Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Testing for Intrinsic Type Ia Supernova Luminosity Evolution at z>2 with JWST

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that SN 2023aeax, a spectroscopically confirmed Type Ia supernova at $z=2.15$, has a BayeSN-standardized distance modulus of $\mu=46.10^{+0.17}_{-0.18}$ mag, matching the $\Lambda$CDM prediction of $46.12$ mag at the…

desk verdict A useful new z>2 SN Ia point, but the 0.1σ agreement with ΛCDM is softer than it looks once the BayeSN phase/color extrapolation is accounted for. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11953 v3 pith:SQG436RA submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.CO

J. D. R. Pierel , D. A. Coulter , M. R. Siebert , H. B. Akins , M. Engesser , O. D. Fox , M. Franco , A. Rest
show 33 more authors
A. Agrawal Y. Ajay N. Allen C. M. Casey C. Decoursey N. E. Drakos E. Egami A. L. Faisst S. Gezari G. Gozaliasl O. Ilbert D. O. Jones M. Karmen J. S. Kartaltepe A. M. Koekemoer Z. G. Lane R. L. Larson T. Li D. Liu T. J. Moriya H. J. McCracken L. Paquereau R. M. Quimby R. M. Rich J. Rhodes B. E. Robertson D. B. Sanders M. Shahbandeh M. Shuntov J. D. Silverman L. G. Strolger S. Toft Y. Zenati
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords TypeIasupernovahighredshiftJWSTluminositydistancedarkenergySNstandardizationBaye2023aeax
topics Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the discovery and JWST follow-up of SN 2023aeax, a Type Ia supernova at $z=2.15$, only the second spectroscopically confirmed, non-lensed SN Ia in the dark-matter-dominated universe at $z>2$. Applying the BayeSN standardization model to a NIRCam multi-band light curve, the authors measure a distance modulus of $\mu=46.10^{+0.17}_{-0.18}$ mag, which is in $0.1\sigma$ agreement with the flat $\Lambda$CDM prediction of $\mu=46.12$ mag at that redshift. The supernova has a normal decline rate ($\Delta m_{15}(B)\sim1.25$) but an unusually blue peak rest-frame color ($B-V\sim-0.3$), placing it at the edge of traditional low-redshift cosmology cuts. The paper concludes that this object provides no definitive evidence for evolution in Type Ia standardization with redshift, while noting that the two known $z>2$ SNe Ia together yield a $\sim1\sigma$ distance slope relative to $\Lambda$CDM that needs a larger sample to interpret. A sympathetic reader would care because systematic evolution of SN Ia luminosities could masquerade as dark energy, and $z>2$ objects are the cleanest test of that systematics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the phase-extended BayeSN SED model, a Bayesian model trained on low-redshift Type Ia supernovae that jointly fits the light-curve shape parameter $\theta$, rest-frame host-galaxy dust extinction $A_V$, intrinsic scatter, and the distance modulus $\mu$ directly from multi-band photometry. The variant used here, trained on the sample of Ward et al. (2023), covers rest-frame phases to about 50 days after peak and extends beyond that by linear extrapolation in log-SED space, which is necessary because SN 2023aeax's observations sample late phases. Supporting machinery includes difference imaging with HOTPANTS, PSF-fitting photometry with space_phot, the NGSF spectral classification code, and the EAZY host SED fit. The NIRSpec spectrum establishes the classification and redshift ($z=2.15\pm0.01$), and the BayeSN fit then converts the photometry into the standardized distance that is compared with $\Lambda$CDM.

