The DOI matches its Crossref record; 353 of the 353 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 186 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products
Open accessAbstract
We describe here the most ambitious survey currently planned in the optical, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). The LSST design is driven by four main science themes: probing dark energy and dark matter, taking an inventory of the solar system, exploring the transient optical sky, and mapping the Milky Way. LSST will be a large, wide-field ground-based system designed to obtain repeated images covering the sky visible from Cerro Pachón in northern Chile. The telescope will have an 8.4 m (6.5 m effective) primary mirror, a 9.6 deg 2 field of view, a 3.2-gigapixel camera, and six filters ( ugrizy ) covering the wavelength range 320–1050 nm. The project is in the construction phase and will begin regular survey operations by 2022. About 90% of the observing time will be devoted to a deep-wide-fast survey mode that will uniformly observe a 18,000 deg 2 region about 800 times (summed over all six bands) during the anticipated 10 yr of operations and will yield a co-added map to r ∼ 27.5. These data will result in databases including about 32 trillion observations of 20 billion galaxies and a similar number of stars, and they will serve the majority of the primary science programs. The remaining 10% of the observing time will be allocated to special projects such as Very Deep and Very Fast time domain surveys, whose details are currently under discussion. We illustrate how the LSST science drivers led to these choices of system parameters, and we describe the expected data products and their characteristics.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper describes the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) reference design and anticipated data products, driven by four science themes: probing dark energy and dark matter, inventorying the solar system, exploring the transient optical sky, and mapping the Milky Way. It reports a planned 10 yr, 18,000 deg², six-band ugrizy survey with an 8.4 m (6.5 m effective) telescope, 9.6 deg² field of view, 3.2-gigapixel camera, and co-added depth r ∼ 27.5.
Key findings
- LSST is designed with an 8.4 m (6.5 m effective) primary mirror, 9.6 deg² field of view, 3.2-gigapixel camera, six filters (ugrizy) covering 320–1050 nm, and étendue of 319 m² deg². About 90% of observing time is planned for a deep-wide-fast survey over 18,000 deg², with about 800 visits summed over all six bands over 10 yr, yielding a co-added map to r ∼ 27.5 and databases including about 32 trillion observations of 20 billion galaxies and a similar number of stars.
- Table 1 gives single-visit design depths in ugrizy of 23.9, 25.0, 24.7, 24.0, 23.3, 22.1; final co-added depths of 26.1, 27.4, 27.5, 26.8, 26.1, 24.9; and mean numbers of visits of 56, 80, 184, 184, 160, 160.
- For solar system objects, the baseline cadence discovers 66% of potentially hazardous asteroids (PHAs) and 61% of near-Earth objects (NEOs) with H ≤ 22 after 10 yr; combined with current and ongoing surveys, this becomes 81% of PHAs and 73% of NEOs. With a 12 yr survey and a 30-day MOPS linking window, LSST alone could discover 74% of PHAs and 69% of NEOs, and combined with existing resources 86% of PHAs and 77% of NEOs.
- Anticipated data products include alerts within 60 s of observation, several million alerts per night, about 15 TB per night of raw imaging data (about 20 TB with calibration exposures), and about 60 PB collected over the survey lifetime. Forecasts include photometric redshifts with rms σ/(1+z) of 2% over 0.3 < z < 3.0 (degrading to ∼0.05 if training data are insufficient), about 400,000 photometrically classified SNe Ia, neutrino mass sum constraints of 0.04 eV or better, over 30,000 TNOs brighter than r ∼ 24.5, about 20 billion Milky Way stars, and photometric metallicities for about 200 million main-sequence F/G stars.
Methods
- This is a reference-design and data-product overview, not an observational result; it synthesizes science requirements and system design choices for LSST.
- Performance forecasts use simulations: the LSST Operations Simulator, CatSim catalogs, GalSim and PhoSim image simulations, and the Metrics Analysis Framework (MAF), with the baseline2018a cadence. NEO completeness uses PHA orbits from Grav et al. (2007), MOPS linking, and a detection criterion of at least three nights within 15 days with a minimum of two visits per night.
- Astrometric errors are modeled as θ/S/N with θ = 700 mas plus 10 mas systematic errors added in quadrature, solved iteratively; photometric S/N is modeled with equations and parameters in Table 2. Data products are defined as Prompt products and Data Release (DR) products.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the baseline universal cadence is not definitive, cadence alternatives are under vigorous discussion, and commissioning will test observing modes; mini-survey details are under discussion. Limiting depth predictions are uncertain by about 0.1–0.2 mag due to solar activity. NEO completeness is uncertain at the ±5% level due to orbital distribution, size distribution, shape/light-curve variations, surface properties, and weather. Photometric redshift quality may degrade to σ/(1+z) ∼ 0.05 if more training data are required than currently exist. Some crowded Galactic plane fits may use only a point-source model, and it is not yet clear to what extent measurements can be made on linear combinations of input images.
- Evident from the text: all performance numbers are forecasts from simulations and design specifications rather than empirical LSST survey measurements, and the survey had not yet begun regular operations at the time of writing.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
187 Own interpretation · 105 Not checked yet · 38 No basis given · 20 Own result · 3 Own method · 2 Sources not found · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It builds on recent trends in remote data analysis and practical experiences in the astronomical context gathered by projects such as the JHU SciServer ( Raddick et al. 2017 ) , Gaia GAVIP ( Vagg et al. 2016 ) , or NOAO Datalab ( Fitzpatrick et al. 2016 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Raddick et al. 2017
- Not checked yetcites Vagg et al. 2016 source
- Could not verifycites Fitzpatrick et al. 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes an LSST Level 3 Environment for scientists to analyze data using LSST hardware and software. It does not say that the LSST Science Platform builds on remote-analysis trends or experiences from JHU SciServer, Gaia GAVIP, or NOAO Datalab; searches for those projects and for remote analysis found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“500 -1000 multiply imaged SNe Ia ( Goldstein & Nugent 2017; Goldstein et al. 2018 )”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldstein & Nugent 2017
- Supportedcites Goldstein et al. 2018 source
Section 4.3 forecasts that LSST should find approximately 925 lensed Type Ia supernovae over its 10-year survey, within the claimed range of 500–1000. The Abstract likewise gives an expected yield of about 930 strongly lensed Type Ia supernova systems. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Detailed determination of the system throughput yields the values of γ listed in Table 2.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a fi eld is visited every 2 days over 4 months, about 600 deg 2 can be observed with this cadence over 10 yr.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Note that the limiting depth predictions are uncertain by about 0.1 -0.2 mag, due to unpredictable solar activity ( which in fl uences the night sky brightness; Patat 2008 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Patat 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By running the survey for an additional 2 yr, we can boost completeness by another 4%.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All potentially hazardous asteroids are assumed to be C-type asteroids.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent results from Gaia Data Release 2 ( DR2 ) demonstrate that these early predictions of the mission performance were robust ( Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018; Lindegren et al. 2018 ) .”
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These numbers are adequate to reach Stage IV goals for dark energy, as de fi ned by the Dark Energy Task Force ( Albrecht et al. 2006 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Albrecht et al. 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Using the cosmic microwave background ( CMB ) fl uctuations as the normalization, the combination of these probes can yield the needed precision to distinguish among models of dark energy”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhan 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, the SDSS, with its 2.5 m telescope ( Gunn et al. 2006 ) and a camera with 30 imaging CCDs ( Gunn et al. 1998 ) , has an effective étendue of only 5.9 m 2 deg 2 .”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Astrometric precision should maintain the systematic limit set by the atmosphere, of about 10 mas per visit at the bright end ( on scales below 20 arcmin ) .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data will result in databases including about 32 trillion observations of 20 billion galaxies and a similar number of stars”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST construction will be completed and the survey will operate for the planned 10 years.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST system will achieve the specified design parameters (mirror, field of view, camera, filters) in operation.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“SDSS, PS1, and DES data taken in good photometric conditions have approached the LSST requirement of 1% photometric calibration ( Padmanabhan et al. 2008; Schla fl y et al. 2012; Burke et al. 2018 ) , although measurements with ground-based telescopes typically produce data with errors a factor of two or so larger.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To achieve the required proper-motion and parallax accuracy with an assumed astrometric accuracy of 10 mas per observation per coordinate, approximately 1000 separate observations are required.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Astrometric accuracy of 10 mas per observation per coordinate is assumed.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The effects of atmospheric dispersion on WL studies are mitigated by modeling the PSF as a function of the color of the object ( for more details, see Meyers & Burchat 2015; Carlsten et al. 2018 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Meyers & Burchat 2015
- Not checked yetcites Carlsten et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Discovering and linking objects in the solar system moving with a wide range of apparent velocities ( from several degrees per day for NEOs to a few arcseconds per day for the most distant TNOs ) places strong constraints on the cadence of observations, requiring closely spaced pairs of observations ( two or preferably three times per lunation ) in order to link detections unambiguously and derive”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites SciBook, Chap. 5
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Analysis of repeated SDSS scans obtained in varying observing conditions demonstrates that data obtained in nonphotometric conditions can also be calibrated with suf fi cient accuracy ( Ivezi ć et al. 2007a ) , as long as high-quality photometric data also exist in the region.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ivezić et al. 2007a
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distribution of visits on the sky should extend over at least ∼ 18,000 deg 2 to obtain the required number of galaxies for WL studies, with attention paid to include ' special ' regions such as the ecliptic and Galactic planes, and the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds ( if in the Southern Hemisphere ) .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST fi eld-of-view area is maximized to its practical limit, ∼ 10 deg 2 , determined by the requirement that the delivered image quality be dominated by atmospheric seeing at the chosen site ( Cerro Pachón in northern Chile ) .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the limit t vis ¥ , the following correction needs to be added to Cm :”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To model the astrometric errors, we need to consider both random and systematic effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample to i = 25.3 will include several billion galaxies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A major advantage of LSST is the fact that this deep sky map will be produced by taking hundreds of shorter exposures ( see Table 1 ) .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, for the extended source model fi ts, the LSST will characterize and store the shape of the associated likelihood surface ( and the posterior ) , and not just the maximum likelihood values and covariances.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The power and accuracy of LSST dark energy and dark matter probes are a result of the enormous samples that LSST will have, including several billion galaxies and millions of SNe Ia.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“organized by the four science themes that drive the LSST design”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST photoz BAOs will achieve percent-level precision on the angular diameter distance at ∼ 10 redshifts logarithmically spaced between z = 0.4 and 3.6.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The joint analysis of shear -shear, galaxy -shear, and galaxy -galaxy correlation functions has become standard in analyses of precursor data sets ( e.g., DES Collaboration et al. 2018; Joudaki et al. 2018 ) .”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The DES ( see, e.g., DES Collaboration et al. 2018, and references therein ) provides a compelling proof of concept for this program.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites DES Collaboration et al. 2018 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, quantifying the rate of growth of structures from early times until the present provides additional tests of the energy contents of the universe and their interactions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similar measurements of the large-scale power will also be used to test phenomenological models of clustering dark energy ( Takada 2006 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Takada 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The abundance of galaxy clusters as a function of mass and redshift is sensitive to cosmological parameters ( SciBook, Chap. 13; von der Linden et al. 2014 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites SciBook, Chap. 13
- Not checked yetcites von der Linden et al. 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will make a signi fi cant contribution to the congressional target completeness of 90% for PHAs larger than 140 m ( Section 3.2.2 ) and will detect over 30,000 TNOs brighter than r ∼ 24.5 using its baseline cadence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, high-redshift BAO data can break the degeneracy between curvature and dark energy, constraining Ω k to within 0.001.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The natural timescale ( many months to years ) is well matched to the LSST survey ( Oguri & Marshall 2010 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oguri & Marshall 2010
