Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ZTF SN Ia DR2: Properties of the low-mass host galaxies of Type Ia supernovae in a volume-limited sample

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 High-velocity Type Ia supernovae occur at the same rate in low-mass and high-mass host galaxies, according to a volume-limited sample of 1,523 events.

desk verdict A useful volume-limited sample paper, but the 'similar HV rates' conclusion is a 1-sigma null that gets overstated in the abstract, and the truly low-mass claim rests on a single event. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14262 v1 pith:WKO6C5ZI submitted 2024-12-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

U. Burgaz , K. Maguire , G. Dimitriadis , M. Smith , J. Sollerman , L. Galbany , M. Rigault , A. Goobar
show 20 more authors
J. Johansson Y.-L. Kim A. Alburai M. Amenouche M. Deckers M. Ginolin L. Harvey T. E. Muller-Bravo J. Nordin K. Phan P. Rosnet P. E. Nugent J. H. Terwel M. Graham D. Hale M. M. Kasliwal R. R. Laher J. D. Neill J. Purdum B. Rusholme
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords TypeIasupernovaeHostgalaxiesHigh-velocityStellarmassSNratesSiIIvelocityVolume-limitedsampleDelay-timedistribution
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 uses the volume-limited ZTF DR2 sample of 1,523 Type Ia supernovae to ask whether high-velocity (HV) events are really produced preferentially by massive galaxies, as an earlier study claimed. It finds that HV and normal-velocity (NV) SNe Ia occur in similar proportions in low- and high-mass host galaxies, and that the apparent earlier preference likely came from small samples and a bias toward observing bright, massive hosts. The same sample shows that faint, fast-declining subtypes such as 91bg-like events concentrate in massive, old hosts, while bright 91T-like and 99aa-like events prefer lower-mass, younger hosts. It also derives specific SN Ia rates per stellar mass and finds them roughly flat at low masses, consistent with little or no metallicity dependence in the delay-time distribution.

What carries the argument

The comparison engine is the volume-limited ZTF DR2 SN Ia sample (1,523 events at z ≤ 0.06, including 52 low-mass hosts and six 'hostless' events assigned upper-limit masses). Velocities come from the Si II λ6355 absorption feature measured near maximum light, with the standard 12,000 km s⁻¹ split into high-velocity and normal-velocity classes. Host stellar masses are estimated from photometry with PÉGASE.2 spectral energy distribution fitting, and the SN-to-host offset scaled by galaxy size (dDLR) is used to check that host-light contamination does not mimic velocity differences. The rate calculation divides each mass bin's SN count by the integral of a galaxy stellar mass function, normalized to 10¹⁰ solar masses, and applies a completeness correction for faint 91bg-like events.

