ZTF SN Ia DR2: An environmental study of Type Ia supernovae using host galaxy image decomposition

A. Goobar; B. Rusholme; D. Reiley; G. Dimitriadis; J. H. Terwel; J. Johansson; J. Sollerman; K. Maguire; L. Galbany; L. Harvey

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 113 references

ZTF SN Ia DR2: An environmental study of Type Ia supernovae using host galaxy image decomposition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 16.8-sigma link ties supernova stretch to host galaxy colour

desk verdict A real step forward in SN Ia environmental tracers, with headline significances that are probably inflated until the heavy sample selection is accounted for. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11986 v1 pith:VH2L5ILG submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.GA

R. Senzel , K. Maguire , U. Burgaz , G. Dimitriadis , M. Rigault , A. Goobar , J. Johansson , M. Smith

show 13 more authors

M. Deckers L. Galbany M. Ginolin L. Harvey Y.-L. Kim T. E. Muller-Bravo P. Nugent P. Rosnet J. Sollerman J. H. Terwel R. R. Laher D. Reiley B. Rusholme

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords TypeIasupernovaehostgalaxydecompositionSALT2stretchx1SN-component-colourcolourstellarpopulationageZTFDR2morphology

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 sets out to establish that the stretch of a Type Ia supernova light curve ($x_1$) is set by the stellar population of the galaxy component in which its progenitor formed. Modelling 728 host galaxies from the ZTF DR2 sample with an automated two-dimensional decomposition into elliptical, disk, bulge, and bar components, the authors find a strong linear relation between $x_1$ and the model-derived $g-r$ colour of the host component in both elliptical galaxies ($16.8\sigma$, $R^2=0.37$) and disk galaxies ($5.1\sigma$, $R^2=0.15$), with lower-stretch supernovae in redder environments. In disk hosts they also find a $6.1\sigma$ trend between lower stretch and brighter local $r$-band surface brightness, consistent with age and metallicity gradients toward galaxy centres. If these trends are real, supernova stretch is a direct environmental age and metallicity indicator, and the differing slopes in old versus young stellar populations could sharpen the corrections applied to Type Ia supernovae used as cosmological distance indicators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'SN-component-colour': the intrinsic $g-r$ colour of the galaxy model component (elliptical, bulge/bar, or disk) that hosts the supernova, obtained from a custom fully automated two-dimensional decomposition of DESI-LS $g$- and $r$-band images. The code fits S\'ersic profiles for ellipticals, bulges, and bars plus an exponential disk, with PSF convolution, superellipse isophotes, K-corrections, and morphological selection assisted by external deep-learning morphology classifications, then assigns each SN to a component by the flux ratio at its position. Because the galaxy shape is common to both bands, each component has a single colour; this average component colour is argued to track the birth environment of the progenitor better than the local pixel colour or host stellar mass. The machinery's key output is that this colour, and in disks the local $r$-band surface brightness, predicts SALT2 $x_1$ at high significance, with host stellar mass as a weaker tracer.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the ZTF DR2 selection by simulating the full pipeline from host images to final galaxy model for SNe Ia injected with known $x_1$ values, and check whether the recovered $x_1$-colour slopes in ellipticals and disks survive; a cheaper version is to re-weight the 728-event sample using the $x_1$-dependent entry rate in Fig. 8 together with the redshift and mass success rates in Fig. 7, and see whether the $16.8\sigma$ and $5.1\sigma$ slopes remain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that SN Ia light-curve stretch correlates separately, and significantly, with the intrinsic colour of the specific galaxy component that hosts the explosion. For normal SNe Ia in ellipticals the relation between SN-component-colour and SALT2 stretch has a significance of $16.8\sigma$ (Pearson $r=-0.61$, $R^2=0.37$); for SNe Ia in disks the relation is $5.1\sigma$ ($r=-0.39$, $R^2=0.15$), with a steeper slope that is driven mainly by red 'Green Valley' disks. The authors interpret redder components as older and/or more metal-rich stellar populations, so lower stretch is an age and metallicity effect. They also report a $6.1\sigma$ correlation between $x_1$ and local $r$-band surface brightness in disk hosts, a possible $3.3\sigma$ dust-related trend between SN colour $c$ and surface brightness for $c>0.035$, and a $3.5\sigma$ offset whereby 91bg-like SNe Ia live in redder ellipticals than normal SNe Ia at fixed host mass. The intersection of the elliptical and disk stretch relations gives a low/high-stretch crossover of $x_1=-0.39\pm0.06$, consistent with companion ZTF papers.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the heavy selection from 3628 SNe Ia down to 728 modelled hosts does not bias the relative $x_1$-environment correlations; no simulation, weighting, or selection correction is presented, and Fig. 8 shows an $x_1$-dependent retention with an excess of low-stretch events.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If stretch is set by progenitor age and metallicity, environmental corrections for SN Ia cosmology should use component-level galaxy colour or local surface brightness rather than global host mass alone.
The elliptical-only $16.8\sigma$ relation suggests that, under a double-degenerate progenitor picture, normal SNe Ia in ellipticals may come from a single progenitor channel whose properties are set by stellar age.
Bulge and bar SNe Ia share the low-stretch, red-colour behaviour of ellipticals, so mixing them with disk SNe Ia dilutes environmental correlations.
The $x_1=-0.39\pm0.06$ crossover between the elliptical and disk trends co-locates with the broken-\alpha stretch split seen in companion ZTF analyses, supporting two distinct stretch regimes.
Intrinsic SN colour $c$ is mostly environment-independent, with red $c>0.035$ SNe Ia in disk hosts plausibly tracing dust toward galaxy centres.