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although measurements of the galaxy power spectrum on very large scales are challenging owing to sky systematics ( Leistedt et al. 2014 ) and cosmic variance, the prospect of using multiple tracers of the same fi eld could signi fi cantly improve the constraining power for this observable ( Seljak 2009 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leistedt et al. 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will make a signi fi cant contribution to the congressional target completeness of 90% for PHAs larger than 140 m ( Section 3.2.2 ) and will detect over 30,000 TNOs brighter than r ∼ 24.5 using its baseline cadence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Time delays for quasars multiply lensed by clusters as a function of redshift are an independent test of dark energy ( Kundi ć et al. 1997 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kundić et al. 1997 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The small bodies of the solar system, such as main belt asteroids, the Trojan populations of the giant planets, and the KBOs, offer a unique insight into its early stages because they provide samples of the original solid materials of the solar nebula.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Cosmological analyses can be carried out using SN, WL, and LSS in subsets of the LSST data in different regions of the sky, testing fundamental cosmological assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy ( e.g., Zhan et al. 2009 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhan et al. 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The image fl uxes in several thousand wellmeasured strongly lensed quasars will enable constraints of the dark matter mass function on small scales ( Dalal & Kochanek 2002 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dalal & Kochanek 2002 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST sample of asteroids with accurate orbits and multicolor light curves will be 10 -100 times larger than the currently available sample.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although measurements of the galaxy power spectrum on very large scales are challenging owing to sky systematics ( Leistedt et al. 2014 ) and cosmic variance, the prospect of using multiple tracers of the same fi eld could signi fi cantly improve the constraining power for this observable ( Seljak 2009 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seljak 2009 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The combination with CMB and WL shear yields tight constraints on the dynamical behavior of dark energy ( Figure 24 ) .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly, WL magni fi cation tomography ( Morrison et al. 2012 ) offers a complementary probe of a mix of cosmic geometry and growth of dark matter structure.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morrison et al. 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will discover several hundred galaxy clusters that produce multiple-image lenses of background objects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Assuming that the gravitational wave network is working well, Scolnic et al. ( 2018 ) estimate that LSST could fi nd of order 70 electromagnetic counterparts to standard sirens.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scolnic et al. ( 2018 ) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The gravitational wave detector network will be operating well.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two LSST observing programs are complementary in the SN samples they will provide.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The shape of the power spectrum of dark matter fl uctuations measured by LSST WL will constrain the sum of neutrino masses with an accuracy of 0.04 eV or better ( Cooray 1999; Song & Knox 2004; Hannestad et al. 2006 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cooray 1999
- Not checked yetcites Song & Knox 2004
- Not checked yetcites Hannestad et al. 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Sedna ( Brown et al. 2004 ) would be detectable at 130 au.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown et al. 2004 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“with an estimate of ∼ 7 discoveries per year ( Scolnic et al. 2018 )”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scolnic et al. 2018 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regularcadence, long-term color observation on a large sample of galactic sources will enable the identi fi cation of CVs containing highly magnetic white dwarfs”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Gravitational microlensing in the Milky Way ( see Han 2008 ) , as well as in the Local Group and beyond ( de Jong et al. 2008 ) .”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Only a few such objects are currently known ( Jewitt et al. 2011; Jewitt 2012 ) ; LSST will increase the sample of such objects to ∼ 100.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Time delays between the multiple images of strongly lensed core-collapse SNe can be used to observe the elusive shock breakout phase of the light curve”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Suwa 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Detection and measurement of gamma-ray burst afterglows and transients ( e.g., Zhang & Mészáros 2004; Zhang et al. 2006; Kann et al. 2010 ) to high redshift ( ∼ 7.5 )”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the LSST census of faint satellites and stellar streams in the halo will offer a unique means to constrain the particle nature of dark matter.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Different candidate supersymmetric particle dark matter models predict different mass clustering on small scales and different subhalo mass functions for the Milky Way.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Time domain science will greatly bene fi t from LSST ' s unique capability to simultaneously provide large-area coverage, dense temporal coverage, accurate color information, good image quality, and rapid data reduction and classi fi cation.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will deliver 10% or better distances for a sample of about 2500 stars with 18 < Mr < 19.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST will produce a massive and exquisitely accurate photometric and astrometric data set for about 20 billion Milky Way stars.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“LSST and Gaia will be highly complementary data sets for studying the Milky Way in the multidimensional space of three-dimensional positions, proper motions, and metallicity”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ivezić et al. 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the depth of LSST will enable construction of luminosity and mass functions for nearby open clusters down to the hydrogenburning limit and beyond.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will aid studies of the electromagnetic signal that accompanies the gravitational wave emission, thereby providing an accurate position on the sky for the system”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About a thousand observations of each position across half of the celestial sphere will represent the greatest movie of all time.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
In the paper
“The combination of LSST, Euclid , and WFIRST data should allow discovery of at least tens of quasars at z > 7.5”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites R. Barnett 2017, private communication
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not yet classified. 234
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The individual sequences would be sensitive to 1% variability on subminute timescales, allowing discovery of planetary eclipses and of interstellar scintillation effects, expected when the light of a background star propagates through a turbulent gas medium ( Moniez 2003; Habibi et al. 2011 ) .”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Moniez 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 9 (Feasibility of observations; page unavailable) supports short-timescale monitoring for interstellar scintillation, but estimates 5% photometric precision in 10-second exposures with a 2-meter telescope, not 1%. Section 10.3 (Possible sources of fake signal; page unavailable) says planetary transits are expected to produce variations smaller than 0.1%, so the paper does not support their discovery through sensitivity to 1% variability. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites Habibi et al. 2011 source
The citation supports the explanation of interstellar scintillation: Section 2.2 describes stellar light crossing a turbulent gas cloud and producing an illumination pattern. The proposed sequences’ 1% sensitivity and ability to discover planetary eclipses are the citing authors’ plans, not findings attributed to Habibi et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Not yet classified.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The degradation in photometric redshift quality associated with requiring more training data than currently exists to de fi ne the template set increases the expected σ / ( 1 + z ) to ∼ 0.05 ( e.g., Newman et al. 2015; Graham et al. 2018 ) , which is still well within the expected range for a Stage IV dark energy experiment.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Newman et al. 2015 source
- Could not verifycites Graham et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.5 describes a simulated spectroscopic training set of one million galaxies, but does not report that a shortage of data for defining a template set degrades redshift precision to about 0.05. Section 3 says the estimator avoids assigning spectral templates, and the Introduction gives an LSST target below 0.02 rather than assessing whether 0.05 is within the range for a Stage IV experiment. Searches for the template-set claim and 0.05 found no passage establishing the attributed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“No other existing or planned survey will provide such a powerful data set to study the outer halo: Gaia is fl ux limited at r = 20, and the DES ( Rossetto et al. 2011 ) and Pan-STARRS both lack observations in the u band”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rossetto et al. 2011 source
The citation is attached to DES, so the relevant attribution is that DES lacks u-band observations. The Introduction lists DES’s five filters as grizY, which excludes u; Section 2 separately says SkyMapper will cover the u band. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Not yet classified.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effective étendue for LSST will be greater than 300 m 2 deg 2 , which is more than an order of magnitude larger than that of any existing facility.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST system will achieve the specified design parameters (mirror, field of view, camera, filters) in operation.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Detailed simulations of WL techniques show that imaging over ∼ 20,000 deg 2 to a 5 σ pointsource depth of r AB ∼ 27.5 gives adequate signal to measure shapes for of order 2 billion galaxies for WL.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The detailed WL simulations accurately represent future LSST performance.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The constants Cm depend on the overall throughput of the instrument and are computed using our current best throughput estimates for optical elements and sensors.”
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systematic and random errors become similar at about r = 22, and there are about 100 stars per LSST sensor ( 0.05 deg 2 ) to this depth ( and fainter than the LSST saturation limit at r ∼ 16 ) even at the Galactic poles.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If these fi elds were selected at Galactic latitudes of b 30 ~ ∣ ∣ ° , they would include about 10 million stars with r < 21 observed with S / N above 100 in each visit.”
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each 15 s exposure in a sequence would have an equivalent 5 σ depth of r ∼ 24, and each fi lter subsequence when co-added would be 2 mag deeper than the main survey visits ( r ∼ 26.5 ) .”
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, this effect is only substantial in the u band, as demonstrated by the values of C 2 m t D = ( ) listed in Table 2.”
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blue stars ( e.g., F / G stars ) fainter than r ∼ 23 will have about 50% larger proper-motion and parallax errors than given in the table, due to decreased numbers of z - and y -band detections.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The anticipated total number of visits for a 10 yr LSST survey is about 2.45 million ( ∼ 4.9 million 15 s long exposures, summing over the six fi lters ) .”
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considering this ' extended ' LSST in the context of existing / ongoing surveys would result in a system-wide cumulative completeness of 86% for PHAs ( 77% for NEOs ) , approaching the 90% required by the congressional mandate ( see bottom panels of Figure 20 ) .”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All potentially hazardous asteroids are assumed to be C-type asteroids.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By improving MOPS and increasing the MOPS linking window from 15 to 30 days, we can boost completeness by about 3%.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All potentially hazardous asteroids are assumed to be C-type asteroids.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all six bands they imply single-visit depths m 5 ( also listed in Table 2 ) that lie between the minimum and design speci fi cation values from the SRD listed in Table 1.”
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taking weather into account, the selected fi elds would each have on average about 40 hr long sequences of 200 exposures each.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The impact on red stars is smaller, due to a relatively small number of observations in the u and g bands, but extremely red objects, such as L and T dwarfs, will de fi nitely have larger errors, depending on details of their SEDs.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Realistic MOPS simulations show > 99% linking ef fi ciency across all classes of solar system objects ( Denneau et al. 2013 ) , and at least 93% ef fi ciency for NEOs ( Vere š & Chesley 2017a, 2017b ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Denneau et al. 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Vereš & Chesley 2017a, 2017b
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After the fi rst 3 yr of the survey, the proper-motion errors will be about fi ve times as large, and parallax errors will be about twice as large, as the values given in Table 3; the errors scale as t -3 / 2 and t -1 / 2 , respectively.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When all 40 sequences and the main survey visits are co-added, they would extend the depth to r ∼ 28.”
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These fi gures are likely to be uncertain at the level of ± 5%, due to uncertainties in the orbital distribution of the true population, the size distribution, uncertain distributions of shape ( and thus light-curve variations ) , and surface properties ( thus colors and albedo ) , plus variations in survey cadence due to weather, etc.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All potentially hazardous asteroids are assumed to be C-type asteroids.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accounting for readout time and fi lter changes, it could obtain about 50 consecutive 15 s exposures in each of four fi lters in an hour.”
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This cadence spends 6% of the total observing time on NEO-optimized observations north of δ = + 5 ° , and MOPS links objects with windows of 15 days.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All potentially hazardous asteroids are assumed to be C-type asteroids.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the nominal exposure time of 30 s and θ = 0 7, the loss of limiting magnitude is 0.04 mag for v = 0 ° . 25 day -1 , typical for objects in the main asteroid belt, and 0.46 mag for v = 1 ° . 0 day -1 , typical of PHAs passing near Earth.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overwhelming majority of the almost 8000 refereed papers based on SDSS data to date have been written by scientists from outside the project”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As of 2017, 34 institutions from 23 countries have signed Memoranda of Agreement to contribute signi fi cantly to the LSST operating costs, in exchange for participation in the science collaborations and data access.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST science collaborations in particular have helped develop the LSST science case and continue to provide advice on how to optimize their science”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there are over 800 participants in these collaborations.”
plainn = 800- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The project is in the construction phase and will begin regular survey operations by 2022.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 3
“the 10 yr sky survey is projected to begin in 2022.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST construction will be completed and the survey will operate for the planned 10 years.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 3
In the paper
“The LSST design is driven by four main science themes: probing dark energy and dark matter, taking an inventory of the solar system, exploring the transient optical sky, and mapping the Milky Way.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Science Working Group of the LSST & Strauss 2004
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will be a large, wide- fi eld ground-based system designed to obtain repeated images covering the sky visible from Cerro Pachón in northern Chile.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 3
“Located on Cerro Pachón in northern Chile, the LSST will be a large, widefi eld, ground-based telescope designed to obtain multiband images over a substantial fraction of the sky every few nights.”