What would settle it

Obtain spectroscopic redshifts and peak-phase spectra for the low-mass-host SNe Ia (log(M*/M☉) ≤ 8, plus the six hostless events) and recount the HV fraction; if it is significantly lower than the ~40% seen above 10¹⁰ M☉, the equal-rate conclusion collapses. The current sample contains only one HV event below that mass, so a single additional low-mass HV event or a confirmed absence in a larger sample would directly test the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that high-velocity SNe Ia are not a preferentially high-mass-galaxy phenomenon: in the volume-limited ZTF DR2 sample, the number of HV SNe Ia observed in low-mass hosts is consistent with the number expected if the HV fraction is independent of host stellar mass (34 observed versus 40 ± 6 expected under the equal-rate assumption in the [−5, 5] day sample; 26 versus 23 ± 5 when template-matched redshifts are excluded). The paper concludes that earlier reports of a mass preference were driven by sample size and selection bias rather than by a physical link between host mass or metallicity and high ejecta velocity. It also argues that HV SNe Ia appear in both old and young stellar populations, so they may be a continuous extension of the normal population rather than a separate explosion channel.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion assumes the volume-limited sample is complete for high-velocity SNe Ia down to the faintest low-mass hosts, even though 69% of low-mass peak-light events lack spectroscopic redshifts (they are template-matched) and only one HV event sits below log(M*/M☉) = 8.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If HV rates are truly mass-independent, models that tie high ejecta velocity to high host metallicity or to a single progenitor channel need revision.
  • The apparent HV–mass relation in earlier samples should be reexamined as a selection effect rather than a physical correlation.
  • The low and roughly flat specific SN Ia rate at low masses, matched by delay-time-distribution models with little or no metallicity dependence, weakens the case for a strong metallicity scaling in the SN Ia rate.
  • The inclusion of hostless events with upper-limit masses keeps the lowest-mass bin populated, so future deeper imaging can turn these upper limits into detections and sharpen the rate measurement.
  • The similar dDLR and host-color distributions of HV and NV events imply both classes suffer comparable host-galaxy contamination, so the velocity diversity is intrinsic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is that the fixed 12,000 km s⁻¹ HV/NV split may not mark two distinct populations; if the HV fraction varies continuously with mass and age, other spectral diagnostics may better separate explosion mechanisms.
  • With only one HV event below log(M*/M☉) = 8 and many template-matched redshifts, a modest spectroscopic follow-up campaign could either confirm the equal-rate claim or reveal a downturn at the very lowest masses; the current data cannot distinguish these.
  • If the specific rate is genuinely flat at low masses, using host mass as a proxy for metallicity in cosmological corrections may be less effective than direct metallicities, and the standard 'mass step' may need a different physical origin.
  • The 91bg-like completeness correction assumes missing faint events follow the host-mass distribution of observed ones; if faint 91bg events are even more concentrated in massive hosts, the high-mass specific rate would rise and affect the metallicity comparison.
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. The paper analyzes host-galaxy stellar masses for 1523 SNe Ia from the volume-limited ZTF DR2 sample, focusing on low-mass and intermediate-mass hosts. Using Si II λ6355 velocities from peak-phase spectra, SALT2 light-curve parameters, and host masses, it examines the relation between velocity and host mass, subtype-host preferences, the nature of six hostless SNe Ia, and the specific SN Ia rate as a function of host mass. The central claims are that HV SNe Ia occur at similar rates in low-mass and high-mass hosts, in contrast to the earlier PTF-based result of Pan et al. (2020), and that the low-mass specific SN Ia rate is flatter than previous estimates and consistent with little or no metallicity dependence in the delay-time distribution.

