Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Time to Sparkler. Accurate ages of lensed globular clusters at $z=1.4$ with JWST photometry

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Five lensed globular clusters at z=1.4 have a mean age of 1.9 Gyr.

desk verdict A real proof-of-concept for lensed GCs as cosmic clocks, but the headline age precision is overstated and the GC identification is photometric, not spectroscopic. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06903 v1 pith:PGE3H763 submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Elena Tomasetti , Michele Moresco , Carmela Lardo , Frédéric Courbin , Raul Jimenez , Licia Verde , Martin Millon , Andrea Cimatti This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords globularclusterscosmicclocksJWST/NIRCamphotometrygravitationallensingstellarpopulationsynthesisBayesianSEDfittingageoftheUniverseSparklergalaxy
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

The paper tries to show that strongly lensed globular clusters at redshift z=1.4 can be used as cosmic clocks: objects whose measured ages date the Universe almost independently of cosmological assumptions. Using six-band JWST/NIRCam photometry of the Sparkler galaxy, it derives an average formation age of 1.9 ± 0.4 Gyr for five compact sources previously identified as globular cluster candidates. That age is younger than the roughly 4.5 Gyr age the Planck18 ΛCDM model predicts for the Universe at z=1.378, so the measurement is consistent with standard cosmology. If the cluster identification holds, this extends the cosmic clock method from z=0 to z>1, giving astronomers a new, independent way to date the Universe at early epochs.

What carries the argument

Three ingredients carry the argument: STARRED, a wavelet-based deconvolution photometry pipeline that separates unresolved point sources (the sparkles) from the complicated lensed arc of the host galaxy and delivers clean six-band fluxes; BAGPIPES, a Bayesian SED-fitting code using BC16 stellar population models, a delayed exponentially declining star formation history, a Kroupa initial mass function, and a Calzetti dust law; and broad uniform priors on age, metallicity, dust, and star-formation-history width that are deliberately independent of any cosmological model. The age prior spanning 0–15 Gyr lets the data choose the age without input from cosmology, and the six NIRCam bands (F090W through F444W) sample rest-frame wavelengths where populations around 1–3 Gyr are especially sensitive to age.

What would settle it

Take JWST/NIRSpec spectra of the five candidates: if they show strong nebular emission lines such as [OIII] or Balmer emission, or a young stellar signature inconsistent with a roughly 2 Gyr old population, the measured ages and the cosmic-clock interpretation would be falsified; conversely, spectra showing Balmer absorption typical of an intermediate-age population would support the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that five globular cluster candidates in the strongly lensed Sparkler galaxy have a mean age of 1.9 ± 0.4 Gyr, derived solely from integrated six-band JWST/NIRCam photometry after isolating point-source light from the lensed arc using deconvolution photometry. Stellar population fits with very broad, deliberately cosmology-independent priors (a uniform age prior spanning 0–15 Gyr, along with broad metallicity, dust, and star-formation-history priors) give ages that are not prior-dominated and that agree with the Planck18 ΛCDM age of the Universe at that redshift. This is the first time globular clusters beyond z=0 are used as cosmic clocks, and the age precision is comparable to that of the first passively evolving galaxy clocks at similar redshift from the mid-1990s.

Load-bearing premise

The five compact sources are genuinely old globular clusters rather than young star clusters, background galaxies, or clumps in the lensed arc; the paper adopts this identification from their red colors and lack of [OIII] emission, with no independent confirmation yet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Globular clusters at z>1 can serve as cosmic clocks, complementing passively evolving galaxies as cosmology-independent age anchors.
  • The measured ages give a lower limit on the age of the Universe at z=1.378 that is consistent with Planck18 ΛCDM, so the method can be used to test cosmological models.
  • The ages and metallicities of the five candidates enable an age-metallicity relation for the Sparkler's cluster system, relevant to galaxy formation and chemical enrichment.
  • The upcoming JWST/NIRSpec IFU spectra of the Sparkler will provide a blind test of the photometry-only age method.
  • A systematic multi-band survey of globular clusters in and behind galaxy clusters with JWST and Euclid could date clusters across a wide redshift range, extending cosmic clock measurements to many epochs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed by spectroscopy, this result would give globular clusters a role as independent probes of the Hubble tension, since their ages at high redshift constrain the expansion history without relying on distance ladders.
  • The method's success depends on the identification of the five sources as old globular clusters; a plausible alternative is that some are young massive clusters or chance projections along the arc, which the planned spectra can test.
  • A natural extension would be to apply the same deconvolution-plus-Bayesian pipeline to other strongly lensed systems with multiple candidate clusters, increasing sample sizes and pushing cosmic clock measurements to even higher redshifts.
  • The systematic offset noted in the F150W filter during fitting suggests a possible calibration or model issue; if real, it may shift ages by roughly 0.2 Gyr, a small but worth monitoring systematic for future applications.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents age measurements for five compact sources in the lensed Sparkler galaxy at z=1.378, previously identified as globular cluster (GC) candidates on the basis of their red colors and lack of [OIII] emission. Using six-band JWST/NIRCam photometry processed with the STARRED deconvolution pipeline and Bayesian SED fitting with BAGPIPES, the authors derive individual age posteriors and report a mean age of 1.9±0.4 Gyr, which they compare to the Planck18 ΛCDM age of the universe at that redshift (~4.5 Gyr). They argue that this result demonstrates the viability of using lensed GCs as cosmic clocks at z>1.