Not yet classified.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 3
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The telescope will have an 8.4 m ( 6.5 m effective ) primary mirror, a 9.6 deg 2 fi eld of view, a 3.2-gigapixel camera, and six fi lters ( ugrizy ) covering the wavelength range 320 -1050 nm.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST system will achieve the specified design parameters (mirror, field of view, camera, filters) in operation.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Distinguishing competing models for the physical nature of dark energy, or alternative explanations involving modi fi cations of the general theory of relativity, will require percent-level measurements of both the cosmic expansion and the growth of dark matter structure as a function of redshift.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and will yield a co-added map to r ∼ 27.5.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST system will achieve the specified design parameters (mirror, field of view, camera, filters) in operation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Photometric repeatability should achieve 5 mmag precision at the bright end, with zero-point stability across the sky of 10 mmag and band-to-band calibration errors not larger than 5 mmag.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“SNe Ia provided the fi rst robust evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike other cosmological probes, even a single object gives information on the relationship between redshift and distance.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, a large number of SNe across the sky allows one to search for any dependence of dark energy properties on direction, which would be an indicator of new physics.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We illustrate how the LSST science drivers led to these choices of system parameters”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 4
“The purpose of this paper is to provide an overall summary of the main LSST science drivers and how they led to the current system design parameters”
Not yet classified.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 4
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“WL techniques can be used to map the distribution of mass as a function of redshift and thereby trace the history of both the expansion of the universe and the growth of structure”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Current models of cosmology require the existence of both dark matter and dark energy to match observational constraints”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The results from this method can be compared with similar measures of anisotropy from the combination of WL and LSS ( Zhan et al. 2009 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhan et al. 2009 source
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the expected SN fl ux distribution at the redshifts where dark energy is important, the single-visit depth should be at least r ∼ 24.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The expected supernova flux distribution at dark-energy-relevant redshifts is known.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Image quality should maintain the limit set by the atmosphere ( the median free-air seeing is 0 65 in the r band at the chosen site; see Figure 1 ) and not be degraded appreciably by the hardware.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We note that the Pan-STARRS project ( Kaiser et al. 2002, 2010 ) , with similar science goals to LSST, envisions a distributed aperture design, where the total system étendue is a sum of étendue values for an array of small 1.8 m telescopes.”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The challenge is to turn this available precision into accuracy, by careful modeling and marginalization over a variety of systematic effects”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Krause & Eifler 2017
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Milky Way and its environment provide a unique data set for understanding the detailed processes that shape galaxy formation and for testing the smallscale predictions of our standard cosmological model.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent surveys have shown the power of measuring variability of celestial sources for studying gravitational lensing, searching for SNe, determining the physical properties of gamma-ray burst sources, discovering gravitational wave counterparts, probing the structure of active galactic nuclei ( AGNs ) , studying variable star populations, discovering exoplanets, and many other subjects at the fore”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites SciBook, Chap. 8
- Not checked yetcites Law et al. 2009 source
- Not checked yetcites Djorgovski et al. 2012
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This depth, as well as the corresponding deep surface brightness limit, optimizes the number of galaxies with measured shapes in ground-based seeing and allows their detection in signi fi cant numbers to beyond a redshift of two.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To fully exploit the SN science potential, light curves sampled in multiple bands every few days over the course of a few months are required.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cross-correlation of the three-dimensional mass distribution -as probed by neutral hydrogen in CHIME ( Newburgh et al. 2014 ) , HIRAX ( Newburgh et al. 2016 ) , or SKA, or galaxies in DESI and PFS -with the gravitational growth probed by tomographic shear in LSST will be a complementary way to constrain dark energy properties beyond simply characterizing its equation of state and to test the”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Carrying out these K -corrections requires that the calibration of the relative offsets in photometric zero-points between fi lters and the system response functions, especially near the edges of bandpasses, be accurate to about 1% ( Wood-Vasey et al. 2007 )”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wood-Vasey et al. 2007 source
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Large survey volumes are key to probing dynamical dark energy models ( with subhorizon dark energy clustering or anisotropic stresses ) .”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the most robust cosmological constraints are the result of using interlocking combinations of probes.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to control systematic errors in shear measurement, the desired depth must be achieved with many short exposures”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Deeper data ( r > 26 ) for small areas of the sky can extend the discovery of SNe to a mean redshift of 0.7 ( from ∼ 0.5 for the main survey ) , with some objects beyond z ∼ 1 ( Garnavich et al. 2004; Pinto et al. 2004; SciBook, Chap. 11 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garnavich et al. 2004
- Not checked yetcites Pinto et al. 2004
- Not checked yetcites SciBook, Chap. 11
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“rather than simply co-adding all images in a given region of sky, the individual exposures, each with their own PSF and noise characteristics, should be analyzed simultaneously to optimally measure the shapes of galaxies”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tyson et al. 2008
- Not checked yetcites Jee & Tyson 2011
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The single-visit depth should reach r ∼ 24.5.”
- Also stated in: § 2.1.2. Taking an Inventory of the Solar System · p. 6
“The images should reach a depth of at least 24.5 ( 5 σ for point sources ) in the r band to reach high completeness down to the 140 m mandate for NEOs.”
- Also stated in: § 2.2.1. The Aperture Size · p. 9
“the depth of a single visit, r ∼ 24.5”
Not yet classified.
- Also stated in: § 2.1.2. Taking an Inventory of the Solar System · p. 6
In the paper
“Three of the primary dark energy probes, WL, LSS, and SN, provide unique and independent constraints on the LSST system design ( SciBook, Chaps. 11 -15 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites SciBook, Chaps. 11-15
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“that will uniformly observe a 18,000 deg 2 region about 800 times ( summed over all six bands ) during the anticipated 10 yr of operations”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST construction will be completed and the survey will operate for the planned 10 years.
- Rests on an assumption: The observing time allocation and survey cadence described will be implemented as planned.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analyzing these data will require sophisticated data processing techniques.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“A major challenge in extragalactic cosmology today concerns the formation of structure on subgalactic scales, where baryon physics becomes important, and the nature of dark matter may manifest itself in observable ways ( e.g., Weinberg et al. 2015 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Weinberg et al. 2015 source
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is essential to search for systematic differences in SN populations ( e.g., due to differing progenitor channels ) , which may masquerade as cosmological effects, as well as to determine photometric redshifts from the SNe themselves.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strongest constraints on the LSST image quality arise from this science program.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Observations in at least fi ve photometric bands will allow proper K -corrected light curves to be measured over a range of redshift.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Measurements of cosmic shear as a function of redshift allow determination of angular distances versus cosmic time, providing multiple independent constraints on the nature of dark energy.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About 90% of the observing time will be devoted to a deep-wide-fast survey mode”
- Also stated in: § 2. From Science Drivers to Reference Design · p. 4
“About 90% of the observing time will be devoted to a deep-wide-fast ( main ) survey mode.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The observing time allocation and survey cadence described will be implemented as planned.
- Also stated in: § 2. From Science Drivers to Reference Design · p. 4
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Good image quality is required to separate SN photometrically from their host galaxies.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These investigations require deep wide-area multicolor imaging with stringent requirements on shear systematics in at least two bands, and excellent photometry in at least fi ve bands to measure photometric redshifts”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining 10% of the observing time will be allocated to special projects such as Very Deep and Very Fast time domain surveys, whose details are currently under discussion.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The observing time allocation and survey cadence described will be implemented as planned.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most powerful probes include weak gravitational lens cosmic shear ( weak lensing ( WL )) , galaxy clustering and baryon acoustic oscillations ( large-scale structure, LSS ) , the mass function and clustering of clusters of galaxies, time delays in lensed quasar and supernova ( SN ) systems, and photometry of Type Ia SNe -all as functions of redshift.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The LSST fi lter complement ( ugrizy ; see Figure 4 ) is modeled after the SDSS system ( Fukugita et al. 1996 ) because of its demonstrated success in a wide variety of applications, including photometric redshifts of galaxies ( Budavári et al. 2003 ) , separation of stellar populations ( Lenz et al. 1998; Helmi et al. 2003 ) , and photometric selection of quasars ( Richards et al. 2002; Ross et”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In times of good seeing and at low air mass, preference is given to r - and i -band observations.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The single-visit exposure time should be less than about a minute to prevent trailing of fast-moving objects and to aid control of various systematic effects induced by the atmosphere. It should be longer than ∼ 20 s to avoid signi fi cant ef fi ciency losses due to fi nite readout, slew time, and read noise.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total number of visits of any given area of sky, when accounting for all fi lters, should be of the order of 1000, as mandated by WL science, the search for NEOs, and proper-motion and trigonometric parallax measurements.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distribution of visits per filter should enable accurate photometric redshifts, separation of stellar populations, and suf fi cient depth to enable detection of faint extremely red sources ( e.g., brown dwarfs and high-redshift quasars ) .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining 10% of the observing time will be used to obtain improved coverage of parameter space such as very deep ( r ∼ 26 ) observations, observations with very short revisit times ( ∼ 1 minute ) , and observations of ' special ' regions such as the ecliptic plane, Galactic plane, and the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To maintain ef fi ciency losses below ∼ 30% ( i.e., at least below the limit set by the weather patterns ) , and to minimize the read noise impact, t vis > 20 s is required.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A primary mirror effective diameter of ∼ 6.5 m. With the adopted optical design, described below, this effective diameter corresponds to a geometrical diameter of ∼ 8 m. Motivated by characteristics of the existing equipment at the Steward Mirror Laboratory, which fabricated the primary mirror, the adopted geometrical diameter is set to 8.4 m.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional coverage of a crescent within 10 degrees of the northern ecliptic plane would sample the full azimuthal distribution of KBOs, crucial for understanding the different dynamical families in which they fall.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ranking criteria also ensure that the visits to each fi eld are widely distributed in position angle on the sky and rotation angle of the camera in order to minimize systematic effects in galaxy shape determination.”