Significance. If the HV-rate null result holds, it is a valuable counter to the previous claim that high-mass (metal-rich) hosts preferentially produce HV SNe Ia, and it supports the idea that HV SNe Ia are not a distinct progenitor population. The paper provides the largest spectroscopically confirmed sample of SNe Ia in low-mass hosts to date, including a careful treatment of six hostless events, and it explicitly tests redshift-source selection effects by comparing template-matched and spectroscopic redshifts. The analysis is not circular: the HV/NV classification uses Si II velocity measurements that are independent of host mass, and the rate calculations use external stellar mass functions rather than fitting the target result. The manuscript also makes a clear falsifiable prediction: future larger samples should confirm a flat HV fraction across host mass if the conclusion is correct.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Table 3] The central null result—that HV SNe Ia occur at similar rates in low- and high-mass hosts—does not bound the dominant systematic, the SNID redshift–velocity degeneracy. The paper itself documents in Section 2.3 (Table 2) that SN 2020lmd has a prominent HV feature that produces reasonable SNID matches over z ≈ 0.011–0.018, and the authors adopt the upper-end redshift. The same degeneracy can affect the 45 template-matched SNe in the Section 3.4 sample and the 69% of low-mass SNe without spectroscopic redshifts in the Section 3.3 peak sample, because redshift and v_Si are not independent in SNID matching: a template with a different intrinsic velocity can trade off against redshift. If some true low-mass HV events are assigned to higher-mass hosts or to NV, the observed counts in the low-mass HV quadrant of Table 3 (34 or 26 for the [−5,5] rows) could be underestimated, and the agreement with the expectation (40±6 or 23±5) could be an artifact of the systematic. The 'exc' rows remove the template-matched SNe but do not establish that the remaining spectroscopic subset is an unbiased tracer of the low-mass HV population. I request a quantitative estimate of SNID redshift errors (e.g., from fits to the spectroscopic subsample or from simulations) and a propagation of those errors through the host-mass and velocity assignments, or an explicit upper bound on the fraction of low-mass HV events that could be misassigned.
  2. [Section 3.3, Fig. 5] The claim that HV SNe Ia are found in low-mass hosts rests on exactly one event below log(M*/M_sun) = 8 (Fig. 5 and Section 3.3). The abstract and Section 3.4 do not distinguish this bin from the intermediate-mass range 8 < log(M*/M_sun) < 10, where the Table 3 mass split at 10^10 places substantial statistical power. With a single HV event in the truly low-mass bin, the data are consistent with a wide range of HV fractions there, including values far from the 'similar rates' conclusion. Please rephrase the claim to distinguish the mass range where the sample has statistical power (roughly 8 < log(M*/M_sun) < 10 vs > 10) from the log(M*/M_sun) <= 8 bin, and state explicitly that the low-mass bin is unconstrained (0 or 1 HV events). This caveat should appear in the abstract or conclusions.
  3. [Section 3.5] The specific-rate analysis assumes that the host stellar-mass distribution of the 34 missed 91bg-like events between z = 0.04 and 0.06 matches that of the observed 91bg-like events in those redshift bins. This assumption is load-bearing for the rates at log(M*/M_sun) >= 10, where 91bg-like SNe are most common. If the missed events preferentially occur in fainter hosts, or if the ZTF magnitude limit removes a mass-dependent fraction of 91bg events, the corrected rates and the comparison to ASAS-SN and DES could shift. Please test the sensitivity of the rates to this assumption, for example by using the complete z <= 0.04 91bg sample to define the mass distribution, or by assigning the missed events according to a range of plausible mass distributions and showing how the corrected rates change.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The column headers of Table 2 appear garbled (e.g., 'M g,S N 3 Mi,host upper'); the table should use clearly formatted headings that separate the SN absolute magnitude, host upper-limit magnitude, and upper-limit stellar mass.
  2. [Section 2.1] Several typographical issues appear throughout the text, including 'di fferent' for 'different', 'we also can apply' for 'we can also apply', and 'wich' for 'which' in Section 3.5. A careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Section 3.4] The sentence stating that the [−3,3] day sample yields observed numbers 'higher than or very close to the predicted values' is not supported by the first two rows of Table 3 (observed 20 vs expected 31±6 and observed 16 vs expected 19±4); please rephrase to 'consistent within the uncertainties' or similar.
  4. [Section 3.2] The claim that 91T-like and 99aa-like SNe Ia have a higher percentage in low and intermediate mass bins relative to the total sample would benefit from a quantitative statement or an explicit reference to the percentages shown in Fig. 4, rather than only a qualitative description.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract states that HV SNe Ia come from both older and young populations, but the age inference is based on host g−z color rather than direct stellar-age measurements; please clarify this in the abstract or conclusions so the claim is not over-stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HV/NV versus host-mass comparison is a null-hypothesis count test using independently measured velocities and host masses.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that HV SNe Ia occur at similar rates in low- and high-mass host galaxies. This is supported by the quadrant analysis in Section 3.4 and Table 3, where the expected number of low-mass HV events is computed explicitly under the null hypothesis: 'under the assumption of HV SNe Ia rate being same in low and high stellar masses, we predict 110(40/109) = 40±6 SNe in the low-mass HV quadrant, compared to the 34 SNe observed.' This is a standard two-sample count comparison, not a fitted model: the expected count is derived from the observed high-mass HV fraction and tested against the independent low-mass count. The HV/NV classification uses Si II λ6355 velocities from Burgaz et al. (2024), while host masses come from Smith et al. (in prep.); these are separate, independently measured inputs, and no equation in the paper reduces the velocity classification to host mass or vice versa. The paper also reports the analysis both including and excluding the 45 SNID template-matched redshifts ('all' and 'exc' rows in Table 3), so the central null result is not forced by the template-matched subset. The 91bg completeness correction in Section 3.5 uses intrinsic rates from Dimitriadis et al. (2024) and is confined to the specific-rate analysis; it does not enter the HV/NV quadrant comparison. The acknowledged redshift–velocity degeneracy for SN 2020lmd is a systematic uncertainty affecting at most one hostless object, and the paper explicitly adopts the conservative upper-end redshift; this is a limitation, not a circular definition. Companion-paper citations provide data products, classifications, and completeness simulations, but the load-bearing statistical comparison is self-contained and not equivalent to its inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no free constants. It relies on external data products from companion papers (Smith et al. in prep., Burgaz et al. 2024, Dimitriadis et al. 2024) and on literature mass functions and delay-time distributions. The main assumptions are completeness of the volume-limited sample and reliability of host masses and subtyping.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ZTF DR2 volume-limited sample is complete for non-peculiar SNe Ia at z<=0.06 (Amenouche et al. 2024 simulations).
    Underpins the rate calculation and the claim that the sample is unbiased; cited to simulations in a companion paper.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy stellar masses from PÉGASE.2 SED fitting (Smith et al. in prep.) are accurate, especially for low-mass hosts.
    All mass-dependent results rely on these masses; low-mass hosts are faint and photometry is difficult.
  • domain assumption Spectral subtype classifications from Burgaz et al. (2024) and Dimitriadis et al. (2024) are correct, including the treatment of 'Ia-unclear' events.
    Subtype fractions per mass bin drive conclusions about 91T/91bg preferences; the paper notes about 27 possible misclassifications from missing 04gs/86G classes outside the peak phase range.
  • domain assumption Missed 91bg-like SNe Ia between z=0.04 and 0.06 follow the same host mass distribution as the observed 91bg-like events.
    Used to correct the specific SN Ia rate; explicitly stated in Section 3.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ZTF SN Ia DR2: Properties of the low-mass host galaxies of Type Ia supernovae in a volume-limited sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WKO6C5ZI