Significance. The paper introduces a novel technical path: combining high-resolution deconvolution photometry (STARRED) with redshift-independent priors in a Bayesian SED fit to measure ages of GC candidates at z~1.4 from integrated light. If the GC identification is confirmed and the age measurement refined, this approach could extend cosmic-clock studies beyond z=0, complementing passively evolving galaxies. The STARRED photometry and the explicit removal of cosmological assumptions from the priors are genuine strengths. However, the current precision is limited: the individual age posteriors are wide, the quoted average uncertainty is only the scatter of the posterior medians rather than a combined measurement error, and the GC nature of the sources remains unconfirmed. The result is therefore a promising proof of concept rather than a precise cosmic-clock measurement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The headline average age of 1.9±0.4 Gyr is reported as the mean of the five posterior medians, with the quoted error being the standard deviation of the medians. This does not represent the uncertainty of the combined age measurement: the individual 68% credible intervals are much wider (e.g., Source 1: 2.73+5.22−1.53 Gyr, i.e., [1.20, 7.95] Gyr; Source 4: 1.51+1.24−0.71 Gyr). The consistency with the Planck18 age of the universe at z=1.378 (~4.5 Gyr) is therefore much weaker than the quoted '1.9±0.4 Gyr' suggests. The authors should either combine the full posterior distributions (e.g., hierarchically or via a weighted mean that includes individual uncertainties) or clearly label the quoted value as the mean of medians with the scatter among sources, and temper the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Section 1, Section 4] The cosmic-clock claim rests entirely on the assumption that the five compact sources are globular clusters. The paper states this explicitly: 'Hereafter we will assume these candidates are indeed GCs' (Section 1). The evidence for GC candidacy is indirect—absence of [OIII] and red urJ colors—and the objects are unresolved at 0.04'' FWHM, so compact young clusters, background galaxies, or reddened star-forming clumps cannot be excluded. The upcoming NIRSpec IFU observations are correctly described as a 'strong blind test,' but until they are available, the reported ages apply only under the GC hypothesis. The abstract and conclusions should state this conditionality explicitly rather than presenting the result as a definitive measurement of GC ages.
  3. [Section 2.2, Fig. 3] The deliberately redshift-independent age prior (uniform 0–15 Gyr) is a strength for avoiding cosmological bias, but it admits ages that are unphysical at z=1.378, where the age of the universe is ~4.5 Gyr. For Source 1, the 68% posterior extends to 7.95 Gyr, and the posterior has substantial support beyond the cosmic age. This indicates that the age constraint for that source is weak and that the posterior may be influenced by the prior at large ages. The authors should quantify how the quoted average age and the claimed consistency with ΛCDM change if the age is truncated at the cosmic age at that redshift, and discuss whether the posteriors are truly prior-independent in the high-age tail.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'yield a formation age of 1.9±0.4 Gyr on average' should be accompanied by a caveat that this is the average of the individual posterior medians and that the sources are assumed to be globular clusters.
  2. [Section 2.2] The delayed-τ star formation history with τ in [0,1] Gyr may not be the most appropriate description for globular clusters, which are typically considered single stellar populations. Since the fitted τ values are reported to be ~0.6 Gyr, the authors should comment on whether this affects the age interpretation.
  3. [Appendix] The systematic underestimate of the F150W flux, which shifts ages by ~0.2 Gyr and metallicities by ~0.2 dex when masked, is only mentioned in the appendix. Since it represents a potential systematic affecting the central result, it should be summarized in the main text.
  4. [Section 1] The sentence 'a typical GC with an effective radius of 50 pc subtends a few milliarcsec at z=1−1.5' could be clarified to explain that this is why the sources are unresolved in the 0.04''-resolution STARRED images.
  5. [Section 1] The notation 'urJ colours' is used without defining the filters; it would be helpful to specify the corresponding JWST/NIRCam bands.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the age measurement is self-contained, and the main caveat is an acknowledged external assumption about GC classification, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The measured ages come from BAGPIPES fits to six-band JWST/NIRCam photometry with broad, redshift-independent priors: "a key modification to BAGPIPES, already tested and validated in Jiao et al. (2023) and Tomasetti et al. (2023), is applied to allow T0, and consequently the age of the stellar population, to span the full range of 0-15 Gyr independently of redshift, thus removing the effects of cosmological assumptions in the age priors." The Planck18 comparison is made after the fit as a reference, not as an input: "For reference, the ΛCDM Planck18-model inferred age of the Universe at redshift z = 1.378 is ∼4.5 Gyr." No equation defines the measured age in terms of Planck18 or in terms of the GC candidate selection. The stellar population models (BC16), the fitting code (BAGPIPES), and the photometry pipeline (STARRED) are external products or prior methodological developments; self-citations to Tomasetti et al. (2023, 2024), Millon et al. (2024), and Jimenez/Verde works are contextual and not load-bearing for the central age result. The paper explicitly flags its main external assumption in Section 1: "Hereafter we will assume these candidates are indeed GCs." This is a classification caveat, not a circular reduction, and the paper itself notes that upcoming NIRSpec IFU observations (Cycle 2 GO#2969) "will represent a strong blind test and validation of our methodology." Therefore the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction; the score is low only because of the acknowledged but as-yet-unverified GC classification premise.