Not yet classified.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the LSST system will explicitly measure the atmospheric transmission spectrum associated with each image acquired.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extensive precursor data including the SDSS data set and our own data obtained using telescopes close to the LSST site of Cerro Pachón ( e.g., the SOAR and Gemini South telescopes ) , as well as telescopes of similar aperture ( e.g., Subaru ) , indicate that the photometric and astrometric accuracy will be limited not by our instrumentation or software, but rather by atmospheric effects.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to measure the tangential velocity of stars at a distance of 10 kpc, where the halo dominates over the disk, to within 10 km s -1 ( comparable to the accuracy of large-scale radial velocity surveys ) , the proper-motion accuracy should be 0.2 mas yr -1 or better.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this reason, the sky area for the main survey is maximized to its practical limit, 18,000 deg 2 , determined by the requirement to avoid air masses less than 1.5, which would substantially deteriorate the image quality and the survey depth ( see Equation ( 6 )) .”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The overall photometric calibration philosophy ( Stubbs & Tonry 2006 ) is to measure explicitly, at 1 nm resolution, the instrumental sensitivity as a function of wavelength using light from a monochromatic source injected into the telescope pupil.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stubbs & Tonry 2006
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The data collected by the LSST system will be automatically reduced to scienti fi cally useful catalogs and images by the LSST Data Management ( DM; Juri ć et al. 2017a ) system.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jurić et al. 2017a
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data processing, data products, and data access should result in data products that approach the statistical uncertainties in the raw data, i.e., the processing must be close to optimal. To enable fast and ef fi cient response to transient sources, the processing latency for variable sources should be less than a minute, with a robust and accurate preliminary characterization of all reported vari”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The chosen fi lter complement corresponds to a design ' sweet spot. '”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A visit exposure time of 30 s ( using two 15 s exposures to ef fi ciently reject cosmic rays; the possibility of a single exposure per visit, to improve observing ef fi ciency, will be investigated during the commissioning phase ) , yielding ò = 77%.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, we plan to extend the universal cadence to this region using the r and i fi lters only, along with more relaxed limits on air mass and seeing.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We present here a speci fi c realization, the so-called ' universal cadence, ' which yields the main deep-wide-fast survey and meets our core science goals.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such an instrument would probe the ∼ 100 m size range at main belt distances and discover rare distant TNOs such as Sedna ( Brown et al. 2004 ) and 2012 VP113 ( Trujillo & Sheppard 2014 ) .”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A system with a smaller étendue would require separate specialized surveys to address the science goals, which results in a loss of surveying ef fi ciency.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As often as possible, each fi eld will be observed twice, with visits separated by 15 -60 minutes.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Placing the red edge of the u band blueward of the Balmer break allows optimal separation of stars and quasars, and the telluric water absorption feature at 9500 Å effectively de fi nes the blue edge of the y band.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Mapping the Galaxy requires large-area coverage; excellent image quality to maximize photometric and astrometric accuracy, especially in crowded fi elds; photometric precision of at least 1% to separate main-sequence and giant stars ( e.g., Helmi et al. 2003 ) , as well as to identify variable stars such as RR Lyrae ( Sesar et al. 2010; Sharma et al. 2011 ) ; and systematic astrometric errors not”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The adopted survey lifetime of 10 yr is a compromise between a shorter time, which leads to an excessively large and expensive mirror ( 15 m for a 3 yr survey and 12 m for a 5 yr survey ) and not as effective proper-motion measurements, and a smaller telescope, which would require more time to complete the survey, with the associated increase in operations cost.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This strategy will provide motion vectors to link detections of moving objects in the solar system and fi ne-time sampling for measuring short-period variability.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The extension of the SDSS system to longer wavelengths ( the y band at ∼ 1 μ m ) is driven by the increased effective redshift range achievable with the LSST, due to deeper imaging; the desire to study substellar objects, high-redshift quasars, and regions of the Galaxy that are obscured by interstellar dust; and the scienti fi c opportunity enabled by modern CCDs with high quantum ef fi ciency in”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The vast majority ( about 90% ) of the observing time will be devoted to a deepwide-fast survey mode of the sort we have just described, with the remaining 10% allocated to special programs that will also address multiple science goals.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, any one of the four main science drivers could be removed, and the remaining three would still yield very similar requirements for most system parameters.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The co-added survey depth should reach r ∼ 27.5, with suf fi cient signal-to-noise ratio ( S / N ) in other bands to address both extragalactic and Galactic science drivers.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Astrometric calibration will be based on the results from the Gaia mission ( Lindegren et al. 2018 ) , which will provide numerous high-accuracy astrometric standards in every LSST fi eld.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lindegren et al. 2018 source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Remarkably, even with these joint requirements, none of the individual science programs are severely overdesigned, i.e., despite their signi fi cant scienti fi c diversity, these programs are highly compatible in terms of desired data characteristics.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The filter complement should include at least six fi lters in the wavelength range limited by atmospheric absorption and silicon detection ef fi ciency ( 320 -1050 nm ) , with roughly rectangular fi lters and no large gaps in the coverage, in order to enable robust and accurate photometric redshifts and stellar typing.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The images must be well sampled to enable accurate astrometry, with absolute accuracy of at least 0 1 in order to measure orbital parameters of TNOs with enough precision to constrain theoretical models and enable prediction of occultations.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, given the science requirements as stated here, there is a minimum étendue of ∼ 300 deg 2 m 2 , which enables our seemingly disparate science goals to be addressed with a single data set.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individual exposures should be shorter than about 30 s to minimize the effects of trailing for the majority of moving objects.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“A dedicated 1.2 m auxiliary calibration telescope will obtain spectra of standard stars in LSST fi elds, calibrating the atmospheric throughput as a function of wavelength ( Stubbs et al. 2007; see Figures 5 and 6 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stubbs et al. 2007 source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These three requirements place a fi rm upper limit on the optimal visit exposure time of t vis < 40 s.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Two visits per night are assumed.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Uniform cadence is assumed for the mean revisit time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Precise determination of the PSF across each image, accurate photometric and astrometric calibration, and continuous monitoring of system performance and observing conditions will be needed to reach the full potential of the LSST mission.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The congressional mandate can be ful fi lled with a 10 m class telescope equipped with a multi-gigapixel camera and a sophisticated and robust data processing system ( Ivezi ć et al. 2007b ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ivezić et al. 2007b
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main deep-wide-fast survey will use about 90% of the observing time.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have investigated the possibility of replacing the ugrizy system with a fi lter complement that includes only fi ve fi lters. For example, each fi lter width could be increased by 20% over the same wavelength range ( neither a shorter wavelength range nor gaps in the wavelength coverage are desirable options ) , but this option is not satisfactory.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST observing strategy is designed to maximize the scienti fi c throughput by minimizing slew and other downtime and by making appropriate choices of the fi lter bands given the realtime weather conditions.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A revisit time of 3 days on average for 10,000 deg 2 of sky, with two visits per night.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The observing strategy for the main survey will be optimized for the homogeneity of depth and number of visits.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The photometric calibration should be better than 1% -2% to measure asteroids ' colors and thus determine their types.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, the chosen primary mirror diameter is the minimum diameter that simultaneously satis fi es the depth ( r ∼ 24.5 for single visit and r ∼ 27.5 for co-added depth ) and cadence ( revisit time of 3 -4 days, with 30 s per visit ) constraints described above.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The universal cadence provides most of LSST ' s power for detecting NEOs and Kuiper Belt objects ( KBOs ) and naturally incorporates the southern half of the ecliptic within its 18,000 square degrees, with a decl. cut of about δ = + 2 ° .”
Not yet classified.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The planned calibration process decouples the establishment of a stable and uniform internal relative calibration from the task of assigning absolute optical fl ux to celestial objects.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The required co-added survey depth provides a direct constraint, independent of the details of survey execution such as the exposure time per visit, on the minimum effective primary mirror diameter of 6.4 m, as illustrated in Figure 2.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: 22% of the total observing time, corrected for weather and other losses, is allocated for the r band.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ratio of the surveyed sky area to the field-of-view area is 2000.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A larger fi eld of view would lead to unacceptable deterioration of the image quality.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The revisit time distribution should enable determination of orbits of solar system objects and sample SN light curves every few days, while accommodating constraints set by proper-motion and trigonometric parallax measurements.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a last option, the riz bands could be redesigned as two wider bands. However, this option is also undesirable because the r and i bands are the primary bands for WL studies and for star / galaxy separation, and atmospheric dispersion would worsen the PSF for a wider bandpass ( e.g., at air mass of 1.3, the typical dispersion in the u , g , and r bands is 0 55, 0 46, and 0 19, respectively; if”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These surveys aim to extend the parameter space accessible to the main survey by going deeper or by employing different time / fi lter sampling.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This error behavior is a strong independent argument for a survey lifetime of at least 10 yr ( see Section 2 ) .”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the SN sample would be extended to redshifts of z ∼ 1.2, with more densely sampled light curves than obtained from the universal cadence.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to transient science, the prompt products will support discovery and follow-up of objects in the solar system.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Based on SDSS experience ( Sesar et al. 2007 ) , the random photometric error for point sources, as a function of magnitude, is well described 98 by”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sesar et al. 2007 source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The calibration system and procedures are designed to maintain σ sys < 0.005 mag.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the uniform treatment of the sky provided by the universal cadence proposal can satisfy the majority of LSST scienti fi c goals, roughly 10% of the time will be allocated to other strategies that signi fi cantly enhance the scienti fi c return.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another meaning of Cm D ¥ is the loss of depth at the nominal value of t vis due to fi nite readout noise.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, it represents a proof of concept that it is indeed possible to design a observing strategy that addresses a wide variety of science goals in a nearly optimal way.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The alerts to such events will be published within 60 s of observation; we expect several million alerts per night ( Ridgway et al. 2014 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ridgway et al. 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When this assumption is not correct ( e.g., in the u band ) , the coef fi cients Cm do slightly depend on t vis .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have already discussed three examples of such mini-surveys: the northern ecliptic spur to improve completeness of the asteroid and KBO population, the southern celestial cap to extend the survey footprint to the South Pole ( thus providing coverage of the Magellanic Clouds ) , and the Galactic plane survey to include low Galactic latitude fi elds.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to very red V - u colors and the relatively bright limiting magnitude in the y band, the smallest objects are preferentially detected in the griz bands.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When subsequences from a given night were co-added, they would provide dense time sampling to a faint limit of r ∼ 26.5 and would enable deep searches for SNe, TNOs, and other faint transient, moving, and variable sources.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, there are close to 1000 galaxies per sensor with r < 22, which will provide exquisite control of systematic astrometric errors as a function of magnitude, color, and other parameters and thus enable absolute proper-motion measurements.”