@misc{pith2026241214262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ZTF SN Ia DR2: Properties of the low-mass host galaxies of Type Ia supernovae in a volume-limited sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WKO6C5ZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14262}
}
abstract

In this study, we explore the characteristics of `low-mass' ($\log(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \leq 8$) and `intermediate-mass' ($8 \lt \log(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \leq 10$) host galaxies of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) from the second data release (DR2) of the Zwicky Transient Facility survey and investigate their correlations with different sub-types of SNe Ia. We use the photospheric velocities measured from the Si II $\lambda$6355 feature, SALT2 light-curve stretch ($x_1$) and host-galaxy properties of SNe Ia to re-investigate the existing relationship between host galaxy mass and Si II $\lambda$6355 velocities. We also investigate sub-type preferences for host populations and show that while the more energetic and brighter 91T-like SNe Ia tends to populate the younger host populations, 91bg-like SNe Ia populate in the older populations. Our findings suggest High Velocity SNe Ia (HV SNe Ia) not only comes from the older populations but they also come from young populations as well. Therefore, while our findings can partially provide support for HV SNe Ia relating to single degenerate progenitor models, they indicate that HV SNe Ia other than being a different population, might be a continued distribution with different explosion mechanisms. We lastly investigate the specific rate of SNe Ia in the volume-limited SN Ia sample of DR2 and compare with other surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14262 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hostless SNe Ia from the volume-limited ZTF DR2 sample. All SNe presented in this plot are investigated for potential host galaxies within a search radius of 125 kpc and each image shown here spans 125 kpc scaled from the corresponding SN redshift for a clear visualization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Galactic latitudes plotted against the stellar masses from the ZTF DR2 volume limited (z ≤ 0.06) sample, color mapped with the MW extinction (AV ). The filled circles represent the sample with a measured stellar galaxy mass and triangles represent the estimated upper limits of the 6 hostless SNe. Dashed black lines show +15 and -15 degrees in the Galactic latitude. ric measurements available in the PS1 database for … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Host galaxy masses in the ZTF DR2 volume limited (z ≤ 0.06) sample. Blue solid circles are the ‘low-mass’ galaxies where log(M⋆/M⊙) ≤ 8. Blue triangles represent the estimated upper limits of the 6 hostless SNe. The upper histogram shows the distributions of the stellar galaxy masses in mass bins. is the most plausible reason for no host being detected for these SNe Ia. We include these SNe Ia in our further analysi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stellar galaxy masses plotted against the SALT2 x1 parameter for the good light-curve coverage sample of the volume-limited sample of ZTF DR 2 SN Ia (1106 SNe Ia, including the 6 hostless SNe Ia). A relative percentage of subtypes in each mass bin is plotted as a histo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Si ii λ6355 velocities, taken from Burgaz et al. (2024) plotted against the stellar galaxy masses of the volume-limited ZTF DR2 SN Ia sample for 477 SNe Ia spectra with a phase range of −5 d ≤ t0 ≤ 5 d. Filled and empty circles represents the SNe Ia with known redshift…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dDLR distribution of the ‘normal’ SNe Ia are presented as a function of stellar galaxy masses, color-mapped according to the global g−zrest-frame colors. Circles and squares represent NV and HV SNe Ia, respectively. Dashed horizontal line represent the separation o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Si ii λ6355 velocities plotted against the redshift. Right: Si ii λ6355 velocities plotted against the stellar galaxy masses. In both plots, blue filled and unfilled circles represent the volume-limited ZTF DR2 SN Ia sample adjusted to match the selection criteri…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SN Ia rate per unit stellar mass as function of stellar galaxy mass. As in Brown et al. (2019) and Gandhi et al. (2022), all the rates are normalized to the rate at log(M⋆/M⊙) = 10. Upper left: The filled red dots represent the volume-limited ZTF SN Ia DR2 sample, usin…

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. ZTF SN Ia DR2 follow-up: early excess in Type Ia supernova light curves