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

The central age measurement depends on fitted stellar population parameters, on the assumption that the five compact sources are globular clusters, and on the accuracy of external stellar population and dust models. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Stellar population age for each GC candidate = 1.66-2.73 Gyr (posterior medians for sources 1, 2, 4, 8, 10)
    Output of the Bayesian SED fit; the mean age of 1.9 Gyr is computed from these five fitted values.
  • SFH timescale tau = about 0.6 Gyr (posterior medians, Fig. 4)
    Fitted with a uniform prior 0-1 Gyr; sets the width of the delayed exponential SFH and affects the age posterior.
  • Metallicity [Z/H] = -0.18 to -0.96 dex
    Fitted with a uniform prior -4 to 0.1; partially degenerate with age and dust.
  • Dust attenuation A_V = 0.25-0.46 mag for GC candidates
    Fitted with a uniform prior 0-4 mag; excluding dust raises the mean age by about 1.1 Gyr, so the age depends on this fit.
  • Velocity dispersion sigma_v = not reported
    Nuisance parameter in BAGPIPES; stated to have no effect on the other parameters.
  • Stellar mass = not reported
    Nuisance parameter; reported as having no effect on other parameters.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The five compact sources are globular clusters
    Stated in Section 1: 'Hereafter we will assume these candidates are indeed GCs.' Based on lack of [OIII] and red colors from Mowla et al. 2022; no spectroscopy yet.
  • domain assumption BC16 stellar population synthesis models accurately predict integrated SEDs of 1-3 Gyr old stellar populations
    Section 2.2: models adopted; no independent calibration at z~1.4 is provided.
  • domain assumption Delayed exponential SFH with tau in [0,1] Gyr describes the star formation history of these clusters
    Section 2.2: uniform prior on tau; GCs are assumed to be approximately single-burst populations.
  • domain assumption Calzetti dust attenuation law applies to these compact sources
    Section 2.2; dust affects the age estimate by about 1.1 Gyr when omitted, so the choice matters.
  • domain assumption STARRED photometry isolates point-source fluxes from the lensed arc without chromatic bias
    Section 2.1; relies on Millon et al. 2024 and on the Gaussian target PSF in the deconvolved images.
  • domain assumption Lensing magnification is achromatic over the Sparkler field
    Section 2.1: magnification about 12 and the caustic is shallow, so colors are unaffected by lensing.
  • standard math Bayesian nested sampling (Multinest) in BAGPIPES yields unbiased posteriors
    Section 2.2; public code and standard statistical machinery, though not independently verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time to Sparkler. Accurate ages of lensed globular clusters at $z=1.4$ with JWST photometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGE3H763