What would settle it

Fit SN 2023aeax's photometry with an independent standardization model such as SALT3-NIR, or simulate $z\simeq2.15$ Type Ia light curves from low-redshift BayeSN training SEDs with known distance moduli and run them through the same phase-extended pipeline; if the recovered distances are biased by more than the quoted $0.1\text{--}0.2$ mag uncertainty, or if the two models disagree by that amount, the reported $0.1\sigma$ agreement with $\Lambda$CDM would be an artifact of model extrapolation rather than evidence against luminosity evolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that SN 2023aeax is a normal Type Ia supernova at $z=2.15\pm0.01$ whose standardized luminosity distance agrees with $\Lambda$CDM: fitting the NIRCam photometry with the phase-extended BayeSN model yields $\mu=46.10^{+0.17}_{-0.18}$ mag against a predicted $46.12$ mag, a $0.1\sigma$ difference. The host-subtracted NIRSpec spectrum is best matched by normal low-redshift SN Ia templates, with Si II and Ca II features present and core-collapse templates strongly disfavored. The measured light-curve shape parameter corresponds to $\Delta m_{15}(B)\sim1.25$, within the normal population, while the peak rest-frame color $B-V\sim-0.3$ is bluer than almost all low-redshift cosmological SNe Ia. Re-fitting the other known $z>2$ SN Ia, SN 2023adsy, with the same BayeSN model gives $47.14^{+0.21}_{-0.24}$ mag, and combining both objects with the lower-redshift sample yields a $\sim1\sigma$ distance slope relative to $\Lambda$CDM, consistent with current cosmological constraints and not significant enough to claim luminosity evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the BayeSN SED model, trained on low-redshift Type Ia supernovae, can be extrapolated to $z=2.15$ and to phases beyond its 50-day training range without introducing a redshift-dependent bias in the inferred distance modulus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $0.1\sigma$ agreement between SN 2023aeax and $\Lambda$CDM means this object alone does not support intrinsic luminosity evolution at $z>2$.
  • The two spectroscopically confirmed $z>2$ SNe Ia, with opposite extreme colors, produce a $\sim1\sigma$ distance slope relative to $\Lambda$CDM, so a larger sample is required to decide whether the slope is real.
  • JWST is expected to add roughly ten more spectroscopically confirmed $z>2$ SNe Ia in the next two years, turning the current two-object sample into a population test.
  • SN 2023aeax passes low-redshift cosmology cuts, so future surveys can include objects like it rather than treating high-redshift SNe Ia as pathological.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The opposite extreme colors of the two known $z>2$ SNe Ia (blue for SN 2023aeax, red for SN 2023adsy) hint that the high-redshift population may have a broader intrinsic color distribution; if confirmed, current low-redshift color cuts could exclude a meaningful fraction of high-redshift SNe Ia and bias distance measurements.
  • The paper's ad hoc treatment of the host-galaxy mass step -- applying half the measured low-redshift step as a systematic error -- may underestimate distance uncertainties if the mass step evolves with redshift; a dedicated high-redshift host-mass calibration would be a natural next step.
  • The BayeSN phase extrapolation beyond 50 rest-frame days is not directly tested at $z\sim2$; a rest-frame UV-optical spectrum of a $z>2$ SN Ia at late phases, or a simulation campaign injecting low-redshift SEDs into high-redshift light curves, could confirm or refute the extrapolation's neutrality.
  • If the $\sim1\sigma$ slope persists as JWST collects more objects, it will become a target for distinguishing mild luminosity evolution from new physics, but the current two-object slope cannot do that.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. SN 2023aeax is a JWST-discovered, spectroscopically confirmed Type Ia supernova at z=2.15, with NIRCam photometry in three epochs and a NIRSpec prism spectrum. The paper classifies it as a normal SN Ia, fits the light curve with the BayeSN SED model (using a phase-extended version with linear extrapolation beyond +50 rest-frame days), and obtains a distance modulus of 46.10+0.17-0.18 mag, which is in ~0.1 sigma agreement with the LambdaCDM prediction of 46.12 mag. The authors conclude there is no definitive evidence for SN Ia luminosity evolution with redshift, while noting that the two-object sample (including SN 2023adsy) shows a ~1 sigma slope relative to LambdaCDM. The paper also re-fits SN 2023adsy with the same methodology for a direct comparison.