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

    Up to about a quarter of Type Ia supernovae may have an early light-curve bump, but the candidate list depends strongly on the detection method and neither leading explosion model is clearly preferred.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    ZTF SN Ia DR2: Simulations and volume limited sample

    Amenouche, M., Smith, M., Rosnet, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04650

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    K., Driver, S

    Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., Loveday, J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 621

    2012

  4. [4]

    V ., Hakobyan, A

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

    2019

  5. [5]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143

    2019

  6. [6]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289

    2003

  7. [7]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    2019

  8. [8]

    D., Walters, R., et al

    Blagorodnova, N., Neill, J. D., Walters, R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 035003

    2018

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    & Tonry, J

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

    2007

  2. [10]

    S., Stanek, K

    Brown, J. S., Stanek, K. Z., Holoien, T. W. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3785

    2019

  3. [11]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06828

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

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 108

    Childress, M., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 108

    2013

  6. [14]

    W., Bloom, J

    Coughlin, M. W., Bloom, J. S., Nir, G., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 31 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MN- RAS, 460, 1270

    2023

  7. [15]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02929

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    G., Jha, S

    Dettman, K. G., Jha, S. W., Dai, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 267

    2021

  9. [17]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168 Article number, page 12 of 13 U. Burgaz et al.: ZTF SN Ia DR2: Host galaxy properties of SNe Ia

    2019

  10. [18]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04200

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

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439

    2022

  12. [20]

    Fink, M., Hillebrandt, W., & Röpke, F. K. 2007, A&A, 476, 1133

    2007

  13. [21]

    & Rocca-V olmerange, B

    Fioc, M. & Rocca-V olmerange, B. 1997, A&A, 326, 950

    1997

  14. [22]

    J., Scolnic, D., Rest, A., et al

    Foley, R. J., Scolnic, D., Rest, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 193

    2018

  15. [23]

    2012, Science, 337, 927

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927

    2012

  16. [24]

    2012, ApJ, 755, 125

    Galbany, L., Miquel, R., Östman, L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 125

    2012

  17. [25]

    S., Garnavich, P

    Gallagher, J. S., Garnavich, P. M., Berlind, P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 210

    2005

  18. [26]

    S., Garnavich, P

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

    2008

  19. [27]

    J., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P

    Gandhi, P. J., Wetzel, A., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1941

    2022

  20. [28]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.02072

    Ginolin, M., Rigault, M., Copin, Y ., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.02072

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20965

    Ginolin, M., Rigault, M., Smith, M., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20965

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    J., Kulkarni, S

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

    2019

  23. [31]

    L., Sand, D

    Graham, M. L., Sand, D. J., Zaritsky, D., & Pritchet, C. J. 2015, ApJ, 807, 83

    2015

  24. [32]

    B., & Modjaz, M

    Graur, O., Bianco, F. B., & Modjaz, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 905

    2015

  25. [33]

    & Maoz, D

    Graur, O. & Maoz, D. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1746

    2013

  26. [34]

    R., D’Andrea, C

    Gupta, R. R., D’Andrea, C. B., Sako, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 92

    2011

  27. [35]

    R., Kuhlmann, S., Kovacs, E., et al

    Gupta, R. R., Kuhlmann, S., Kovacs, E., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 154

    2016

  28. [36]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11

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

    2007

  29. [37]

    A., Barkhudaryan, L

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

    2020

  30. [38]

    M., Suntzeff, N

    Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 2391

    1996

  31. [39]

    Holoien, T. W. S., Berger, V . L., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 108

    2023

  32. [40]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800

    2018

  33. [41]

    Howell, D. A. 2001, ApJ, 554, L193

    2001

  34. [42]

    A., Sullivan, M., Brown, E

    Howell, D. A., Sullivan, M., Brown, E. F., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 661

    2009

  35. [43]

    & Fowler, W

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

    1960

  36. [44]

    & Tutukov, A

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

    1984

  37. [45]

    M., Cannella, C., Bagdasaryan, A., et al

    Kasliwal, M. M., Cannella, C., Bagdasaryan, A., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 038003

    2019

  38. [46]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4861

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

    2021

  39. [47]

    L., Rigault, M., Neill, J

    Kim, Y . L., Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 024505

    2022

  40. [48]

    D., Stanek, K

    Kistler, M. D., Stanek, K. Z., Kochanek, C. S., Prieto, J. L., & Thompson, T. A. 2013, ApJ, 770, 88