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“After accounting for differences in their input assumptions and models, each of these independent works calculates a completeness value that is consistent within a few percent.”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this decoupling between the system sensitivity expressed via Cm and observing conditions is only correct in the limit that the instrumental noise ( dominated by the readout noise ) is negligible compared to the background noise.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The differences in performance between LSST and, for example, SDSS follow directly from these relations.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These four fi elds are only the fi rst chosen for deep-drilling observations.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They will include alerts to objects that were newly discovered or have changed brightness or position at a statistically signi fi cant level.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within this region, the Galactic plane proposal provides 30 observations in each of the six fi lters, distributed roughly logarithmically in time ( it may not be necessary to use the u and g fi lters for this heavily extincted region ) .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These will be generated continuously every observing night, by detecting and characterizing sources in images differenced against deep templates.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The structure of Equation ( 6 ) nicely illustrates decoupling between the system sensitivity that is fully absorbed into Cm and observing conditions speci fi ed by m sky , θ , t vis , km , and X .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the universal cadence proposal excludes observations at low Galactic latitudes, where the high stellar density leads to a confusion limit at much brighter magnitudes than those attained in the rest of the survey.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data collected by the LSST telescope and camera will be automatically processed to data products -catalogs, alerts, and reduced images -by the LSST Data Management system ( Section 2.6.3 ) .”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Hence, LSST will smoothly extend Gaia ' s error versus magnitude curve about 4 mag fainter ( for illustration, see Figure 21 in Ivezi ć et al. 2012 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ivezić et al. 2012 source
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The values of Cm listed in Table 2 assume instrumental noise of 9 e -per pixel and per readout ( whose effect on m 5 is signi fi cant only in the u band ) .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such sequences would also serve as excellent tests of our photometric calibration procedures.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“Even a drift-scanning survey such as SDSS delivers uncorrelated systematic errors ( dominated by seeing effects ) at the level of 20 -30 mas ( measured from repeated scans; Pier et al. 2003 ) ; the expected image quality for LSST will be twice as good as for SDSS.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pier et al. 2003 source
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prompt products, 101 designed to support the discovery, characterization, and rapid follow-up of time-dependent phenomena ( ' transient science ' ) .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MOPS software system and its algorithms are signi fi cantly more advanced than anything previously fi elded for this purpose to date.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both examples, the conclusions crucially depend on the assumed accuracy of the photometry and astrometry, as we now describe.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a given albedo and spherical asteroids, H depends only on the asteroid diameter.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST has already selected four distant extragalactic survey fi elds 97 that the project guarantees to observe as Deep Drilling Fields with deeper coverage and more frequent temporal sampling than provided by the standard LSST observing pattern.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Objects with motions suf fi cient to cause trailing in a single exposure will be identi fi ed and fl agged as such when the alerts are broadcast.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These products are designed to enable a large majority of LSST science cases, without the need to work directly with the raw pixels.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For comparison with Table 3, the SDSS-POSS propermotion measurements have an accuracy of ∼ 5 mas yr -1 per coordinate at r = 20 ( Munn et al. 2004 ) , and Gaia DR 2 has delivered a median uncertainty in parallax of 0.7 mas and in proper motion of 1.2 mas yr -1 at its faint end, approximately corresponding to r = 20 ( Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018; Lindegren et al. 2018 ) .”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The user experience will be nearly identical to working with Jupyter notebooks locally, except that computation and analysis will occur with resources provided at the LSST Data Access Center.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The JupyterLab aspect, which will provide a Jupyter 106 Notebook-like interface and is geared toward enabling next-to-the-data remote analysis. A large suite of commonly used astronomical software, including the LSST software stack ( Section 2.6.4 ) , will be made available through this interface.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each sky position within the main survey area will be observed close to 1000 times, with timescales spanning seven orders of magnitude ( from 30 s to 10 yr ) , and produce roughly 30 trillion photometric measures of celestial sources.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each sky position within the main survey area will be observed close to 1000 times, with timescales spanning seven orders of magnitude ( from 30 s to 10 yr ) , and produce roughly 30 trillion photometric measures of celestial sources.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main product of the LSST system will be a multicolor ugrizy image of about half the sky to unprecedented depth ( r ∼ 27.5 ) .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These will include the ( reduced and raw ) singleepoch images, deep co-adds of the observed sky, catalogs of objects detected in LSST data, catalogs of sources ( the detections and measurements of objects on individual visits ) , and catalogs of ' forced sources ' ( measurements of fl ux on individual visits at locations where objects were detected by LSST or other surveys ) .”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The LSST Science Platform ( Juri ć et al. 2017 ) represents LSST ' s vision for a large-scale astronomical data archive that can enable effective research with data sets of LSST size and complexity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Juri ć et al. 2017
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At i < 25.3 ( S / N > 20 for point sources ) , the photometry of galaxies will be of high enough quality to provide photometric redshifts with an rms accuracy ( σ / ( 1 + z )) of 2% over the range 0.3 < z < 3.0 ( only 10% of the sample will have redshift errors larger than 6% ) .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Known templates for galaxy spectral energy distributions are available for photometric redshift estimation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, while the co-adds will be used to perform object detection , the measurement of their properties will be performed by simultaneously fi tting ( PSF-convolved ) models to all single-epoch observations.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We will make it possible for the end users to create ( or use ) such user-generated 105 products at the LSST Data Facility, using the services offered within the LSST Science Platform ( Section 3.3.1 ) .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data products for these programs will be generated using the same processing system and will be released on the same timescale as the rest of the survey; any specialized processing that these require will be the responsibility of the community.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An extended source model -a constrained linear combination of two Sérsic pro fi les -and a pointsource model with proper motion -will generally be fi tted to each detected object.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the current plans and technology projections, these equate to approximately 2400 cores, 4 PB of fi le storage, and 3 PB of database storage at the beginning of LSST operations ( in 2022 ) .”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST DRs will also include fully reprocessed prompt products, as well as all metadata and software necessary for the end user to reproduce any aspect of LSST DR processing.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Euclid mission ' s planned 6 yr survey should reach a similar galaxy density over 15,000 square degrees of sky ( Laureijs et al. 2011 ) ; its space-based resolution and broadband optical and NIR fi lters should provide a complementary WL survey of comparable constraining power but limited by different systematics.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Laureijs et al. 2011
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The galaxy -shear correlation function probes the growth of dark matter large-scale structure and is a diagnostic of the underlying cosmology.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any given probe constrains degenerate combinations of cosmological parameters, and each probe is affected by different systematics; thus, the combination of probes allows systematics to be calibrated and for degeneracies to be broken.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It will be possible to further improve photometric redshift calibration by crosscorrelating the photometric sample with redshift surveys of galaxies and quasars in the same fi elds ( Newman 2008; Matthews & Newman 2010; Ménard et al. 2013; Davis et al. 2017 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Newman 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites Matthews & Newman 2010
- Not checked yetcites Ménard et al. 2013
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those that are not trailed will be identi fi ed and linked based on their motion from observation to observation, over a period of a few days.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST Science Platform will be a set of web applications ( portals ) and services through which the users will access the LSST data products and, if desired, conduct remote analyses or create user-generated products.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The design and optimization of the LSST system leverage its unique capability to scan a large sky area to a faint fl ux limit in a short amount of time.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Web API aspect will expose the LSST DAC services to other software tools and services using commonly accepted formats and protocols.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“At a slightly brighter cut, there will be around 30 galaxies arcmin -2 with shapes measured well enough for WL measurements ( Chang et al. 2013, 2015 ) , with the number realized in practice being dependent on the performance of the deblending and shape measurement algorithms.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chang et al. 2013, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The web Portal, designed to provide the essential data access and visualization services through a simple-to-use website. It will enable querying and browsing of the available data sets in ways the users are accustomed to at archives such as IRSA, MAST, or the SDSS archive.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As described in Section 3.1.2, approximately 10% of the observing time will be devoted to mini-surveys that do not follow the LSST baseline cadence.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This interface will open the possibility for remote access and analysis of the LSST data set using applications that the users are already comfortable with such as TOPCAT ( Taylor 2005 ) , or libraries such as Astropy ( Astropy Collaboration et al. 2013; Jenness et al. 2016 ) . Furthermore, the offered APIs will allow for federation with other astronomical archives, bringing added value to the LS”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Taylor 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Astropy Collaboration et al. 2013; Jenness et al. 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Not yet classified.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By simultaneously measuring the growth of large-scale structure and luminosity and angular distances as functions of redshift ( via WL, LSS, SN, and cluster counting ) , LSST data can reveal whether the recent cosmic acceleration is due to dark energy or modi fi ed gravity”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A unique aspect of LSST as a probe of dark energy and dark matter is the use of multiple cross-checking probes that reach unprecedented precision ( see Figure 23 ) .”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a comparison, one of the best analogous contemporary data sets is that of SDSS, which provides ugriz images of about a quarter of the sky to r ∼ 22.5, with twice as large seeing ( see Figures 21 and 22 ) .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the presence of BAOs in the galaxy angular correlation functions is a strong cosmological probe on its own.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These measurements consist of the two-point auto- and cross-correlations of shear and positions for billions of galaxies across ∼ 10 redshift bins.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The characterization will be accomplished by sampling, with up to ∼ 200 ( independent ) likelihood samples retained for each object.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For storage cost reasons, these samples may be retained only for those bands of greatest interest for WL studies.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The WFIRST baseline survey is expected to cover some 2000 square degrees but reach a galaxy density of 45 arcmin -2 ( Spergel et al. 2015 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spergel et al. 2015
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This number represents a requirement on the accuracy of the photometry at delivering photometric redshifts given known templates for the SEDs.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: Known templates for galaxy spectral energy distributions are available for photometric redshift estimation.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The galaxy -galaxy correlation function is vital to constrain the galaxy bias impacting the galaxy -shear correlation and is therefore an essential component in the joint analysis of LSS and WL.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their orbits as derived by MOPS will be published within 24 hr of identi fi cation.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ef fi ciency of linking ( and thus the completeness of the resulting orbit catalog ) will depend on the fi nal observing cadence chosen for LSST, as well as the performance of the linking algorithm ( Section 3.2.2 ) .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2. DR products 102 are designed to enable systematics- and fl ux-limited science and will be made available in annual DRs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately 10% of the total budget for the LSST Data Facility compute and storage capacity has been reserved for the LSST Science Platform needs, and to be shared by all LSST DAC users.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A noteworthy aspect of LSST DR processing is that it will largely rely on multi-epoch model fi tting, or MultiFit , to perform near-optimal characterization of object properties.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“WL and LSS are highly complementary probes, and the combination of their autoand cross-correlations will constrain the properties of the late-time accelerated expansion while providing internal cross-checks for marginalizing over systematic uncertainties ( e.g., Mandelbaum 2018 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mandelbaum 2018 source
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The combination with the galaxy -velocity correlation function estimated from currently planned spectroscopic surveys could test general relativity and its variants at high redshift ( Reyes et al. 2010 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reyes et al. 2010 source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is an implementation of the ' bringing computation to the data ' paradigm: rather than imposing the burden of downloading, storing, and processing ( potentially large ) subsets of LSST data at their home institutions, we make it possible for the users to bring their codes and perform analyses at the LSST DAC. This reduces the barrier to entry and shortens the path to science for the LSST sci”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median redshift for this sample will be z ∼ 1.2, with the third quartile at z ∼ 2.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dark energy manifests itself in two ways. The fi rst is the relationship between redshift and distance ( the Hubble diagram ) , or equivalently the expansion rate of the universe as a function of cosmic time. The second is the rate at which matter clusters with time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The platform makes this possible through three user-facing aspects :”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Barnard et al. ( 2008 ) showed that in a high-dimensional dark energy model space, LSST data could lead to a hundred- to thousand-fold increase in precision over its precursor experiments, thereby con fi rming its status as a premier Stage IV experiment in the sense of Albrecht et al. ( 2006 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barnard et al. ( 2008 ) source
- Not checked yetcites Albrecht et al. ( 2006 )
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Tens of thousands of galaxy -galaxy lenses will provide the needed statistics to probe dark matter halo pro fi les and substructure ( e.g., Mandelbaum et al. 2006; Vegetti et al. 2012 ) .”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to the usual use of SNe Ia to probe the redshift -distance relation to high redshift, the luminosities will be magni fi ed by lensing from foreground structure, a correlation that can be probed with these data.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This sample of SNe can be used as a tracer of large-scale structure by directly probing the gravitational potential of structure through inferences of their peculiar velocities ( Gordon et al. 2007; Bhattacharya et al. 2011; Howlett et al. 2017 ) , WL of SN brightnesses ( Dodelson & Vallinotto 2006; Quartin et al. 2014; Macaulay et al. 2017; Scovacricchi et al. 2017 ) , and the local bulk fl”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the current constraints on neutrino mass mixing, this is at the level to determine whether there is an inverted neutrino mass hierarchy, a fundamental question in particle physics.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“LSST will also discover between 500 and 1000 strongly lensed SNe Ia ( Goldstein & Nugent 2017; Goldstein et al. 2018 ) , which will provide hundreds of additional high-quality time delays.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldstein & Nugent 2017