@misc{pith2026241206903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time to Sparkler. Accurate ages of lensed globular clusters at $z=1.4$ with JWST photometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGE3H763}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06903}
}
abstract

Determining reliable ages for old stellar objects at different redshifts offers a powerful means to constrain cosmology without relying on a specific cosmological model: this is known as the cosmic clocks method. Globular clusters (GCs), long recognised as hosts of the Universe's oldest stars, have served as the archetypical cosmic clocks. However, their age estimates have traditionally been confined to redshift z=0, limiting their role to constraining the present-day age of the Universe. Here we explore how to measure reliable ages of GCs well beyond $z=0$, leveraging their potential to extend cosmic clock measurements to earlier epochs. Specifically, we use 6-band JWST/NIRCam high-precision photometry of candidate stellar clusters in the Sparkler galaxy, located at redshift $z$=1.378 and strongly lensed by the galaxy cluster SMACS J0723.3-7327. By employing stellar population models within a Bayesian inference framework, we constrain the GCs' ages, star formation histories, metallicities, and dust attenuation. The five compact sources previously identified as GCs, based on their red spectral energy distributions being consistent with the colours of old stellar systems, yield a formation age of $1.9\pm0.4$ Gyr on average. This result implies a total age of the Universe that aligns well with the $\Lambda$CDM model derived from Planck18 data. Recent space-based observations have uncovered a wealth of lensed GCs as well as globulars within the member galaxies of the clusters themselves. These findings suggest that the pool of objects available for cosmic clock studies is enormous. A systematic multi-band photometric survey of GCs in and behind galaxy clusters, using facilities like Euclid and JWST, would therefore be a powerful tool for estimating cluster ages across a large range of redshifts, allowing the Universe to be dated across an unprecedented range of epochs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Colour composite region of 4′′on-a-side around the Sparkler. The figure is adapted from Millon et al. (2024) and indicates the labeling of the different objects. The colour code corresponds to the one in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sensitivity of GC’s SED to absolute age, estimated for the six photometric bands considered in this study. The SEDs are shown in the top panels, for a delayed SFH with τ = 0.1 Gyr and Kroupa IMF (Kroupa 2001) (see Sect. 2.2 for more details), along with the filter transmission functions used for studying the Sparkler. The left panels show the typical SED of a young population (age ∼1.5-4.5 Gyr), while the right pane… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Posterior for the ages of the five GCs in the Sparkler (with the posterior distributions for the other sources shown as thick grey lines). The best fit and 68% credible regions for the ages and metallicities are reported in the right panels. For reference, in both panels, the dashed lines indicate the age of the Universe in a vanilla ΛCDM cosmology. In total we vary six parameters: 1) the age of the olde… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Joint posteriors for the four parameters studied for the Sparkler. The blue points are the data while the orange are the best fit and the corresponding spectrum from BAGPIPES. Article number, page 6 of 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The dynamical evolution of the stellar clumps in the Sparkler galaxy

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    N-body simulations of the Sparkler clumps predict that survivors keep half-mass radii of 20-50 pc to z=0, making them too large to evolve into present-day globular clusters.

  2. Cosmic CORALS: Timing the Universe with high-z star clusters

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Star clusters at z=9.6 combined with local globular cluster ages give H0=70(+27,-16) km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.33(+0.37,-0.21), with a forecast that ~300 clusters could reach 4% precision.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    & Lardo, C

    Bastian, N. & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83

    2018

  2. [2]

    2020, PASA, 37, e046

    Baumgardt, H., Sollima, A., & Hilker, M. 2020, PASA, 37, e046

    2020

  3. [3]

    2022, ApJ, 928, L4

    Borghi, N., Moresco, M., & Cimatti, A. 2022, ApJ, 928, L4

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    & Matharu, J

    Brammer, G. & Matharu, J. 2021, gbrammer/grizli: Release 2021, Zenodo

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  6. [6]

    2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383

    Buchner, J. 2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383

    2016

  7. [7]

    & Conroy, C

    Cabrera-Ziri, I. & Conroy, C. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 341

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    B., Suyu, S

    Caminha, G. B., Suyu, S. H., Mercurio, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, L9

    2022

  2. [10]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 417

    2019

  3. [11]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379

    2018

  4. [12]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 131

    2022

  5. [13]

    Cezario, E., Coelho, P. R. T., Alves-Brito, A., Forbes, D. A., & Brodie, J. P. 2013, A&A, 549, A60

    2013

  6. [14]

    & Charlot, S

    Chevallard, J. & Charlot, S. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415

    2016

  7. [15]