Reading between the lines

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

The heavy selection from 3628 to 728 hosts could amplify the reported slopes; a weighting or simulation built from the paper's own x1-dependent entry rate would test whether the $16.8\sigma$ and $5.1\sigma$ significances survive.
The SN-component-colour definition invites a direct follow-up: compare the same 728 hosts against integral-field-unit spectroscopic age and metallicity maps to separate the age and metallicity contributions that the paper cannot disentangle.
The same automated pipeline, applied to larger samples from next-generation wide-field surveys, could turn $x_1$ into a cheap environmental age indicator for SNe Ia, provided the selection function is modelled forward.
The dust interpretation for $c>0.035$ could be tested by matching reddened disk SNe Ia to spatially resolved extinction maps and checking that their line of sight through the disk is longer than that of blue SNe Ia at the same surface brightness.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a real step forward. Senzel et al. take the ZTF DR2 sample and apply automated 2D bulge/disk/bar decomposition to the host galaxies, then split the sample by morphological component instead of using global host mass or colour. The headline results—the 16.8σ correlation between SALT2 x1 and SN-component-colour in ellipticals, the 5.1σ version in disks, and the 6.1σ local surface-brightness trend in disks—are the kind of thing that could sharpen the mass-step conversation. The paper also shows that the component colour explains more of the x1 variance (R²=0.37 in ellipticals) than host mass (R²=0.13), which is a genuinely useful observation.

The pipeline is careful. The code is public, the morphological classification checks against Galaxy Zoo with 90–92% agreement, and they are transparent about the cuts, the outlier removal, and the degeneracies between models. I believe the central physical picture: low-stretch SNe Ia come from older, redder stellar populations, and the slope differs between ellipticals and disks. That is consistent with prior global-colour results and now gets component-level support.

The soft spot is the selection function, and it is the right thing to worry about. They go from 3628 SNe Ia to 728 modelled hosts—an 80% loss—and the loss is not random in x1 or in host properties. Their Fig. 8 shows an excess of low-x1 SNe in the final sample, and ellipticals are over-represented relative to the expected rate. The paper argues that trends can still be studied because they don't depend on absolute rates. That is true for rate-independent correlations only if selection does not depend jointly on x1 and the environmental tracer. Redder, more massive ellipticals are easier to fit, and low-x1 SNe preferentially occur in those redder ellipticals. So the observed slope could be steeper than the true relation. No simulation, weighting, or completeness correction is presented to show the 16.8σ and 5.1σ significances survive. I don't think this kills the result—there's enough external evidence that environment-colour tracks x1—but it is a load-bearing uncertainty, and the abstract's claim that the results are "robust" is not established by the paper.

Minor points: the c=0.035 split for the dust trend is arbitrary, and the paper admits it; that result is speculative anyway. The K-correction template choice depends on the fitted bulge-disk colour difference, which is a mild circularity but contained. The 91bg-like colour offset (3.5σ) comes from small numbers.