Significance. The discovery is timely and important: it is only the second spectroscopically confirmed, non-lensed SN Ia at z>2, and the first that would pass traditional low-redshift cosmology cuts on light-curve properties (though it sits at the blue edge of the color distribution). The data are presented in sufficient detail (Table 1) with a public MAST archive link, and the spectral classification is supported by multiple template comparisons. The paper is appropriately cautious in its conclusions and includes a useful consistency check by re-fitting SN 2023adsy with the same BayeSN model. However, the central distance measurement rests on an extrapolation of a low-redshift-trained SED model into uncalibrated phase and wavelength territory, and the reported uncertainty does not include the systematic risk of that extrapolation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1] The phase-extended BayeSN model is the load-bearing element of the distance measurement, yet it is applied at or beyond the edge of its training domain: the model is trained through +50 rest-frame days and extrapolated linearly in log-SED beyond that, and the final DDT epoch (MJD 60429) lands at roughly +50 rest-frame days after the fitted tpk (MJD 60270.34; Table 4). At z=2.15, F115W and F150W sample rest-frame wavelengths near 0.37 and 0.48 microns respectively, in the blue/UV region that is sparsely calibrated by the low-z training set. A prior application to a lensed SN at z=1.78 (Pierel et al. 2024b) is not a substitute for a validation tailored to this object's phase, wavelength, and color coverage, especially since the fitted B-V=-0.3 is at the blue edge of the low-z sample (Figure 7). I request a mock-recovery test: generate simulated z=2.15 SNe with known distance moduli from the BayeSN model (or from an independent SED model) at the same phases/wavelengths, add noise appropriate to Table 1, and re-fit with the same code and priors. The recovered bias and scatter should be quoted as a systematic uncertainty. Without this, the claimed 0.1 sigma agreement is not robust to an extrapolation bias of order 0.15 mag, which would erase the agreement.
  2. [Table 4 and Figure 6] The distance uncertainty (mu=46.10+0.14-0.12 before systematics) is derived from only three detections plus upper limits, with tpk, AV, theta, and mu fitted jointly. The posterior in Figure 6 shows AV pinned at the boundary (<0.04) and does not present covariances among the parameters. Because the object's color is at the extreme blue edge of the training distribution (B-V=-0.3), the intrinsic-scatter ('epsilon') model is unconstrained for this SN, and the posterior width may be driven by priors rather than by the data. I recommend reporting the full covariance matrix and performing a prior-sensitivity check (e.g., a wider theta prior, or a different AV prior that is not bounded so sharply at zero). The paper should also state how the upper limits are handled in the likelihood; this affects the reported uncertainty. As written, the statistical uncertainty likely understates the true uncertainty, making the 0.1 sigma agreement appear more significant than justified.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains an extra closing brace in "The James Webb Space Telescope}"; please correct.
  2. [Section 2.1] After the JHAT citation, the text has a stray "2)" that appears to be a footnote marker error.
  3. [Throughout] The name "SN2023aeax" and "SN 2023aeax" are used inconsistently; please standardize to the latter.
  4. [Section 4.2] The phrase "an additional0.055z mag" is missing a space; please write "an additional 0.055z mag" and clarify the lensing uncertainty formula.
  5. [Section 5] The sentence "a larger sample needed" should read "a larger sample is needed."
  6. [Table 4] The caption "The Bayesn light curve model parameters" has inconsistent capitalization; use "BayeSN" to match the rest of the text.
  7. [Section 3] The phrase "χ2 per degree of freedom (ν)" is redundant; use "reduced χ2" for clarity.
  8. [Section 4.2] The one-sentence dismissal of selection bias addresses detection brightness but not the search selection function; for the population-level interpretation, please expand this discussion even if only qualitatively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity found: the claimed 0.1σ consistency with ΛCDM is an external benchmark comparison, not a value forced by the model or by prior author results.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a single-object distance measurement: BayeSN fits the SN 2023aeax light curve and returns μ = 46.10, which is then compared with the independently computed ΛCDM expectation μ = 46.12 at z = 2.15. No equation in the paper defines the fitted distance in terms of the ΛCDM value, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the 0.1σ agreement is a comparison, not a construction. The BayeSN SED model is calibrated on low-redshift SNe and applied at z = 2.15 with stated linear extrapolation beyond +50 rest-frame days, which is a real extrapolation risk but an explicit modeling assumption rather than a logical circularity. The paper's citations to prior work by its own authors (e.g., Pierel et al. 2024b,d) are used as supporting evidence of model applicability and selection-bias arguments, but the central ΛCDM comparison does not reduce to those citations. The conclusion of no definitive evolution is a null result with acknowledged small-sample caveats, not an output enforced by the fitting procedure.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement relies on standard candle models and photometric calibration. The ledger lists the fitted parameters and model assumptions that carry the central claim. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • distance modulus mu = 46.10+0.17/-0.18 mag
    Primary output of the BayeSN fit; the entire cosmological comparison rests on this value.
  • time of peak tpk = 60270.34+2.89/-2.23 MJD
    Fitted light curve phase parameter that sets the temporal alignment of the model.
  • host extinction AV = <0.04 mag
    Fitted but pegged at the physical lower bound; the paper reports only an upper limit.
  • light curve shape theta = -0.52+0.33/-0.36
    Fitted shape parameter corresponding to a decline rate dm15(B) of about 1.25.
  • host mass step systematic = 0.027 mag (half of 0.054 mag)
    Applied ad hoc as a quadrature uncertainty because the evolution of the host mass step is unknown.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption BayeSN model trained on low-redshift SNe Ia is valid at z=2.15, including linear extrapolation beyond 50 rest-frame days
    Invoked in Section 4.1 to justify the light curve fit; the training set does not include z>2 supernovae.
  • standard math Reference cosmology is flat LambdaCDM with H0=70 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.315
    Stated at the end of Section 1 and used to compare the measured distance modulus to the prediction.
  • domain assumption NGSF template matching with a photometric redshift prior gives a correct redshift and SN Ia classification
    Section 3; the host galaxy has no emission lines, so the redshift rests on matching supernova spectral features at z=2.15.
  • ad hoc to paper Selection effects can be ignored because the supernova is several magnitudes above the detection limit
    Section 4.2; the detection was partly color-based and no object-specific selection simulation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing for Intrinsic Type Ia Supernova Luminosity Evolution at z>2 with JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQG436RA