    & Moresco, M

    Cimatti, A. & Moresco, M. 2023, ApJ, 953, 149

    2023

  8. [16]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Richard, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2180

    2023

  9. [17]

    C., Bolzonella, M., Boselli, A., et al

    Cuillandre, J. C., Bolzonella, M., Boselli, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13501

    2024

  10. [18]

    1996, Nature, 381, 581

    Dunlop, J., Peacock, J., Spinrad, H., et al. 1996, Nature, 381, 581

    1996

  11. [19]

    2024 [Arxiv:2411.04177v1]

    Dux, F., Millon, M., Lemon, C., et al. 2024 [Arxiv:2411.04177v1]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Forbes, D. A. & Romanowsky, A. J. 2023, MNRAS, 520, L58

    2023

  13. [21]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 387 Gonçalves, G., Coelho, P., Schiavon, R., & Usher, C

    Gallart, C., Zoccali, M., & Aparicio, A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 387 Gonçalves, G., Coelho, P., Schiavon, R., & Usher, C. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2327

    2005

  14. [22]

    2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8

    Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., et al. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8

    2019

  15. [23]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 48

    Jiao, K., Borghi, N., Moresco, M., & Zhang, T.-J. 2023, ApJS, 265, 48

    2023

  16. [24]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 043

    Jimenez, R., Cimatti, A., Verde, L., Moresco, M., & Wandelt, B. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 043

    2019

  17. [25]

    & Loeb, A

    Jimenez, R. & Loeb, A. 2002, ApJ, 573, 37

    2002

  18. [26]

    Jimenez, R., Moresco, M., Verde, L., & Wandelt, B. D. 2023, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2023, 047

    2023

  19. [27]

    2008, MN- RAS, 385, 1998

    Koleva, M., Prugniel, P., Ocvirk, P., Le Borgne, D., & Soubiran, C. 2008, MN- RAS, 385, 1998

    2008

  20. [28]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  21. [29]

    M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97

    2017

  22. [30]

    1998, ApJ, 494, 472

    Magain, P., Courbin, F., & Sohy, S. 1998, ApJ, 494, 472

    1998

  23. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 49

    Mahler, G., Jauzac, M., Richard, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 49

    2023

  24. [32]

    2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5340

    Michalewicz, K., Millon, M., Dux, F., & Courbin, F. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5340

    2023

  25. [33]

    Millon, M., Michalewicz, K., Dux, F., Courbin, F., & Marshall, P. J. 2024, AJ, 168, 55

    2024

  26. [34]

    Milone, A. P. & Marino, A. F. 2022, Universe, 8, 359

    2022

  27. [35]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, L16

    Moresco, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L16

    2015

  28. [36]

    2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 6

    Moresco, M., Amati, L., Amendola, L., et al. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 6

    2022

  29. [37]

    Moresco, M., Cimatti, A., Jimenez, R., et al. 2012, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012, 006

    2012

  30. [38]

    Moresco, M., Pozzetti, L., Cimatti, A., et al. 2016, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2016, 014

    2016

  31. [39]

    G., Desprez, G., et al

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K. G., Desprez, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, L35

    2022

  32. [40]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1867

    Noirot, G., Desprez, G., Asada, Y ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1867

    2023

  33. [41]

    M., Barrientes, J., Blome, C., et al

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Barrientes, J., Blome, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, L14

    2022

  34. [42]

    L., Loubser, S

    Ratsimbazafy, A. L., Loubser, S. I., Crawford, S. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3239

    2017

  35. [43]

    2023, A&A, 679, A96

    Tomasetti, E., Moresco, M., Borghi, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A96

    2023

  36. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22466

    Tomasetti, E., Moresco, M., Lardo, C., Cimatti, A., & Jimenez, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.22466

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    L., Jimenez, R., Verde, L., & Wandelt, B

    Valcin, D., Bernal, J. L., Jimenez, R., Verde, L., & Wandelt, B. D. 2020, J. Cos- mology Astropart. Phys., 2020, 002

    2020

  38. [46]

    A., Brogaard, K., Leaman, R., & Casagrande, L

    VandenBerg, D. A., Brogaard, K., Leaman, R., & Casagrande, L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 134 Article number, page 5 of 6 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda Age = 2.78+5.21 1.62 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Z/Z Z/Z = 0.13+0.48 0.10 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 [Gyr] = 0.59+0.28 0.35 3 6 9 12 Age [Gyr] 0.4 0.8 1.2 1....

    2013

Pith tools

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