Who is this for? Anyone working on SN Ia standardization or host environment. It's a useful data product and worth citing. A serious referee should engage with it; the main request should be a selection-corrected or at least simulated robustness check of the slopes. My own verdict would be conditional: the qualitative picture is likely right, but the quoted significances should be treated with caution.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses 2D image decomposition of DESI-LS images to model 728 host galaxies of SNe Ia from ZTF DR2, separating elliptical, disk, bulge/bar, and halo environments. The central results are linear correlations between SALT2 stretch x1 and the model-derived galaxy component colour: a 16.8σ relation for SNe Ia in ellipticals and a 5.1σ relation for SNe Ia in disks, with lower-stretch SNe Ia in redder environments, plus a 6.1σ trend between x1 and local r-band surface brightness in disk hosts. The authors interpret these as age/metallicity effects and argue that the slopes differ fundamentally between old and young stellar environments. They also report a 3.3σ possible dust effect in SALT2 c versus local surface brightness for disk SNe, based on a c>0.035 split, and confirm that 91bg-like SNe reside in the reddest old environments.

Significance. If the correlations are genuine, this is an important step in connecting SN Ia light-curve stretch to progenitor stellar populations, with implications for SN Ia standardisation and progenitor models. The paper benefits from a large homogeneous sample, an automated decomposition pipeline with public code, and a 90–92% morphological agreement with Galaxy Zoo classifications for a subset. The environmental variables are derived from independent galaxy image models rather than from the SN light curves, so the headline correlations are not circular by construction. The main significance risk is the heavy, x1-dependent selection into the final 728-galaxy sample, which is acknowledged but not corrected or bounded; this threatens the quantitative claims (16.8σ, 5.1σ) and the comparison between elliptical and disk slopes.

major comments (3)

[§5.1, Fig. 8] The final sample retains only 728 of 3628 SNe Ia (20%), and Fig. 8 demonstrates that selection into the final sample is x1-dependent: negative-x1 SNe are over-represented and positive-x1 SNe are under-represented. Fig. 7 further shows that fit success varies with redshift and host stellar mass. Because redder, more massive ellipticals and brighter disks are easier to fit, the selection probability is likely correlated jointly with x1 and the environmental tracer used in the headline regressions. The statement in §5.1 that trends can still be investigated because they do not depend on absolute or relative rates is not sufficient: a regression slope within a subpopulation is biased when selection depends on both x1 and the tracer. Please provide a selection simulation, inverse-probability weighting, or a bounded-bias estimate demonstrating that the 16.8σ and 5.1σ slopes and their significances survive.
[§5.2, Table 5] The final morphological mix is heavily biased, with 51% ellipticals versus the expected ~37% based on Li et al. (2011) and Kelvin et al. (2014). The abstract and §5.1 state that the results are 'robust,' but no quantitative sensitivity test is given for how this over-representation affects the elliptical versus disk comparison. A reweighting of the sample to the expected morphological mix, or a repeat of the regressions on the Galaxy Zoo-confirmed subset (92%/90% agreement, §4.7), would strengthen the claim that the observed differences are physical rather than an artefact of which galaxies are fit successfully.
[§5.3, Fig. 10] The paper claims in the abstract and §6.2 that the elliptical and disk colour–x1 relations 'correlate fundamentally differently,' and §5.3 describes the disk slope as 'much steeper' than the elliptical one, but no formal test of slope difference is reported. Because the two slopes are estimated on different subpopulations with different selection functions and systematics, a quantitative comparison (e.g., a bootstrap or a likelihood-ratio test on a combined fit) is needed before the 'fundamentally different' conclusion can be assessed.

minor comments (4)