    2013

  41. [49]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502

    2017

  42. [50]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 1988

    Lin, H.-T., Pan, Y .-C., & Abdurro’uf. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1988

    2024

  43. [51]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., Röpke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 23, 082001

    2023

  44. [52]

    & Terada, Y

    Maeda, K. & Terada, Y . 2016, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 25, 1630024

    2016

  45. [53]

    & Graur, O

    Maoz, D. & Graur, O. 2017, ApJ, 848, 25

    2017

  46. [54]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

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

    2014

  47. [55]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

    2019

  48. [56]

    Q., Drout, M

    Moon, D.-S., Ni, Y . Q., Drout, M. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 151 Müller-Bravo, T. & Galbany, L. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4508

    2021

  49. [57]

    1997, Science, 276, 1378

    Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., & Kishimoto, N. 1997, Science, 276, 1378

    1997

  50. [58]

    E., Polin, A

    Nugent, A. E., Polin, A. E., & Nugent, P. E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.10601

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2013, ApJ, 770, L8

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., & Springel, V . 2013, ApJ, 770, L8

    2013

  52. [60]

    2020, ApJ, 895, L5

    Pan, Y .-C. 2020, ApJ, 895, L5

    2020

  53. [61]

    C., Sullivan, M., Maguire, K., et al

    Pan, Y . C., Sullivan, M., Maguire, K., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 354

    2015

  54. [62]

    C., Sullivan, M., Maguire, K., et al

    Pan, Y . C., Sullivan, M., Maguire, K., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1391

    2014

  55. [63]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 565

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

    1999

  56. [64]

    1997, ApJ, 483, 565

    Perlmutter, S., Gabi, S., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1997, ApJ, 483, 565

    1997

  57. [65]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 84

    Polin, A., Nugent, P., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJ, 873, 84

    2019

  58. [66]

    X., Scannapieco, E., Diehl, S., & Fryer, C

    Raskin, C., Timmes, F. X., Scannapieco, E., Diehl, S., & Fryer, C. 2009, MN- RAS, 399, L156

    2009

  59. [67]

    G., Filippenko, A

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

    1998

  60. [68]

    G., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Macri, L. M., Hoffmann, S. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 56

    2016

  61. [69]

    2020, A&A, 644, A176

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

    2020

  62. [70]

    2013, A&A, 560, A66

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

    2013

  63. [71]

    D., Blagorodnova, N., et al

    Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., Blagorodnova, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A115

    2019

  64. [72]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04346

    Rigault, M., Smith, M., Goobar, A., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04346

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.02073

    Rigault, M., Smith, M., Regnault, N., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.02073

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    C., Tiwari, V ., Bobrick, A., et al

    Roy, N. C., Tiwari, V ., Bobrick, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, L24

    2022

  67. [75]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 105

    Sato, Y ., Nakasato, N., Tanikawa, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 105

    2015

  68. [76]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48

    2014

  69. [77]

    J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

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

    2018

  70. [78]

    A., Röpke, F

    Sim, S. A., Röpke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L52

    2010

  71. [79]

    C., Dilday, B., et al

    Smith, M., Nichol, R. C., Dilday, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 61

    2012

  72. [80]

    T., Nugent, P., Knop, R

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

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    A., et al

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

    2010

  74. [82]

    J., et al

    Sullivan, M., Le Borgne, D., Pritchet, C. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 868

    2006

  75. [83]

    N., Hopkins, A

    Taylor, E. N., Hopkins, A. M., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1587

    2011

  76. [84]

    E., et al

    Taylor, G., Lidman, C., Tucker, B. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4111 van der Walt, S., Crellin-Quick, A., & Bloom, J. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1247

    2021

  77. [85]

    & Han, Z

    Wang, B. & Han, Z. 2012, New A Rev., 56, 122

    2012

  78. [86]

    V ., Ganeshalingam, M., et al

    Wang, X., Filippenko, A. V ., Ganeshalingam, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, L139

    2009

  79. [87]

    V ., Zhang, T., & Zhao, X

    Wang, X., Wang, L., Filippenko, A. V ., Zhang, T., & Zhao, X. 2013, Science, 340, 170

    2013

  80. [88]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355

    1984

  81. [89]

    & Iben, Icko, J

    Whelan, J. & Iben, Icko, J. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007

    1973

  82. [90]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 3330

    Wiseman, P., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3330

    2021

  83. [91]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 6214 Article number, page 13 of 13

    Wiseman, P., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., & Popovic, B. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6214 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2023

Pith tools

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