@misc{pith2026241111953,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing for Intrinsic Type Ia Supernova Luminosity Evolution at z>2 with JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQG436RA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11953}
}
abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope} (JWST) is opening new frontiers of transient discovery and follow-up at high-redshift. Here we present the discovery of a spectroscopically confirmed Type Ia supernova (SN Ia; SN $2023$aeax) at $z=2.15$ with JWST, including a NIRCam multi-band light curve. SN $2023$aeax lands at the edge of traditional low-$z$ cosmology cuts because of its blue color (peak rest-frame $B-V\sim-0.3$) but with a normal decline rate ($\Delta m_{15}(B)\sim1.25$), and applying a fiducial standardization with the BayeSN model we find the SN $2023$aeax luminosity distance is in $\sim0.1\sigma$ agreement with $\Lambda$CDM. SN $2023$aeax is only the second spectroscopically confirmed SN Ia in the dark matter-dominated Universe at $z>2$ (the other is SN $2023$adsy), giving it rare leverage to constrain any potential evolution in SN Ia standardized luminosities. Similar to SN $2023$adsy ($B-V\sim0.8)$, SN $2023$aeax has a fairly extreme (but opposite) color, which may be due to the small sample size or a secondary factor, such as host galaxy properties. Nevertheless, the SN $2023$aeax spectrum is well-represented by normal low-$z$ SN Ia spectra and we find no definitive evolution in SN Ia standardization with redshift. Still, the first two spectroscopically confirmed $z>2$ SNe Ia have peculiar colors and combine for a $\sim1\sigma$ distance slope relative to $\Lambda$CDM, though in agreement with recent SN Ia cosmological measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11953 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left column) Full-color images (from PID 2514) using F115W+F150W (Blue) F200W+F277W (Green) and F356W+F444W (Red), with a zoomed-out view on the top and the host of SN 2023aeax on the bottom. (Column 2-3) Difference images created from the COSMOS￾Web and PRIMER visits separated by ∼ 1 year, with the SN 2023aeax position marked with a green indicator. All images are drizzled to 0.03′′/pix and the cutouts have the sa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The NIRSpec/MSA slitlet positions over SN 2023aeax for one of the dithered observations. (b,c) The 2D and 1D-extracted NIRSpec spectrum for SN 2023aeax. The two absorption lines primarily used for spectroscopic classification of SNe Ia, are shown with dotted lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The raw combined Host+SN spectrum is shown as a blue dashed line (top), followed by the host spectrum as a red dotted line extracted from rows neighboring the SN trace in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The host-subtracted NIRSpec spectrum (with uncertainty) of SN 2023aeax is shown as a black solid line, with the primary features used for the preferred SN Ia classification labeled (bottom). The best-match template from NGSF is a SN Ia (blue,+52d, bottom), and a 91T￾li…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior distributions for the BayeSN fitting of SN 2023aeax photometry. The dashed vertical lines correspond to the distribution 16th , 50th , and 84th quantiles. The parameters are V -band dust extinction, light curve shape, time of peak B-band brightness, and dista…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The photometry measured in Section 2.1 is shown as black circles with error, with (5σ) upper-limits denoted by triangles. The fit to the full light curve is shown as a solid line in each filter, with the shaded region representing the BayeSN model+fitting un￾certainty.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distributions of rest-frame B−V color at peak B-band brightness, ∆m15(B), and host galaxy properties measured for the cosmological sample of SNe Ia presented in Brout et al. (2022). The vertical red dashed lines are the measurements for SN 2023aeax. uncertainty fro…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Luminosity distance measurements from the full sample of SNe Ia from Brout et al. (2022) extending to z = 2.22. Black points (with errors) are SNe Ia with spectroscopic classifications, while blue squares (with error) are SNe Ia with photometric classifications. The tw…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Discovery of a likely Type II SN at $z$=3.6 with JWST