[§5.2] The removal of nine host galaxies after manual inspection (reducing the sample from 728 to 719) is described without a quantitative outlier criterion; please state the threshold or procedure used and show the main regressions with and without these objects.
[§5.4, Fig. 12] The 3.3σ dust trend is based on splitting the sample at c=0.035, a choice the text itself calls arbitrary, and the trend is identified after a visual separation of the innermost SNe. This is a post-hoc analysis; please present it with an explicit multiple-testing caveat or a sensitivity scan over the split value.
[§4.6] The text says 'Using Sterling's approximation' in §4.1; this should be 'Stirling's approximation.' There are also several typographical spacing issues (e.g., 'di fferent') throughout the manuscript.
[§5.2] The statement 'No apparent bias is seen in the SALT2 c distribution' is qualitative; a two-sample test (e.g., KS or Anderson-Darling) between the full sample and the final sample would be a more robust way to support that claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: host-environment colours and SALT2 x1 come from independent data streams, and the selection-function concern is a potential bias, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central correlations are between SALT2 x1 (from ZTF light-curve fits) and model-derived host-galaxy colours and surface brightness (from DESI-LS images fitted with Sérsic models). These come from independent data streams: the SALT2 fit supplies x1 and c; the galaxy decomposition supplies colour and surface brightness. Nothing in the galaxy-fitting procedure uses x1 or c, and nothing in the SALT2 fit uses the galaxy model parameters. The 16.8σ, 5.1σ, and 6.1σ trends are empirical regressions, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The K-correction template choice in Section 4.5 uses the fitted bulge-disk colour difference to pick an S0/Sb/Sc template, so there is a mild self-referential coupling between the pre-correction and final colours, but this does not reduce the x1-colour correlation to an input: x1 is external to the galaxy model, and the template choice is a correction step, not an identity. Component assignment in Section 4.8 uses a 20% flux threshold and could misclassify some SNe, but membership is not determined by x1. The strongest concern in the paper is the selection function (Section 5.1, Fig. 8): only 728 of 3628 hosts are modelled, with an excess of low-x1 SNe Ia and no completeness correction presented. That is a genuine systematic risk to the reported significances, but it is not circularity: it is a possible bias, not an identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The c = 0.035 split in Section 5.4 is explicitly arbitrary, which weakens the dust claim but does not make it circular. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used; the Galaxy Zoo comparison provides an external morphological benchmark. Verdict: no significant circularity.

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

No fundamentally new physical entities are introduced. The paper's load-bearing inputs are a new derived observable called SN-component-colour, parametric galaxy models, and several hand-chosen thresholds and cuts; the free parameters listed above are the ones that can change the reported correlations.

free parameters (4)

SALT2 c split for dust trend = 0.035 mag
Section 5.4 and 6.4: the 3.3 sigma dust trend is fit only for normal SNe Ia with c>0.035; the paper calls the choice arbitrary. This selects the subpopulation and affects the reported significance.
Morphological colour cuts = 0.5 (elliptical lower), 0.6 (disk upper), 0-2 overall
Section 4.6 and Table 3: these hand-determined colour bounds remove seven blue elliptical and five red disk-only galaxies and shape the final sample used for the correlations.
Bulge/bar flux threshold = 20 percent of disk flux
Section 4.8: the assignment of a SN to bulge/bar versus disk versus halo depends on this chosen ratio, which sets the subpopulation definitions used in the correlations.
Outlier removal threshold for SN-component-colour = not quantified
Section 5.2: nine host galaxies were manually inspected and removed for non-physical decompositions; the threshold is not specified, so the final sample depends on a subjective step.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Galaxy surface brightness can be described by the four Sersic and exponential models with superellipse isophotes
Section 4.1: all analysis uses these parametric models; galaxies with spiral arms, dust lanes, asymmetries, or edge-on geometry are excluded, so the environmental tracer only applies to the modelled subset.
domain assumption Galaxy geometry, meaning shape and Sersic index, is identical in g and r bands; only brightness varies
Section 4.2: the fit enforces a common superellipse and index; if the stellar distribution differs with wavelength, the derived component colour is a biased average.
domain assumption The atmospheric PSF is a circular Moffat profile with beta=4.765
Section 4.3: PSF correction assumes this fixed shape and DESI FWHM; an incorrect PSF changes the surface brightness and colours, though the effect is likely small compared to the reported trends.
domain assumption K-correction templates (Superfit elliptical, S0, Sb, Sc, and Kinney bulge) are representative of the host populations
Section 4.5: the template choice changes the absolute colours and could shift the zero point of the correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ZTF SN Ia DR2: An environmental study of Type Ia supernovae using host galaxy image decomposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VH2L5ILG

@misc{pith2026241111986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ZTF SN Ia DR2: An environmental study of Type Ia supernovae using host galaxy image decomposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VH2L5ILG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11986}
}

