Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Stars as cosmic scales: measuring stellar mass with microlensed supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Microlensed Type Ia supernovae can measure a lens galaxy's stellar mass-to-light ratio to about 15 percent and its typical stellar mass to about 50 percent.

desk verdict A useful, honestly-caveated forecast showing lensed SNe Ia could measure stellar mass-to-light ratio to ~15%, but the quoted precision is conditional on a perfect macromodel and should be treated as an upper bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01728 v2 pith:NYJ2AGXB submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.GA

Luke Weisenbach , Thomas Collett , Wolfgang Enzi , Lindsay Oldham , Ana Sainz de Murieta This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords gravitationalmicrolensinglensedTypeIasupernovaestellarmass-to-lightratioinitialmassfunctionIMFmismatchcausticcrossingfluxanomaliesmocksurveyforecasts
topics Dark Matter
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

Gravitationally lensed Type Ia supernovae can act as cosmic scales. The paper shows that, when a foreground galaxy's stars microlens the multiple images of such a supernova, the observed brightness anomalies carry information about how much of the galaxy's mass is in stars and how massive those stars typically are. In a simulated sample of 50 well-measured systems with single-epoch observations at peak brightness, the average stellar mass-to-light ratio (parameterized as the IMF mismatch $\alpha_{\rm IMF}$) is recovered to about 15 percent, and the typical microlens mass to about 50 percent when light-curve caustic-crossing times are included. These precisions would separate Chabrier-like and Salpeter-like initial mass functions at roughly $4\sigma$, a level that survives even if all errors are underestimated by a factor of two. The significance is that stellar mass would be measured directly from gravity rather than inferred from starlight and stellar population models.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by microlensing magnification probability distributions and by the distance to the nearest microlensing caustic. The free parameter is the IMF mismatch $\alpha_{\rm IMF}$, defined as the ratio of the stellar convergence measured by microlensing to the stellar convergence expected for a Chabrier IMF; this is equivalent to the stellar mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon_\star$ up to a fixed IMF-dependent conversion. For each image the likelihood uses the distribution of microlensing magnifications given the macromodel convergence and shear, while the caustic-crossing likelihood uses $p(d_{\rm caustic} \mid \theta_\star)$, with $\theta_\star \propto \sqrt{m_\star}$, to translate the observed time (or absence) of a caustic crossing into a constraint on the typical microlens mass. The posteriors from all images and all systems are multiplied, with a Gaussian prior on the intrinsic supernova brightness supplied by the Type Ia standard-candle nature of the sources.

What would settle it

Take the same mock catalogue and add dark-matter subhalo millilensing at a level of 20 percent of the flux-ratio anomalies; if the recovered stellar mass fraction shifts by more than the quoted statistical uncertainty, the method's core assumption that anomalies are purely stellar fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that gravitational microlensing of lensed Type Ia supernovae can directly measure the stellar mass content of the lens galaxy, without assuming a stellar mass-to-light ratio or a dark-matter profile. With a mock sample of 50 well-modeled systems observed at peak intrinsic brightness, the posterior on the IMF mismatch parameter $\alpha_{\rm IMF} = \kappa_\star / \kappa_{\star,\rm Chabrier}$ recovers the input value to about 15 percent at 68% confidence. Adding light-curve information on whether and when the expanding supernova photosphere crosses a microlensing caustic yields a constraint on the mean microlens mass of order 50 percent, recovering the injected $0.3\,M_\odot$. The paper further claims these precisions would separate a Chabrier-like from a Salpeter-like IMF at roughly $4\sigma$, with the discrimination degrading to $2\sigma$ even if all errors are underestimated by a factor of two.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the total mass density (the convergence) at each image position is known perfectly and that every brightness anomaly comes from stellar microlensing rather than from dark-matter clumps; if either assumption is wrong, the inferred stellar mass fraction is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 50 well-modeled lensed Type Ia supernovae and a 0.1 mag uncertainty on the intrinsic source brightness, the average stellar mass-to-light ratio is recovered to within roughly 15 percent.
  • The same 50 systems can discriminate between Chabrier-like and Salpeter-like initial mass functions at about $4\sigma$, and still at $2\sigma$ if all uncertainties are underestimated by a factor of two.
  • Increasing the sample to 200 systems tightens the stellar mass-to-light ratio constraint to about 7 percent and the mean microlens mass constraint to about 25 percent.
  • If the intrinsic source brightness uncertainty is instead 0.3 mag, roughly 200 systems are needed to match the stellar mass-to-light ratio precision that 50 systems give at 0.1 mag.
  • Light curves with identified or absent caustic crossings constrain the mean microlens mass to about 50 percent with 50 systems, and this mass constraint is less sensitive to source-brightness uncertainty than the stellar mass fraction constraint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the method survives real lens-model systematics, it could be applied to images at different radii in the same lens, turning microlensing into a probe of radial stellar mass-to-light gradients rather than a single average.
  • The same distance-to-caustic statistics could be inverted for a full mass spectrum of compact objects rather than a single characteristic mass, which would directly probe the low-mass cutoff of the initial mass function.
  • A near-term extension is to apply the single-epoch likelihood to the handful of known galaxy-scale lensed Type Ia supernovae with existing light curves; even a few systems with well-measured caustic-crossing times would test whether the timescales are consistent with stellar-mass microlenses.
  • Combining these gravitational stellar-mass measurements with stellar-population-synthesis masses for the same lenses would isolate mass in remnants and very low mass stars that contribute little or no light.
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 presents a simulated forecasting study of gravitational microlensing by stars in strong-lens galaxies, using gravitationally lensed Type Ia supernovae (glSNe Ia). The authors combine mock glSNe Ia systems from Sainz de Murieta et al. (2023) with microlensing magnification maps to infer an IMF-mismatch parameter alpha_IMF (equivalent to a stellar mass-to-light ratio) from single-epoch peak fluxes, and a mean microlens mass m_star from caustic-crossing times in the joint analysis. They report that 50 systems can constrain alpha_IMF to roughly 15% and m_star to roughly 50%, and that this would give a roughly 4 sigma Chabrier-versus-Salpeter discrimination. The analysis is an injection-recovery test with true values alpha_IMF = 1 and m_star = 0.3 solar masses; Section 6 lists important caveats, principally the assumption of a perfectly known macromodel and the possible contamination by millilensing.