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AT 2023adsv is a likely Type IIP supernova at z=3.613, the most distant photometrically classified SN IIP with a spectroscopic host redshift.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction

    2015

  2. [2]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423413 2014

  3. [3]

    J., Weinberg, N

    Bildsten, L., Shen, K. J., Weinberg, N. N., & Nelemans, G. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 662, L95, doi: 10.1086/519489

    doi:10.1086/519489 2007

  4. [4]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  5. [5]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b

    Brout, D., & Scolnic, D. 2021, ApJ, 909, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b 2021

  6. [6]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  7. [7]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7325378

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7325378

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7325378 2022

  8. [8]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    L., Frye, B

    Chen, W., Kelly, P. L., Frye, B. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50a5

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Wolf, C., & Zahid, H

    Childress, M. J., Wolf, C., & Zahid, H. J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 1898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1892

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, The High-z Menagerie: A Rare Chance to Study the Early and Exotic Transient Universe

    Coulter, D., Engesser, M., Pierel, J., et al. 2024, The High-z Menagerie: A Rare Chance to Study the Early and Exotic Transient Universe

    2024

  4. [12]

    A., Pierel, J

    Coulter, D. A., Pierel, J. D. R., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05513

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    M., Tzanidakis, A., et al

    De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., Tzanidakis, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb45c

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05060 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02929, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02929

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04200, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04200

    Dimitriadis, G., Burgaz, U., Deckers, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04200, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04200

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    S., Abraham, R

    Dunlop, J. S., Abraham, R. G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research

    2021

  9. [17]

    2022, åp, 661, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    Ferruit, P., Jakobsen, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, åp, 661, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Filippenko, A. V . 1997, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 309, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 304, 67, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02299.x

    Fisher, A., Branch, D., Hatano, K., & Baron, E. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 304, 67, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02299.x

    1999

  12. [20]

    1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    Fitzpatrick, E. 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  13. [21]

    Foley, R. J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 2463, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv789

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Hoffmann, S

    Foley, R. J., Hoffmann, S. L., Macri, L. M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3324

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    J., & Mandel, K

    Foley, R. J., & Mandel, K. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/167

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al

    Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1034

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 191, 1

    Goldwasser, S., Yaron, O., Sass, A., et al. 2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 191, 1