abstract

The second data release of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) observed by the Zwicky Transient Facility has provided a homogeneous sample of 3628 SNe Ia with photometric and spectral information. This unprecedented sample size enables us to better explore our currently tentative understanding of the dependence of host environment on SN Ia properties. In this paper, we make use of two-dimensional image decomposition to model the host galaxies of SNe Ia. We model elliptical galaxies as well as disk/spiral galaxies with or without central bulges and bars. This allows for the categorisation of SN Ia based on their morphological host environment, as well as the extraction of intrinsic galaxy properties corrected for both cosmological and atmospheric effects. We find that although this image decomposition technique leads to a significant bias towards elliptical galaxies in our final sample of galaxies, the overall results are robust. By successfully modelling 728 host galaxies, we find that the photometric properties of SNe Ia found in disks and in elliptical galaxies, correlate fundamentally differently with their host environment. We identified strong linear relations between light-curve stretch and our model-derived galaxy colour for both the elliptical (16.8$\sigma$) and disk (5.1$\sigma$) subpopulations of SNe Ia. Lower stretch SNe Ia are found in redder environments, which we identify as an age/metallicity effect. Within the subpopulation of SNe Ia found in disk containing galaxies, we find a significant linear trend (6.1$\sigma$) between light-curve stretch and model-derived local $r$-band surface brightness, which we link to the age/metallicity gradients found in disk galaxies. SN Ia colour shows little correlation with host environment as seen in the literature. We identify a possible dust effect in our model-derived surface brightness (3.3$\sigma$), for SNe Ia in disk galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11986 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** DESI-LS sky coverage shown using a Mollweide projection, with DR10 in light-grey and DR9 in dark-grey blue. The blue points represent covered ZTF Cosmo DR2 SNe Ia (83%), while the red points are SNe Ia outside the sky coverage. The green line marks the Galactic plane. 2.2. Preprocessing of DESI-LS images Each galaxy image is obtained by querying DESI-LS image cutouts from their sky-viewer2 . The coadded images (imag… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An example SN Ia rest-frame light curve from ZTF DR2, with a fitted SALT2 model. The x1 parameter quantifies the stretch of the light curves, while c quantifies the colour. The black arrows are for illustrative purposes only, they do not describe how these parameters are calculated. one phase). We require the uncertainty in the SALT2 light curve width of ∆x1 < 1, the uncertainty in the colour of ∆c < 0.1 and ‘fitpr… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Top-left: Example g-band DESI-LS image of an elliptical host galaxy, with neighbouring field sources. Top-right: The galaxy image sampled before mean-kernel convolution, at 24 ± 0.1 mag/arcsec2 . Bottom-left: The image sampled after mean-kernel convolution, with the target galaxy pixels highlighted in blue, external sources in red and a fitted 24 mag/arcsec2 isophote in black. The target galaxy pixels are isolat… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Schematic showing the main steps of the galaxy fitting procedure. Top-left: DESILS image of a barred host galaxy, containing a ZTF SN Ia. Top-right: The green superellipses are the isophotes of the constructed gband isophote map (every second isophote has been remov…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Results of a two-component ‘bulge+disk’ fit to a galaxy. The surface brightness in the g band is shown as a function of radial distance from the centre (along an arbitrary angle). The black points are the radially sampled points from the corresponding isophote map for…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Example images of the four galaxy models used in this paper. The left panels are the DESI-LS images in surface brightness space with the location of the SN marked as the green cross, the centre panels are the fitted galaxy models, where the superellipses are the effec…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Top panels: Blue histogram shows the full ZTF Cosmo DR2 binned in redshift (left) and host mass (right). Orange histogram shows galaxies with isophote maps that pass all quality cuts. Green histogram shows final sample (successful galaxy fit + galaxy morphology identif…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Top panel: Blue histogram shows the ZTF DR2 binned in SALT2 x1, with the light curve quality cuts applied, see Section 2.3. The orange histogram shows the final sample containing SNe Ia with successfully fitted galaxy models. Bottom panel: Rate of finding a SN Ia with …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: SN-component-colour (g - r) versus host stellar mass. Top panel: SNe Ia separated into the main spectral subtypes, normal SNe Ia (blue), ‘91bg-like’ SNe Ia (red), and ‘91T-like’ SNe Ia (orange). Centre panel: Kernel density plots showing host mass density function of …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The top panels show SN-component-colour (Section 4.9) versus x1, while the bottom panels show host stellar mass versus x1. The left panels show the distribution of normal SNe Ia (blue circles), ‘91bg-like’ SNe Ia (red diamonds), and ‘91T-like’ SNe Ia (orange triangles…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The top panels show SN-component-colour (Section 4.9) versus c, while the bottom panels show host stellar mass versus c. The left panels show the distribution of normal SNe Ia (blue circles), ‘91bg-like’ SNe Ia (red diamonds), and ‘91T-like’ SNe Ia (orange triangles).…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Local r-band surface brightness (derived from model) versus SALT2 parameters (x1 on the left and c on the right), highlighted by SN classification and the associated galaxy component. The top panels contain SNe Ia located in galaxies containing a disk, while the botto…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, L14

2024
[2]