Significance. If the forecast survives contact with realistic macromodel uncertainties, it is a valuable new probe: microlensing would measure stellar mass at image positions without stellar-population-synthesis priors or assumptions on the dark matter profile, and it would directly constrain the present-day mass function mean mass. Strengths of the paper are that the injection-recovery framework is internally consistent, uses a pre-existing published mock catalog, and is transparent about several limitations, including the Appendix A statement that alpha_IMF can fall slightly outside the 68% interval with a wide source-brightness prior. The principal weakness is that the headline precision is conditional on a perfect macromodel, and the paper's own Section 6 admits this will not hold in practice; that gap is the central open point for the claimed feasibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 3] Equations (7) and (8) and Figure 3 condition on the catalog values of kappa and gamma; the likelihood is evaluated at the true macromodel and never marginalizes over it. Section 6 correctly identifies the mass-sheet degeneracy and lens-model systematics as likely larger sources of error, but the proposed mitigation, that a few percent mass-sheet uncertainty changes magnifications by less than 10%, does not by itself bound the bias in alpha_IMF because the microlensing magnification distributions are strongly nonlinear functions of kappa_star/kappa. I request a direct sensitivity test: rerun the 50-system recovery with kappa or gamma shifted by the expected few percent, or sample over them, and report how the alpha_IMF posterior shifts relative to the quoted 15%. Without this, the headline '50 systems to 15%' is a conditional statistical precision rather than a forecast for real data.
  2. [§6, millilensing] The paper assumes all flux-ratio anomalies are stellar microlensing and acknowledges that dark-matter subhalo millilensing can also produce them; it also notes that glSNe lack the narrow-line-region diagnostic used for quasars. The suggestion of joint modeling with subhalo magnifications is not quantified, so the central claim that alpha_IMF is measured without prior assumptions on stellar mass is not robust to the known millilensing contamination. At minimum, the forecast should state how many systems or what prior on the subhalo mass function would be needed to separate the two effects, or it should present the alpha_IMF constraint as a joint constraint that includes a subhalo contribution.
  3. [§7 and Appendix A] Section 7 states that the input alpha_IMF and m_star values are consistently recovered within the 68% confidence intervals, but Appendix A reports that with a 0.3 mag source-brightness uncertainty alpha_IMF lies slightly outside the 68% interval of its marginalized posterior. This is an internal inconsistency in how the recovery is summarized. The paper should either report coverage statistics over many mock realizations rather than a single realization, or soften the claim to say that the true values are usually recovered within the stated intervals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2 and §5.2] Please specify whether the quoted precisions of roughly 15% and roughly 50% refer to 68% credible intervals or to 1 sigma errors; the distinction should be explicit in a forecasting paper.
  2. [§2.2 and §5.2] The demonstration in Section 2.2 uses a uniform prior on m_star between 0.01 and 2 solar masses, while Section 5.2 uses a uniform prior between 0 and 1 solar mass; the change of prior range should be justified.
  3. [Eq. (7)] Equation (7) uses D without a subscript inside the integrand although the product is over the images j; please make the notation consistent by writing D_j.
  4. [§3 and §5.1] The two references to 'Weisenbach in prep.' for the GPU microlensing codes should be replaced by a public code release or a methods reference so that the likelihood simulations are reproducible.