- Not checked yetcites Goldstein et al. 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Time delays of galaxy-scale lensed quasars will allow one to measure Hubble ' s constant ( e.g., Suyu et al. 2010; Bonvin et al. 2017 ) in hundreds of systems; subpercentlevel precision in H ( z ) should be achievable ( Coe & Moustakas 2009; Treu & Marshall 2016 ) , providing a further independent dark energy probe.”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The baseline LSST cadence will result in orbital parameters for several million objects; these will be dominated by main belt asteroids, with light curves and multicolor photometry for a substantial fraction of detected objects.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Standard sirens are a new cosmological probe, demonstrated by the recent discovery of a binary neutron star merger by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory ( LIGO ) with an electromagnetic counterpart ( Abbott et al. 2017a ) , which was used to constrain the Hubble parameter to roughly 15% precision ( Abbott et al. 2017b ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abbott et al. 2017a
- Not checked yetcites Abbott et al. 2017b
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main survey will obtain light curves in six bands and photometric redshifts of about 400,000 photometrically classi fi ed SNe Ia that can be used for cosmological distance measurements, with further spectroscopic follow-up of a subsample of their host galaxies.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“In addition, LSST will identify optical counterparts and provide deep optical imaging for clusters detected in other wavebands ( e.g., Staniszewski et al. 2009 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Staniszewski et al. 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Higher-order shear and galaxy statistics and shear peak counts can improve dark energy constraints and provide self-calibration of various systematics ( Takada & Jain 2004; Dolney et al. 2006; Huterer et al. 2006; Petri et al. 2016 ) .”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a sample will not only provide larger statistics for the study of the Type Ia population in the universe but also be spread across the full 18,000 deg 2 LSST main survey footprint, allowing different probes of the large-scale structure of the low-redshift universe.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The clustering properties of those same galaxy clusters will also be used to constrain cosmological parameters ( Mo et al. 1996; Mana et al. 2013 ) , to marginalize over uncertainties in the mass -observable relation and photometric redshift uncertainties ( Oguri & Takada 2011 ) , and to constrain the effects of supersample covariance in the two-point functions of WL and LSS ( Hu & Kravts”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mo et al. 1996
- Not checked yetcites Mana et al. 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Oguri & Takada 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cluster mass reconstruction based on the multiple image positions can probe the cluster inner mass pro fi le and can provide a separate test of cosmology, especially in cases with strongly lensed background objects at different redshifts ( Porciani & Madau 2000; Oguri & Kawano 2003 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Porciani & Madau 2000
- Not checked yetcites Oguri & Kawano 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are also probes of both primordial nonGaussianities and those caused by nonlinear structure.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ultimate promise of such SN surveys will be linked to the observing strategy employed by the LSST.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Constraints from standard sirens are independent of the local distance ladder, with the primary uncertainties being the local velocity fi eld and the inclination angle of the system.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Primordial non-Gaussianity is also probed by the largescale power of any biased tracer of the matter overdensities ( Dalal et al. 2008 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dalal et al. 2008 source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will be capable of detecting objects like Sedna to beyond 100 au, thus enabling in situ exploration far beyond the edge of the Kuiper Belt at ∼ 50 au.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Understanding these populations, both physically and in their number and size distribution, is a key element in testing various theories of solar system formation and evolution.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We will be able to identify the progenitors of eruptive transients in the deep LSST stacks and even look for faint precursor eruptions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The superb continuum light curves of AGNs will enable economical ' piggyback ' reverberation-mapping efforts using spectroscopy of emission lines”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“A large, well-characterized sample of superluminous SNe, including objects at redshift as high as z = 2.5, a sample large enough to be leveraged for cosmology improving constraints on w and Ω m ( Scovacricchi et al. 2016 )”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scovacricchi et al. 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because most of these objects will be observed several hundred times, accurate orbital elements, colors, and variability information will also be available.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“at least several hundred strongly lensed core-collapse SNe ( Oguri & Marshall 2010 ) are expected to be discovered by LSST.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oguri & Marshall 2010
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Optical identi fi cation of transients and variables detected in other electromagnetic wavebands, from gamma-rays to radio.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Studying the distribution of their orbits ( in particular including any clustering in the argument of perihelion ) will test models predicting the existence of a planetary-mass object beyond Neptune, a proposed Planet 9 ( Trujillo & Sheppard 2014; Batygin & Brown 2016; Brown & Batygin 2016; Sheppard & Trujillo 2016; Brown 2017 ) .”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“LSST will extend the extrasolar planet census to larger distances within the Galaxy, thus enabling detailed studies of planet frequency as a function of stellar metallicity and parent population ( e.g., Hartman et al. 2009; Bayliss & Sackett 2011 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hartman et al. 2009 source
- Not checked yetcites Bayliss & Sackett 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will be some 3 mag more sensitive than current NEO surveys ( like Pan-STARRS1 ) and will cover more sky more often.”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A study of quasar variability using accurate, multicolor light curves for a few million quasars, leading to constraints on the accretion physics and nuclear environments”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST will map the Galaxy in unprecedented detail, and by doing so revolutionize the fi elds of Galactic astronomy and near- fi eld cosmology.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since LSST extends time -volume -color space 50 -100 times over current surveys ( e.g., Djorgovski et al. 2013 ) , it will facilitate new population and statistical studies and also the discovery of new classes of objects.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Djorgovski et al. 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“LSST will discover an unprecedentedly large number of comets, with typically 50 observations per object spread throughout their orbits during the 10 yr survey, and will help us to constrain models of the origin of comets ( Solontoi 2010; Silsbee & Tremaine 2016 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Solontoi 2010
- Not checked yetcites Silsbee & Tremaine 2016
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“We will also constrain the rates of individual eruption subclasses ( Smith 2014 ) by detecting them in galaxies out to tens of megaparsecs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies of dwarf novae, including their use as probes of stellar populations and structure in the Local Group”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Discovery and characterization of thousands of hot Jupiters in exoplanetary systems via the transit method ( Wright et al. 2012 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wright et al. 2012 source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microlensing events will also be monitored in the ∼ 4000 gravitationally lensed quasars discovered by LSST and used to measure the spatial structure of quasar accretion disks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, LSST is likely to fi nd more interstellar objects, and more frequently.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“This will result in a much larger, well-understood sample of inner Oort Cloud objects like Sedna and 2012 VP113 ( Trujillo & Sheppard 2014 ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Trujillo & Sheppard 2014 source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The out-of-transit variability of exoplanet host stars will also provide characterization of the system via fl aring behavior and stellar age via gyrochronology, the latter helping constrain theories of tidal evolution and migration in giant planets.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Depending on the proposed Planet 9 ' s on-sky location and brightness, it may be possible for LSST to directly detect it in the wide survey images ( Batygin & Brown 2016; Brown & Batygin 2016; Sheppard & Trujillo 2016; Brown 2017 ) .”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the ∼ 100-kilonova sample that LSST is expected to generate will enable comparative studies of these transients”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Estimates from Cook et al. ( 2016 ) , Engelhardt et al. ( 2017 ) , and Trilling et al. ( 2017 ) suggest that LSST will increase the number of such rare objects by an order of magnitude, which, among other outcomes, will help constrain the frequency and properties of planetary system formation in the solar neighborhood.”
What the sources say
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Large-scale studies of stellar tidal disruptions by nuclear supermassive black holes ( e.g., Evans & Kochanek 1989; Gezari et al. 2008; Strubbe & Quataert 2009; Bloom et al. 2011; Gezari 2012; Komossa 2015 )”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Evans & Kochanek 1989
- Not checked yetcites Gezari et al. 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites Strubbe & Quataert 2009
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Combining the CN production rates determined from observations in the u bandpass, as a proxy for overall gas activity, with the nonvolatile production rate calculated from the continuum-sensitive r , i , and z bands allows for the determination of the gas-to-dust ratio.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will also obtain direct distance measurements via trigonometric parallax below the hydrogen-burning limit for a representative thin-disk sample.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will enable studies of the rest-frame UV emission, similar to those based on GALEX data for local galaxies, to a redshift of ∼ 2 for an unprecedentedly large number of galaxies.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The survey will have a raw data rate of about 15 TB per night ( about the same as one complete SDSS per night )”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will also add new value to the archives for billion-dollar-class space missions such as Chandra , XMM-Newton , Spitzer , Herschel , Euclid , and WFIRST , because deep optical multicolor data will enable massive photometric studies of sources from these missions.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“These large populations of disk and halo white dwarfs will provide unprecedented constraints on the luminosity function of these stars, which will directly yield independent ages for the Galactic disk and halo”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kalirai et al. 2008 source
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: Over 97% of all stars eventually exhaust their fuel and cool to become white dwarfs.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will extend the Gaia survey by 4 mag.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST data management system ( Section 3.3 ) will provide user-friendly tools to access this database, support user-initiated queries and data exploration, and carry out scienti fi c analyses on the data”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST survey will open a movie-like window on objects that change brightness, or move, on timescales ranging from 10 s to 10 yr.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the LSST data will revolutionize studies of the Milky Way and the entire Local Group.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The 2010 report ' New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics ' by the Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics ranked LSST as its top priority for large ground-based programs.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“yielding 20 million objects from LSST data alone, and the ability to identify up to ∼ 100 million objects once multiwavelength data are used to aid AGN selection”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ivezić et al. 2014
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the database that it will produce, and the associated object catalogs that are generated from that database, will be made available with no proprietary period to the US and Chilean scienti fi c communities, as well as to those international partners who contribute to operations funding.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many of the highest-priority LSST science investigations will require organized teams of professionals working together”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“generate the largest optical transient stream prior to LSST ( at about 1 / 10 of the LSST rate )”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Laher et al. 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The vast relational database of 32 trillion observations of 40 billion objects will be mined for the unexpected and used for precision experiments in astrophysics.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST will be unique: the combination of large aperture and large fi eld of view, coupled with the needed computation power and database technology, will enable simultaneously fast and wide and deep imaging of the sky, addressing in one sky survey the broad scienti fi c community ' s needs in both the time domain and deep universe.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
In the paper
“2% or better accurate multicolor light curves will be available for a sample of at least 50 million variable stars”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sesar et al. 2007 source
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The LSST will deliver AGN sky densities of 1000 -4000 deg -2 ( top panel ) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brandt & LSST Active Galaxies Science Collaboration (2007)
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Search for strong gravitational lenses to a faint surface brightness limit”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bartelmann et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Tyson et al. 1998 source
- Not checked yetcites Belokurov et al. 2007a
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“will collect about 60 PB of data over its lifetime”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alerts of transient, variable, and moving objects will be issued worldwide within 60 s of detection.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fainter remnant white dwarfs will be uncovered in both open and globular clusters ( the nearest of which are all in the south ) , thereby providing a crucial link to the properties of the now evolved stars in each system.”
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“LSST should discover several thousand AGNs at z ∼ 6 -7.5”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brandt & LSST Active Galaxies Science Collaboration 2007
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“The total LSST AGN yield, selected using colors and variability, should be well over 10 million objects, especially once multiwavelength data are also utilized.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brandt & LSST Active Galaxies Science Collaboration (2007)
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About 20 billion galaxies and a similar number of stars will be detected”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will uncover the largest sample of stellar remnants to date.”
Not yet classified.
- Rests on an assumption: Over 97% of all stars eventually exhaust their fuel and cool to become white dwarfs.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To date, no systematic survey of the stellar populations of southern hemisphere clusters has been performed”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mathieu 2000
- Not checked yetcites Kalirai et al. 2001 source
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will contribute to the national goals of enhancing science literacy and increasing the global competitiveness of the US science and technology workforce.”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This observational progress, based on a synergy of advances in telescope construction, detectors, and, above all, information technology, has had a dramatic impact on nearly all fi elds of astronomy, many areas of fundamental physics, and society in general.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While there are other projects that aim to address some of the same science goals, no other project matches this diversity and LSST ' s potential impact on society in general.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Photometric metallicity measurements ( see Figures 28 and 29 ) will be available for about 200 million main-sequence F / G stars, which will sample the halo to distances of 100 kpc ( Ivezi ć et al. 2008; An et al. 2013 ) over a solid angle of roughly 20,000 deg 2 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ivezić et al. 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites An et al. 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LSST will make available substantial computational resources to the science community to carry out their analyses”
Not yet classified.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST builds on the experience of these surveys and addresses the broad goals stated in several nationally endorsed reports by the US National Academy of Sciences.”