2020, A&A, 641, A6

Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

2020
[3]

D., Driver, S

Allen, P. D., Driver, S. P., Graham, A. W., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 2 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

2006
[4]

1990, MNRAS, 245, 130

Athanassoula, E., Morin, S., Wozniak, H., et al. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 130

1990
[5]

2019, MNRAS, 490, 718

Barkhudaryan, L., Hakobyan, A., Karapetyan, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 718

2019
[6]

Barkhudaryan, L. V . 2023, MNRAS, 520, L21

2023
[7]

C., Kulkarni, S

Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Barlow, T., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 068003

2019
[8]

Benson, A. J. 2010, Phys. Rep., 495, 33

2010

Show all 113 references

[9]

2014, A&A, 568, A22

Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A22

2014
[10]

& Tonry, J

Blondin, S. & Tonry, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1024

2007
[11]

Boggs, P. T. & Rogers, J. E. 1990, Contemporary mathematics, 112, 183

1990
[12]

2022, A&A, 657, A22

Briday, M., Rigault, M., Graziani, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A22

2022
[13]

& Scolnic, D

Brout, D. & Scolnic, D. 2021, ApJ, 909, 26

2021
[14]

2019, ApJ, 874, 150

Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Kessler, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 150

2019
[15]

2022, ApJ, 938, 110

Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 110

2022
[16]

2024, arXiv e-prints (ZTF SI), arXiv:2407.06828

Burgaz, U., Maguire, K., Dimitriadis, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints (ZTF SI), arXiv:2407.06828

2024 arXiv
[17]

R., Parent, E., Phillips, M., et al

Burns, C. R., Parent, E., Phillips, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 56

2018
[18]

P., Graham, A

Cameron, E., Driver, S. P., Graham, A. W., & Liske, J. 2009, ApJ, 699, 105

2009
[19]

M., et al

Cappellari, M., Bertola, F., Buson, L. M., et al. 2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 197, Dynamics of Galaxies: from the Early Universe to the Present, ed. F. Combes, G. A. Mamon, & V . Charmandaris, 245

2000
[20]

1935, MNRAS, 95, 207

Chandrasekhar, S. 1935, MNRAS, 95, 207

1935
[21]

2006, MNRAS, 366, 717

Chang, R., Gallazzi, A., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 717

2006
[22]

Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291

2014
[23]

2024, arXiv e-prints (ZTF SI), arXiv:2406.19460

Deckers, M., Maguire, K., Shingles, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints (ZTF SI), arXiv:2406.19460

2024 arXiv
[24]

M., Riddle, R., et al

Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001

2020
[25]

G., García-Benito, R., Pérez, E., et al

Delgado, R. G., García-Benito, R., Pérez, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A103

2015
[26]

J., Lang, D., et al

Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

2019
[27]

2022, MNRAS, 510, 2228 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al

Dhawan, S., Goobar, A., Smith, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2228 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001

2022
[28]

A., Baes, M., Bourne, N., et al

Eales, S. A., Baes, M., Bourne, N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1183

2018
[29]

K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

Fink, M., Röpke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53

2010
[30]

& Massa, D

Fitzpatrick, E. & Massa, D. 2007, ApJ, 663, 320

2007
[31]

Freedman, W. L. 2021, ApJ, 919, 16

2021
[32]

S., Garnavich, P

Gallagher, J. S., Garnavich, P. M., Caldwell, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 752

2008
[33]

M., Milne, P., et al

Garnavich, P., Wood, C. M., Milne, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 35

2023
[34]

M., Jha, S., Challis, P., et al

Garnavich, P. M., Jha, S., Challis, P., et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, 74

1998
[35]

2024, arXiv e-prints (ZTF SI), arXiv:2405.20965

Ginolin, M., Rigault, M., Smith, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints (ZTF SI), arXiv:2405.20965

2024 arXiv
[36]

2022, Transient Name Server As- troNote, 191, 1

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

2022
[37]

Graham, A. W. & Driver, S. P. 2005, PASA, 22, 118

2005
[38]

Graham, A. W. & Worley, C. C. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1708

2008
[39]

J., Kulkarni, S

Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001

2019
[40]

2005, A&A, 441, 1055

Greggio, L. 2005, A&A, 441, 1055

2005
[41]

2007, A&A, 466, 11

Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 11

2007
[42]

2005, A&A, 443, 781

Guy, J., Astier, P., Nobili, S., Regnault, N., & Pain, R. 2005, A&A, 443, 781

2005
[43]