    2022

  18. [26]

    L., Foley, R

    Graham, M. L., Foley, R. J., Zheng, W., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 2073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2221

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    S., et al

    Grayling, M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08755, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08755

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

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

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

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  23. [31]

    J., et al

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

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezic, Z., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/161

    2012 doi

  26. [35]

    L., Hicken, M., Burke, D

    Kelly, P. L., Hicken, M., Burke, D. L., Mandel, K. S., & Kirshner, R. P. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 743, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/743

    2010 doi

  27. [36]

    D., Jones, D

    Kenworthy, W. D., Jones, D. O., Dai, M., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.07795

    2021 arXiv

  28. [37]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/56

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

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196, doi: 10.1086/520086 13

    2007 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    2011 doi

  31. [40]

    C., et al

    Lampeitl, H., Smith, M., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 722, 566, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/566

    2010 doi

  32. [41]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f49

    Lu, J., Wang, L., Chen, X., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f49

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

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

    Mandel, K. S., Thorp, S., Narayan, G., Friedman, A. S., & Avelino, A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3496

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb057

    Mitra, A., Kessler, R., More, S., Hlozek, R., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2023, ApJ, 944, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb057

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    E., Mollá, M., López-Sánchez, Á

    Moreno-Raya, M. E., Mollá, M., López-Sánchez, Á. R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L19

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    L., Pierel, J

    Pascale, M., Frye, B. L., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928

    2025 doi

  37. [46]

    B., Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P

    Perets, H. B., Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2010, Nature, 465, 322, doi: 10.1038/nature09056

    2010 doi

  38. [47]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565, doi: 10.1086/307221

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

    1999 doi

  39. [48]

    2024, Space-Phot: Simple Python-Based Photometry for Space Telescopes, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12100100

    Pierel, J. 2024, Space-Phot: Simple Python-Based Photometry for Space Telescopes, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12100100

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Rodney, S., Vernardos, G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd8d3

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

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

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., et al. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c43

    doi

  43. [52]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Newman, A. B., Dhawan, S., et al. 2024c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02139, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02139

    doi arXiv

  44. [53]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Engesser, M., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024d, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6908

    doi

  45. [54]

    2023, arminrest/jhat: The JWST HST Alignment Tool (JHAT), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    Rest, A., Pierel, J., Correnti, M., et al. 2023, arminrest/jhat: The JWST HST Alignment Tool (JHAT), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    C., et al

    Rest, A., Stubbs, C., Becker, A. C., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 634, 1103, doi: 10.1086/497060

    2005 doi

  47. [56]

    G., & Livio, M

    Riess, A. G., & Livio, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, 884, doi: 10.1086/50479110.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0601319

    2006

  48. [57]

    G., Filippenko, A

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

    1998 doi

  49. [58]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    A., Riess, A

    Rodney, S. A., Riess, A. G., Strolger, L.-G., et al. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/13

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

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

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

    2021 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  53. [62]

    M., Jones, D

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

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 767, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/767

    Scannapieco, E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 767, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/767

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    R., Decoursey, C., Coulter, D

    Siebert, M. R., Decoursey, C., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05076

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    A., et al

    Sullivan, M., Conley, A., Howell, D. A., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, no, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16731.x

    2010

  57. [66]

    1998, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 331, 815

    Tripp, R. 1998, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 331, 815

    1998

  58. [67]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/21

    Waldman, R., Sauer, D., Livne, E., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/21

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K

    Ward, S. M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bb

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    C., Oesch, P., Barrufet, L., et al

    Williams, C. C., Oesch, P., Barrufet, L., et al. 2021, PANORAMIC - A Pure Parallel Wide Area Legacy Imaging Survey at 1-5 Micron

    2021

  61. [70]

    E., Taam, R

    Woosley, S. E., Taam, R. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1986, The Astrophysical Journal, 301, 601, doi: 10.1086/163926

    1986 doi

  62. [71]

    B., Dessart, L., et al

    Zenati, Y ., Perets, H. B., Dessart, L., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf65

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.