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We expect that many, perhaps even the majority, of LSST discoveries will come from research astronomers with no formal af fi liation to the project, from students, and from interested amateurs”
Not yet classified.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“LSST data will provide good constraints on AGN lifetimes, or at least the timescales over which they make distinct accretion-state transitions”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites MacLeod et al. 2016 source
- Not checked yetcites Martini & Schneider 2003
Not yet classified.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LSST in its standard surveying mode will be able to detect RR Lyrae variables ( pulsating stars and standard candles ) and classical novae ( exploding stars and standard candles ) at a distance of 400 kpc and hence explore the extent and structure of our halo out to half the distance to the Andromeda galaxy.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The fi rst wide- fi eld survey of ultra-low-surface-brightness galaxies, with photometric redshift information.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Greco et al. 2018 source
Not yet classified.
The paper relies on this without support.
The LSST construction will be completed and the survey will operate for the planned 10 years.
“The project is in the construction phase and will begin regular survey operations by 2022.”
“during the anticipated 10 yr of operations”
The paper relies on this without support.
The LSST system will achieve the specified design parameters (mirror, field of view, camera, filters) in operation.
“The telescope will have an 8.4 m ( 6.5 m effective ) primary mirror, a 9.6 deg 2 fi eld of view, a 3.2-gigapixel camera, and six fi lters ( ugrizy ) covering the wavelength range 320 -1050 nm.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The detailed WL simulations accurately represent future LSST performance.
“Detailed simulations of WL techniques show that imaging over ∼ 20,000 deg 2 to a 5 σ pointsource depth of r AB ∼ 27.5 gives adequate signal to measure shapes for of order 2 billion galaxies for WL.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The expected supernova flux distribution at dark-energy-relevant redshifts is known.
“Given the expected SN fl ux distribution at the redshifts where dark energy is important, the single-visit depth should be at least r ∼ 24.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The observing time allocation and survey cadence described will be implemented as planned.
“About 90% of the observing time will be devoted to a deep-wide-fast survey mode”
The authors state this as an assumption.
22% of the total observing time, corrected for weather and other losses, is allocated for the r band.
“It is assumed that 22% of the total observing time ( corrected for weather and other losses ) is allocated for the r band and that the ratio of the surveyed sky area to the fi eld-of-view area is 2000.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The ratio of the surveyed sky area to the field-of-view area is 2000.
“It is assumed that 22% of the total observing time ( corrected for weather and other losses ) is allocated for the r band and that the ratio of the surveyed sky area to the fi eld-of-view area is 2000.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Two visits per night are assumed.
“where two visits per night are assumed ( required for ef fi cient detection of solar system objects; see below ) and the losses for realistic observing conditions have been taken into account ( with the aid of the Operations Simulator described below ) .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Uniform cadence is assumed for the mean revisit time.
“The mean revisit time ( assuming uniform cadence ) for a given position on the sky, n , scales as”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Astrometric accuracy of 10 mas per observation per coordinate is assumed.
“To achieve the required proper-motion and parallax accuracy with an assumed astrometric accuracy of 10 mas per observation per coordinate, approximately 1000 separate observations are required.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
An air mass of 1.2 is assumed for atmospheric transmission in Figure 4.
“The computation includes the atmospheric transmission ( assuming an air mass of 1.2; dotted line ) , optics, and the detector sensitivity.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The outer scale parameter of 30 m over an 8.4 m aperture is used for DIMM correction.
“Image quality distribution measured at the Cerro Pachón site using a differential image motion monitor ( DIMM ) at λ = 500 nm, and corrected using an outer scale parameter of 30 m over an 8.4 m aperture.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The survey lifetime T is about 10 years.
“The requirement N visit > 800 again implies that n < 4 and t vis < 40 s if the survey lifetime, T , is about 10 yr.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each galaxy in the quasar/AGN simulation hosts at most one AGN.
“Each galaxy hosts at most one AGN, and no explicit distinction is made between low-luminosity AGNs and quasars that dramatically outshine their host galaxies.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The simulation does not explicitly distinguish between low-luminosity AGNs and quasars that dramatically outshine their host galaxies.
“Each galaxy hosts at most one AGN, and no explicit distinction is made between low-luminosity AGNs and quasars that dramatically outshine their host galaxies.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
All potentially hazardous asteroids are assumed to be C-type asteroids.
“assuming that all PHAs are C-type asteroids”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Systematic astrometric errors of 10 mas are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.
“Systematic errors of 10 mas are added in quadrature and are assumed to be uncorrelated between different observations of a given object.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The gravitational wave detector network will be operating well.
“Assuming that the gravitational wave network is working well, Scolnic et al. ( 2018 ) estimate that LSST could fi nd of order 70 electromagnetic counterparts to standard sirens.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Known templates for galaxy spectral energy distributions are available for photometric redshift estimation.
“This number represents a requirement on the accuracy of the photometry at delivering photometric redshifts given known templates for the SEDs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Over 97% of all stars eventually exhaust their fuel and cool to become white dwarfs.
“Over 97% of all stars eventually exhaust their fuel and cool to become white dwarfs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Different candidate supersymmetric particle dark matter models predict different mass clustering on small scales and different subhalo mass functions for the Milky Way.
“different candidate supersymmetric particle dark matter models predict different mass clustering on small scales, and thus different mass functions for subhalos of the Milky Way.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Experience with large surveys shows that much of their most interesting science is often unrelated to the main science drivers and is often unanticipated at design time.
“The experience with any large survey ( e.g., SDSS, 2MASS, VISTA, WISE , GALEX , to name but a few ) is that much of their most interesting science is often unrelated to the main science drivers and is often unanticipated at the time the survey is designed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The LSST project will be constructed and will operate as designed, so that the projected survey properties (data rates, cadence, yields and alert latency) will be realised.
“The telescope will see fi rst light with a commissioning camera in late 2019, and the project is scheduled to begin regular survey operations by 2022.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“with LSST predicted to output over 500 petabytes of imaging data including billions of galaxies (Ivezić et al. 2019).”
From Detecting galaxy tidal features using self-supervised representation learning (2024) · cites this paper as Ivezić et al. 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 2.2.1. The Aperture Size · p. 9
“determined by the requirement to avoid air masses less than 1.5, which would substantially deteriorate the image quality and the survey depth”
§ Notes. · p. 22
“For larger air mass the 5 σ depth is brighter; see the bottom row.”
Citations
Cites
Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., Clocchiatti, A., Diercks, A., Garnavich, P. M., Gilliland, R. L., Hogan, C. J., Jha, S., Kirshner, R. P., et al. (1998) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/300499 · Cited by 19,704 · cited 1×
“Type Ia supernovae provided the first robust evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMeasurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High‐Redshift Supernovae
Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., Knop, R. A., Nugent, P., Castro, P. G., Deustua, S., Fabbro, S., Goobar, A., Groom, D. E., et al. (1999) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/307221 · Cited by 18,062
Self-citationSchlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. (1998) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/305772 · Cited by 15,126 · cited 1×
“To provide consistency with the modeling of extragalactic fluxes in the simulations, the dust model in the Milky Way integrated to 100 kpc is re-normalized to match the Schlegel et al. (1998) dust maps.”
MethodAstropy: A community Python package for astronomy
The Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., Droettboom, M., Bray, E., Aldcroft, T., Davis, M., Ginsburg, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. (2013) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 · Cited by 14,620
Self-citationThe Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS)
Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., Weinberg, M. D., Schneider, S., Carpenter, J. M., Beichman, C., Capps, R., Chester, T., Elias, J., et al. (2006) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/498708 · Cited by 12,019 · cited 1×
“As vividly demonstrated by surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000), the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS; Skrutskie et al. 2006), and the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX; Martin et al. 2006), to name but a few, sensitive and accurate multi-color surveys over a large…”
BackgroundSelf-citationStellar population synthesis at the resolution of 2003
Bruzual, G. A., & Charlot, S. (2003) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x · Cited by 10,505 · cited 1×
“As with the stellar catalog, an SED is fit to the colors of each source using Bruzual & Charlot (2003) spectral synthesis models.”
MethodGaia Data Release 2: Summary of the contents and survey properties
Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., Babusiaux, C., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Biermann, M., Evans, D. W., Eyer, L., et al. (2018) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 · Cited by 8,442
Self-citationThe Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical Summary
York, D., Adelman, J., Anderson, J., Anderson, S., Annis, J., Bahcall, N., Bakken, J., Barkhouser, R., Bastian, S., Berman, E., et al. (2000) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/301513 · Cited by 8,368
Self-citationFIVE-YEAR WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE OBSERVATIONS: COSMOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R., Bennett, C. L., Gold, B., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Larson, D., Limon, M., Page, L., et al. (2009) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/330 · Cited by 5,786
THE SEVENTH DATA RELEASE OF THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY
Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., Allam, S. S., Prieto, C. A., An, D., Anderson, K. S. J., Anderson, S. F., Annis, J., Bahcall, N. A., et al. (2009) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 · Cited by 5,341
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Bacci, 2017, MPEC, 2017-U181
- Bartelmann, 1998, A&A, 330, 1
- Becla, 2017, LSST Data Management Database Design, LSST Document LDM-135
- LSST Strong Lensing Science Collaboration, 2007, BAAS, 39, 979
- LSST Active Galaxies Science Collaboration, 2007, BAAS, 39, 980
- Cooray, 1999, A&A, 348, 31
- Fitzpatrick, 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9913, 10.1117/12.2231313 · DOI · Paper page
- Garnavich, 2004, BAAS, 36, 1530
- Grav, 2007, BAAS, 39, 807
- The LSST Science Collaboration, 2011, LSST Science Requirements Document, LSST Document LPM-17
- Jedicke, 2005, BAAS, 37, 1363
- Jones, 2007, BAAS, 39, 981
- Jurić, 2013, Winter 2013 LSST DM Data Challenge Release Notes, DM Tech. Note DMTN-035
- Jurić, 2017, LSST Science Platform Vision Document, LSST Document LSE-319
- Jurić, 2017b, LSST Data Products Definition Document, LSST Document LSE-163
- Lowry, 1999, A&A, 349, 649
- Mahabal, 2011, BASI, 39, 387
- Pettersen, 1989, A&A, 217, 187
- Pinto, 2004, BAAS, 36, 1530
- Raddick, 2017, AAS Meeting, 229, 236.15
- Science Working Group of the LSST, 2004, Towards a Design Reference Mission for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, Document-26952
- Stassun, 2013, AAS Meeting, 221, 116.01
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MESA ISOCHRONES AND STELLAR TRACKS (MIST). I. SOLAR-SCALED MODELS
Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., Cantiello, M., Paxton, B., & Johnson, B. D. (2016) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 · Cited by 2,922
The Zwicky Transient Facility: System Overview, Performance, and First Results
Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., Masci, F. J., Hélou, G., Prince, T. A., Adams, S. M., et al. (2018) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe · Cited by 2,077
Self-citationAlam, S., Aubert, M., Avila, S., Balland, C., Bautista, J. E., Bershady, M. A., Bizyaev, D., Blanton, M. R., Bolton, A. S., Bovy, J., et al. (2021) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083533 · Cited by 1,337
Self-citationUnderstanding the Lomb–Scargle Periodogram
Vanderplas, J. (2018) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 · Cited by 1,262
ASTROMETRY.NET: BLIND ASTROMETRIC CALIBRATION OF ARBITRARY ASTRONOMICAL IMAGES
Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M. R., & Roweis, S. T. (2010) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 · Cited by 1,065
Metadata
- Authors
- Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., Abel, B., Acosta, E., Allsman, R., Alonso, D., AlSayyad, Y., Anderson, S. F., Andrew, J., P. Angel, J. R., Angeli, G. Z., Ansari, R., Antilogus, P., Araujo, C., Armstrong, R., Arndt, K. T., Astier, P., Aubourg, É., Auza, N., Axelrod, T. S., Bard, D. J., Barr, J. D., Barrau, A., Bartlett, J. G., Bauer, A. E., Bauman, B. J., Baumont, S., Bechtol, E., Bechtol, K., Becker, A. C., Becla, J., Beldica, C., Bellavia, S., Bianco, F. B., Biswas, R., Blanc, G., Blazek, J., Blandford, R. D., Bloom, J. S., Bogart, J., Bond, T. W., Booth, M. T., Borgland, A. W., Borne, K., Bosch, J. F., Boutigny, D., Brackett, C. A., Bradshaw, A., Brandt, W. N., Brown, M. E., Bullock, J. S., Burchat, P., Burke, D. L., Cagnoli, G., Calabrese, D., Callahan, S., Callen, A. L., Carlin, J. L., Carlson, E. L., Chandrasekharan, S., Charles-Emerson, G., Chesley, S., Cheu, E. C., Chiang, H.-F., Chiang, J., Chirino, C., Chow, D., Ciardi, D. R., Claver, C. F., Cohen-Tanugi, J., Cockrum, J. J., Coles, R., Connolly, A. J., Cook, K. H., Cooray, A., Covey, K. R., Cribbs, C., Cui, W., Cutri, R., Daly, P. N., Daniel, S. F., Daruich, F., Daubard, G., Daues, G., Dawson, W., Delgado, F., Dellapenna, A., Peyster, R. D., Val-Borro, M. D., Digel, S. W., Doherty, P., Dubois, R., Dubois-Felsmann, G. P., Durech, J., Economou, F., Eifler, T., Eracleous, M., Emmons, B. L., Neto, A. F., Ferguson, H., Figueroa, E., Fisher-Levine, M., Focke, W., Foss, M. D., Frank, J., Freemon, M. D., Gangler, E., Gawiser, E., Geary, J. C., Gee, P., Geha, M., Gessner, C. J. B., Gibson, R. R., Gilmore, D. K., Glanzman, T., Glick, W., Goldina, T., Goldstein, D. A., Goodenow, I., Graham, M. L., Gressler, W. J., Gris, P., Guy, L. P., Guyonnet, A., Haller, G., Harris, R., Hascall, P. A., Haupt, J., Hernandez, F., Herrmann, S., Hileman, E., Hoblitt, J., Hodgson, J. A., Hogan, C., Howard, J. D., Huang, D., Huffer, M. E., Ingraham, P., Innes, W. R., Jacoby, S. H., Jain, B., Jammes, F., Jee, M. J., Jenness, T., Jernigan, G., Jevremović, D., Johns, K., Johnson, A. S., Johnson, M. W. G., Jones, R. L., Juramy-Gilles, C., Jurić, M., Kalirai, J. S., Kallivayalil, N. J., Kalmbach, B., Kantor, J. P., Karst, P., Kasliwal, M. M., Kelly, H., Kessler, R., Kinnison, V., Kirkby, D., Knox, L., Kotov, I. V., Krabbendam, V. L., Krughoff, K. S., Kubánek, P., Kuczewski, J., Kulkarni, S., Ku, J., Kurita, N. R., Lage, C. S., Lambert, R., Lange, T., Langton, J. B., Guillou, L. L., Levine, D., Liang, M., Lim, K.-T., Lintott, C. J., Long, K. E., Lopez, M., Lotz, P. J., Lupton, R. H., Lust, N. B., MacArthur, L. A., Mahabal, A., Mandelbaum, R., Markiewicz, T. W., Marsh, D. S., Marshall, P. J., Marshall, S., May, M., McKercher, R., McQueen, M., Meyers, J., Migliore, M., Miller, M., Mills, D. J., Miraval, C., Moeyens, J., Moolekamp, F. E., Monet, D. G., Moniez, M., Monkewitz, S., Montgomery, C., Morrison, C. B., Mueller, F., Muller, G. P., Arancibia, F. M., Neill, D. R., Newbry, S. P., Nief, J.-Y., Nomerotski, A., Nordby, M., O’Connor, P., Oliver, J., Olivier, S. S., Olsen, K., O’Mullane, W., Ortiz, S., Osier, S., Owen, R. E., Pain, R., Palecek, P. E., Parejko, J. K., Parsons, J. B., Pease, N. M., Peterson, J. M., Peterson, J. R., Petravick, D. L., Petrick, M. E. L., Petry, C. E., Pierfederici, F., Pietrowicz, S., Pike, R., Pinto, P. A., Plante, R., Plate, S., Plutchak, J. P., Price, P. A., Prouza, M., Radeka, V., Rajagopal, J., Rasmussen, A. P., Regnault, N., Reil, K. A., Reiss, D. J., Reuter, M. A., Ridgway, S. T., Riot, V. J., Ritz, S., Robinson, S., Roby, W., Roodman, A., Rosing, W., Roucelle, C., Rumore, M. R., Russo, S., Saha, A., Sassolas, B., Schalk, T. L., Schellart, P., Schindler, R. H., Schmidt, S., Schneider, D. P., Schneider, M. D., Schoening, W., Schumacher, G., Schwamb, M. E., Sebag, J., Selvy, B., Sembroski, G. H., Seppala, L. G., Serio, A., Serrano, E., Shaw, R. A., Shipsey, I., Sick, J., Silvestri, N., Slater, C. T., Smith, J. A., Smith, R. C., Sobhani, S., Soldahl, C., Storrie-Lombardi, L., Stover, E., Strauss, M. A., Street, R. A., Stubbs, C. W., Sullivan, I. S., Sweeney, D., Swinbank, J. D., Szalay, A., Takacs, P., Tether, S. A., Thaler, J. J., Thayer, J. G., Thomas, S., Thornton, A. J., Thukral, V., Tice, J., Trilling, D. E., Turri, M., Berg, R. V., Berk, D. V., Vetter, K., Virieux, F., Vucina, T., Wahl, W., Walkowicz, L., Walsh, B., Walter, C. W., Wang, D. L., Wang, S.-Y., Warner, M., Wiecha, O., Willman, B., Winters, S. E., Wittman, D., Wolff, S. C., Wood-Vasey, W. M., Wu, X., Xin, B., Yoachim, P., & Zhan, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Olympic College (US)
- Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Corporation (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Princeton University (US)
- Université Paris-Sud (FR)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Brookhaven National Laboratory (US)
- New York University (US)
- Stockholm University (SE)
- École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- George Mason University (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Western Washington University (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Space Telescope Science Institute (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Yonsei University (KR)
- Astronomical Observatory (RS)
- University of Virginia (US)
- Czech Academy of Sciences (CZ)
- Institut Photovoltaïque d’Île-de-France (FR)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Rider University (US)
- U.S. Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station (US)
- Instituto de Radioastronomía Milimétrica (ES)
- Google (United States) (US)
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network (US)
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- International Gemini Observatory (US)
- Austin Peay State University (US)
- Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CL)
- Bellingham Technical College (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Northern Arizona University (US)
- Saint Vincent College (US)
- Library of Congress (US)
- Duke University (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- ORCID
- Ivezić, Željko
- Kahn, Steven M.
- Tyson, J. Anthony
- AlSayyad, Yusra
- Ansari, Reza
- Antilogus, Pierre
- Armstrong, Robert
- Arndt, Kirk T.
- Aubourg, Éric
- Axelrod, Tim S.
- Bard, Deborah J.
- Bauer, Amanda E.
- Bechtol, Keith
- Becker, Andrew C.
- Bianco, Federica B.
- Blanc, Guillaume
- Blazek, Jonathan
- Blandford, Roger D.
- Bogart, Joanne
- Bosch, James F.
- Boutigny, Dominique
- Bradshaw, Andrew
- Brandt, William Nielsen
- Brown, Michael E.
- Bullock, James S.
- Burchat, Patricia
- Burke, David L.
- Carlin, Jeffrey L.
- Chesley, Steve
- Chiang, Hsin-Fang
- Chiang, James
- Ciardi, David R.
- Cohen-Tanugi, Johann
- Coles, Rebecca
- Connolly, Andrew J.
- Cook, Kem H.
- Cooray, Asantha
- Covey, Kevin R.
- Cui, Wei
- Cutri, Roc
- Daruich, Felipe
- Daubard, Guillaume
- Dawson, William
- Val-Borro, Miguel de
- Digel, Seth W.
- Dubois-Felsmann, Gregory P.
- Economou, Frossie
- Eracleous, Michael
- Neto, Angelo Fausti
- Ferguson, Henry
- Fisher-Levine, Merlin
- Gangler, Emmanuel
- Gawiser, Eric
- Geha, Marla
- Glanzman, Thomas
- Goldstein, Daniel A.
- Graham, Melissa L.
- Guy, Leanne P.
- Guyonnet, Augustin
- Haller, Gunther
- Hernandez, Fabio
- Hoblitt, Joshua
- Ingraham, Patrick
- Innes, Walter R.
- Jenness, Tim
- Johns, Kenneth
- Johnson, Anthony S.
- Jones, R. Lynne
- Jurić, Mario
- Kallivayalil, Nitya J.
- Kalmbach, Bryce
- Kasliwal, Mansi M.
- Kelly, Heather
- Kessler, Richard
- Kirkby, David
- Krughoff, K. Simon
- Kubánek, Petr
- Kulkarni, Shri
- Kurita, Nadine R.
- Lage, Craig S.
- Lange, Travis
- Guillou, Laurent Le
- Lim, Kian-Tat
- Lintott, Chris J.
- Lopez, Margaux
- Lupton, Robert H.
- Lust, Nate B.
- Mandelbaum, Rachel
- Markiewicz, Thomas W.
- Marshall, Philip J.
- Marshall, Stuart
- Meyers, Joshua
- Moeyens, Joachim
- Moolekamp, Fred E.
- Moniez, Marc
- Mueller, Fritz
- Nomerotski, Andrei
- Olsen, Knut
- O’Mullane, William
- Pain, Reynald
- Parejko, John K.
- Pease, Nathan M.
- Peterson, J. Matt
- Peterson, John R.
- Petravick, Donald L.
- Plutchak, Joel P.
- Radeka, Veljko
- Rasmussen, Andrew P.
- Regnault, Nicolas
- Reil, Kevin A.
- Reuter, Michael A.
- Ridgway, Stephen T.
- Riot, Vincent J.
- Roodman, Aaron
- Saha, Abhijit
- Sassolas, Benoit
- Schellart, Pim
- Schindler, Rafe H.
- Schmidt, Samuel
- Schneider, Michael D.
- Schwamb, Megan E.
- Sebag, Jacques
- Serio, Andrew
- Sick, Jonathan
- Slater, Colin T.
- Strauss, Michael A.
- Street, Rachel A.
- Stubbs, Christopher W.
- Sullivan, Ian S.
- Swinbank, John D.
- Szalay, Alexander
- Takacs, Peter
- Thaler, Jon J.
- Thayer, John Gregg
- Thomas, Sandrine
- Thornton, Adam J.
- Trilling, David E.
- Turri, Max
- Vetter, Kurt
- Walkowicz, Lucianne
- Walsh, Brian
- Walter, Christopher W.
- Willman, Beth
- Wittman, David
- Wood-Vasey, W. Michael
- Xin, Bo
- Yoachim, Peter
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2019-03-10
- Volume
- 873
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 111
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2159714423
- Semantic Scholar
- 8e981ddb4877615f7d5f944a8d64789d1388ee87
- Cited by
- 4,357
- References
- 353
- Citations by year
- 2026: 566 · 2025: 730 · 2024: 681 · 2023: 487 · 2022: 466 · 2021: 405 · 2020: 289 · 2019: 204
- FWCI
- 275.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1258333)
- Department of Energy (DE-AC02-76SF00515)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
- Keywords
- LSST, wide-field optical survey, dark energy, dark matter, time-domain surveys, Cerro Pachón
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