2020, MNRAS, 499, 1424

Hakobyan, A., Barkhudaryan, L., Karapetyan, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1424

2020
[44]

A., et al

Hamuy, M., Phillips, M., Schommer, R. A., et al. 1996, arXiv preprint astro- ph/9609059

1996
[45]

M., Maza, J., et al

Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Maza, J., et al. 1995, AJ, 109, 1

1995
[46]

T., Gupta, R

Hayden, B. T., Gupta, R. R., Garnavich, P. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 191

2013
[47]

& Fowler, W

Hoyle, F. & Fowler, W. A. 1960, ApJ, 132, 565

1960
[48]

& Tutukov, A

Iben, I., J. & Tutukov, A. V . 1984, ApJS, 54, 335

1984
[49]

1996, MNRAS, 281, 487

Kauffmann, G. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 487

1996
[50]

M., White, S

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 54

2003
[51]

L., Hicken, M., Burke, D

Kelly, P. L., Hicken, M., Burke, D. L., Mandel, K. S., & Kirshner, R. P. 2010, ApJ, 715, 743

2010
[52]

2021, MNRAS, 501, 4861

Kelsey, L., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4861

2021
[53]

2023, MNRAS, 519, 3046

Kelsey, L., Sullivan, M., Wiseman, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3046

2023
[54]

S., Driver, S

Kelvin, L. S., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1647

2014
[55]

2024, MNRAS, 529, 3806

Kim, Y .-L., Galbany, L., Hook, I., & Kang, Y . 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3806

2024
[56]

2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Soci- ety, 52, 181

Kim, Y .-L., Kang, Y ., & Lee, Y .-W. 2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Soci- ety, 52, 181

2019
[57]

L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R

Kinney, A. L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 1996, ApJ, 467, 38

1996
[58]

C., et al

Lampeitl, H., Smith, M., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 566

2010
[59]

P., Robotham, A

Lange, R., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2603 Le Borgne, D. & Rocca-V olmerange, B. 2002, A&A, 386, 446

2015
[60]

2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473

Li, W., Chornock, R., Leaman, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473

2011
[61]

J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al

Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1179

2008
[62]

K., & Han, Z

Liu, Z., Roepke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

2023
[63]

H., Gunn, J

Lupton, R. H., Gunn, J. E., & Szalay, A. S. 1999, AJ, 118, 1406

1999
[64]

A., Courteau, S., Bell, E., & Holtzman, J

MacArthur, L. A., Courteau, S., Bell, E., & Holtzman, J. A. 2004, ApJS, 152, 175

2004
[65]

& Mannucci, F

Maiolino, R. & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 3

2019
[66]

2006, MNRAS, 370, 773

Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Panagia, N. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 773

2006
[67]

2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

2014
[68]

J., Laher, R

Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2018, PASP, 131, 018003 Müller-Bravo, T. E. & Galbany, L. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08117 Muñoz-Mateos, J., De Paz, A. G., Boissier, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1965

2018 arXiv
[69]

2021, A&A, 649, A74

Nicolas, N., Rigault, M., Copin, Y ., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A74

2021
[70]

1982, ApJ, 253, 798

Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 253, 798

1982
[71]

H., Seitenzahl, I

Panther, F. H., Seitenzahl, I. R., Ruiter, A. J., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e031

2019
[72]

A., Popescu, C

Pastrav, B. A., Popescu, C. C., Tu ffs, R. J., & Sansom, A. E. 2013, A&A, 553, A80

2013
[73]

2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

2011
[74]

Y ., Ho, L

Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097

2010
[75]

1999, ApJ, 517, 565

Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565

1999
[76]

S., & White, M

Perlmutter, S., Turner, M. S., & White, M. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 670

1999
[77]

R., et al

Phillips, M., Ashall, C., Burns, C. R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 47

2022
[78]

Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L105

1993
[79]

2020, MNRAS, 499, 5121

Pruzhinskaya, M., Novinskaya, A., Pauna, N., & Rosnet, P. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5121

2020
[80]

V ., Novinskaya, A

Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., Novinskaya, A. K., Pauna, N., & Rosnet, P. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5121

2020
[81]

G., Filippenko, A

Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009

1998
[82]

G., Press, W

Riess, A. G., Press, W. H., & Kirshner, R. P. 1996, ApJ, 473, 88

1996
[83]

G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, L7

2022
[84]

2020, A&A, 644, A176

Rigault, M., Brinnel, V ., Aldering, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A176

2020
[85]

