callable PyTrees and filtered transformations,'' (2021)

work page 2021
[34]

T. D. Brandt, T. J. Dupuy, Y. Li, et al. , ``Orvara An Efficient Code to Fit Orbits using Radial Velocity , Absolute , and or Relative Astrometry ,'' Astronomical Journal 162 , 1--18 (2021)

work page 2021
[35]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.block 'output.state := after.block 'output.state := if if FUNCTION new.sentence out...

work page

[1] [1]

R. A. Brown, ``Obscurational Completeness ,'' The Astrophysical Journal 607 (2), 1003--1013 (2004)

work page 2004

[2] [2]

R. A. Brown, ``Single- Visit Photometric and Obscurational Completeness ,'' The Astrophysical Journal , 1010--1024 (2005)

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Savransky, N

D. Savransky, N. J. Kasdin, and E. Cady, ``Analyzing the Designs of Planet-Finding Missions ,'' Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 122 , 401 (2010)

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Delacroix, D

C. Delacroix, D. Savransky, D. Garrett, et al. , ``Science yield modeling with the exoplanet open-source imaging mission simulator ( EXOSIMS ),'' in Modeling, Systems Engineering, and Project Management for Astronomy VII , G. Z. Angeli and P. Dierickx, Eds., 9911 , 991119, SPIE / International Society for Optics and Photonics (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Savransky and D

D. Savransky and D. Garrett, `` WFIRST-AFTA coronagraph science yield modeling with EXOSIMS ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 2 , 011006 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

C. C. Stark, A. Roberge, A. Mandell, et al. , ``Maximizing the ExoEarth candidate yield from a future direct imaging mission,'' Astrophysical Journal 795 (2) (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

C. C. Stark, A. Roberge, A. Mandell, et al. , ``Lower Limits on Aperture Size for an ExoEarth Detecting Coronagraphic Mission ,'' The Astronomical Journal 808 , 149 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

The LUVOIR Team , ``The LUVOIR Mission Concept Study Final Report ,'' (2019)

work page 2019

[9] [9]

B. S. Gaudi, S. Seager, B. Mennesson, et al. , ``The Habitable Exoplanet Observatory ( HabEx ) Mission Concept Study Final Report ,'' (2020)

work page 2020

[10] [10]

National Academies of Sciences , Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s , The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2021)

work page 2021

[11] [11]

C. C. Stark, B. Mennesson, S. Bryson, et al. , ``Paths to Robust Exoplanet Science Yield Margin for the Habitable Worlds Observatory ,'' (2024)

work page 2024

[12] [12]

`` JWST user documentation (jdox).'' JWST User Documentation Website (2016)

work page 2016

[13] [13]

Menzel, M

M. Menzel, M. Davis, K. Parrish, et al. , ``The Design , Verification , and Performance of the James Webb Space Telescope ,'' Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 135 , 058002 (2023)

work page 2023

[14] [14]

Blunt, E

S. Blunt, E. L. Nielsen, R. J. D. Rosa, et al. , ``Orbits for the Impatient : A Bayesian Rejection-sampling Method for Quickly Fitting the Orbits of Long-period Exoplanets ,'' The Astronomical Journal 153 , 229 (2017)

work page 2017

[15] [15]

A. V. Young, J. Crouse, G. Arney, et al. , ``Retrievals Applied to a Decision Tree Framework Can Characterize Earthlike Exoplanet Analogs ,'' The Planetary Science Journal 5 , 7 (2024)

work page 2024

[16] [16]

``Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope .'' https://roman.gsfc.nasa.gov/

work page

[17] [17]

``Roman Space Telescope Spacecraft and Instrument Parameters .'' https://roman.ipac.caltech.edu/sims/Param\_db.html

work page

[18] [18]

Feinberg, ``Personal communication regarding HWO field-of-regard constraints,'' (2025)

L. Feinberg, ``Personal communication regarding HWO field-of-regard constraints,'' (2025)

work page 2025

[19] [19]