2013, A&A, 560, A66

Rigault, M., Copin, Y ., Aldering, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A66

2013
[86]

2024, arXiv e-prints (ZTF SI), arXiv:2409.04346

Rigault, M., Smith, M., Goobar, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints (ZTF SI), arXiv:2409.04346

2024 arXiv
[87]

2018, A&A, 615, A68 Sánchez, S., Rosales-Ortega, F., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al

Roman, M., Hardin, D., Betoule, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A68 Sánchez, S., Rosales-Ortega, F., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A49

2018
[88]

2009, MNRAS, 396, 818

Schawinski, K., Lintott, C., Thomas, D., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 818

2009
[89]

M., Jones, D., Rest, A., et al

Scolnic, D. M., Jones, D., Rest, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 101

2018
[90]

J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

Shen, K. J., Kasen, D., Miles, B. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, 52

2018
[91]

J., Toonen, S., & Graur, O

Shen, K. J., Toonen, S., & Graur, O. 2017, ApJ, 851, L50

2017
[92]

Simard, L., Willmer, C. N. A., V ogt, N. P., et al. 2002, ApJS, 142, 1

2002
[93]

2015, MNRAS, 450, 435

Smethurst, R., Lintott, C., Simmons, B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 435

2015
[94]

2020, MNRAS, 494, 4426 Article number, page 22 of 23 R

Smith, M., Sullivan, M., Wiseman, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4426 Article number, page 22 of 23 R. Senzel et al.: ZTF SN Ia DR2 - Host Galaxy Decomposition

2020
[95]

T., Nugent, P., Knop, R

Soumagnac, M. T., Nugent, P., Knop, R. A., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03857

2024 arXiv
[96]

H., Bernardi, M., et al

Stoughton, C., Lupton, R. H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485

2002
[97]

2010, MNRAS, 406, 782

Sullivan, M., Conley, A., Howell, D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 782

2010
[98]

2003, MNRAS, 340, 1057

Sullivan, M., Ellis, R., Aldering, G., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1057

2003
[99]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 4111

Taylor, G., Lidman, C., Tucker, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4111

2021
[100]

2010, MNRAS, 404, 1775

Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., & Silk, J. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1775

2010
[101]

Tolman, R. C. 1930, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 16, 511

1930
[102]

Tolman, R. C. 1934, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 20, 169

1934
[103]

A., Heckman, T

Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

2004
[104]

2001, MNRAS, 328, 977

Trujillo, I., Aguerri, J., Cepa, J., & Gutiérrez, C. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 977

2001
[105]

A., Mould, J., Lidman, C., Ruhlmann-Kleider, V ., & Zhang, B

Uddin, S. A., Mould, J., Lidman, C., Ruhlmann-Kleider, V ., & Zhang, B. R. 2017, ApJ, 848, 56 van der Walt, S., Schönberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453

2017
[106]

E., et al

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

2020
[107]

J., Yates, R

Walcher, C. J., Yates, R. M., Minchev, I., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A61

2016
[108]

2023, MNRAS, 526, 4768

Walmsley, M., Géron, T., Kruk, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4768

2023
[109]

& Iben Jr, I

Whelan, J. & Iben Jr, I. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007

1973
[110]

2023, MNRAS, 520, 6214

Wiseman, P., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., & Popovic, B. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6214

2023
[111]

2022, MNRAS, 515, 4587

Wiseman, P., Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4587

2022
[112]

& Kasen, D

Woosley, S. & Kasen, D. 2011, ApJ, 734, 38

2011
[113]

2022, ApJ, 938, 83 Article number, page 23 of 23

Yang, J., Wang, L., Suntzeff, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 83 Article number, page 23 of 23

2022

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, L14

2024

[2] [2]

2020, A&A, 641, A6

Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

2020

[3] [3]

D., Driver, S

Allen, P. D., Driver, S. P., Graham, A. W., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 2 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

2006

[4] [4]

1990, MNRAS, 245, 130

Athanassoula, E., Morin, S., Wozniak, H., et al. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 130

1990

[5] [5]

2019, MNRAS, 490, 718

Barkhudaryan, L., Hakobyan, A., Karapetyan, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 718

2019

[6] [6]

Barkhudaryan, L. V . 2023, MNRAS, 520, L21

2023

[7] [7]

C., Kulkarni, S

Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Barlow, T., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 068003

2019

[8] [8]

Benson, A. J. 2010, Phys. Rep., 495, 33

2010