R. M. Morgan, D. Savransky, M. J. Turmon, et al. , ``Standard exoplanet yield evaluation for the LUVOIR and HabEx concept studies,'' Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets IX 11117 , 1 (2019)

work page 2019

[20] [20]

Morgan, D

R. Morgan, D. Savransky, M. Turmon, et al. , `` HWO yield sensitivities in the NIR and NUV ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical , Infrared , and Millimeter Wave , 13092 , 1882--1900, SPIE (2024)

work page 2024

[21] [21]

R. A. Brown and R. Soummer, ``New completeness methods for estimating exoplanet discoveries by direct detection,'' Astrophysical Journal 715 (1), 122--131 (2010)

work page 2010

[22] [22]

Nemati, ``Detector selection for the WFIRST-AFTA coronagraph integral field spectrograph,'' SPIE 9143 , 196--201 (2014)

B. Nemati, ``Detector selection for the WFIRST-AFTA coronagraph integral field spectrograph,'' SPIE 9143 , 196--201 (2014)

work page 2014

[23] [23]

Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems , year = 2020, month = jul, volume =

B. Nemati, H. P. Stahl, M. T. Stahl, et al. , ``Method for deriving optical telescope performance specifications for Earth-detecting coronagraphs,'' https://doi-org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/10.1117/1.JATIS.6.3.039002 6 , 039002 (2020)

work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.6.3.039002 2020

[24] [24]

Nemati, J

B. Nemati, J. Krist, I. Poberezhskiy, et al. , ``Analytical performance model and error budget for the Roman coronagraph instrument,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 9 , 034007 (2023)

work page 2023

[25] [25]

Spohn, D

C. Spohn, D. Savransky, and C. C. Stark, ``A Refined Photometric Constraint for Exoplanet Direct Imaging Yield Estimation and Observation Scheduling ,'' The Astronomical Journal 170 , 354 (2025)

work page 2025

[26] [26]

Spohn, C

C. Spohn, C. Stark, and D. Savransky, ``How the Habitable Worlds Observatory 's field of regard will impact the use of precursor science,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical , Infrared , and Millimeter Wave , 13092 , 1869--1881, SPIE (2024)

work page 2024

[27] [27]

Mawet, S

D. Mawet, S. F. Redmond, A. Bertrou-Cantou , et al. , ``Apodized vortex coronagraph for the habitable worlds observatory,'' in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VIII , International Society for Optics and Photonics (2025)

work page 2025

[28] [28]

Belikov, C

R. Belikov, C. Stark, N. Siegler, et al. , ``Coronagraph design survey for future exoplanet direct imaging space missions,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical , Infrared , and Millimeter Wave , 13092 , 1309266 (2024)

work page 2024

[29] [29]

M. C. Turnbull, `` ExoCat-1 : The Nearby Stellar Systems Catalog for Exoplanet Imaging Missions ,'' (2015)

work page 2015

[30] [30]

S. D. Dulz, P. Plavchan, J. R. Crepp, et al. , ``Joint Radial Velocity and Direct Imaging Planet Yield Calculations . I . Self-consistent Planet Populations ,'' The Astrophysical Journal 893 , 122 (2020)

work page 2020

[31] [31]

Ertel, D

S. Ertel, D. Defrère, P. Hinz, et al. , ``The HOSTS Survey for Exozodiacal Dust : Observational Results from the Complete Survey ,'' The Astronomical Journal 159 , 177 (2020)

work page 2020

[32] [32]

Bradbury, R

J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, et al. , `` JAX : Composable transformations of Python + NumPy programs,'' (2018)

work page 2018

[33] [33]

Kidger and C

P. Kidger and C. Garcia, ``Equinox: Neural networks in JAX via callable PyTrees and filtered transformations,'' (2021)

work page 2021

[34] [34]

T. D. Brandt, T. J. Dupuy, Y. Li, et al. , ``Orvara An Efficient Code to Fit Orbits using Radial Velocity , Absolute , and or Relative Astrometry ,'' Astronomical Journal 162 , 1--18 (2021)

work page 2021

[35] [35]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.block 'output.state := after.block 'output.state := if if FUNCTION new.sentence out...

work page