  5. [§6] The sentence describing '0.2-0.3 mag level as considered here' is ambiguous because it mixes the intrinsic source-brightness uncertainty with magnification uncertainties; please rephrase to distinguish the two quantities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is an injection-recovery forecast using forward-modeled mock data; the claimed precision is a Monte Carlo result, not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to measure a real quantity; it simulates mock glSNe Ia systems, injects known values (alpha_IMF = 1, m_star = 0.3 M_sun), and tests whether a Bayesian pipeline recovers them. The likelihood is built from microlensing magnification and caustic-distance distributions computed with established methods, not from the injected truth values, so the recovered posterior is a self-consistency check of statistical power rather than a prediction equal to an input by construction. The definition of alpha_IMF in Eq. 2 is a convention (a ratio to a Chabrier fiducial), and the Salpeter discrimination uses external estimates of alpha_IMF ~ 1.6-1.7, so the central claim has independent content. The main self-citations (Sainz de Murieta et al. 2023 mock catalog and the in-preparation GPU codes) are inputs or tools, not logical premises that force the result; the forecast would stand or fall on external validation of the mock catalog. The most important limitations are explicitly disclosed in Section 6: the paper assumes the macromodel is known precisely and concedes that this 'will, in general, not be true', also acknowledging millilensing as a contaminant. These are honest caveats about conditional precision, not hidden circular steps. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no renamed known result appear in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecasts rest on a chain of modeling choices rather than fitted constants: an assumed Chabrier IMF in the mocks, a single microlens mass, perfect macromodel knowledge, known source sizes, and a chosen observing baseline. These are externally supplied or hand-set assumptions, not quantities measured by the method. No new physical entities are introduced; the NCC map and distance-to-caustic maps are computational constructs from established caustic theory.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_IMF (IMF mismatch) = 0.98+0.14-0.12 (50 systems, 0.1 mag intrinsic scatter)
    Target parameter of the forecast, equivalent to stellar mass-to-light ratio; recovered from simulated microlensing magnifications rather than measured independently.
  • microlens mass m_star = 0.3 solar masses (input); recovered 0.27+0.14-0.09 (50 systems)
    Input value in the mock; the forecast of a roughly 50 percent constraint is relative to this assumed single mass.
  • intrinsic SN brightness scatter = 0.1 mag (fiducial), 0.3 mag (pessimistic)
    Assumed Gaussian scatter of standardized Ia brightness; drives how many systems are needed for a given alpha_IMF precision.
  • supernova expansion velocity = 10^4 km/s
    Assumed uniform-disk expansion rate; converts caustic crossing time to distance in units of microlens Einstein radius, directly entering the m_star posterior.
  • light curve baseline = 50 rest-frame days
    Observation window assumed in Section 3; determines which caustic crossings are detectable and the no-crossing posterior.
  • microlens mass prior range = 0.01-2 solar masses (Section 2.2), 0-1 solar masses (Section 5)
    Uniform priors chosen by hand; the m_star posterior and its 68 percent interval depend on these bounds.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption The total convergence kappa and shear at each image position are known perfectly from the macromodel.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 and acknowledged as unrealistic in Section 6; errors in kappa directly propagate into alpha_IMF.
  • domain assumption All microlenses have a single mass m_star (0.3 solar masses in the mocks).
    Stated in Section 2.2; a PDMF mass spectrum is discussed in Section 6 as a real complication not modeled, so the m_star constraint is for a single-mass population.
  • domain assumption The source half-light radius is known exactly.
    Section 5 assumes the supernova size is perfectly known from expansion velocity, removing the source-size versus microlens-mass degeneracy.
  • domain assumption Type Ia supernova intrinsic brightness is known to a Gaussian scatter of 0.1 or 0.3 mag after standardization.
    Used in the likelihood in Sections 4 and 5; the forecast precision depends strongly on this assumed scatter.
  • domain assumption The mock catalog of lensed supernovae from Sainz de Murieta et al. (2023), with cuts on image separation and observability, represents the future LSST sample.
    Section 3; sample size and composition, mostly doubles, drive the error forecasts.
  • domain assumption The stellar mass-to-light ratio is constant across the galaxy and across the sample.
    Section 4.1 notes combining systems assumes similar IMF, metallicity, and star formation history; radial gradients in Upsilon_star are acknowledged in Section 7.
  • domain assumption Millilensing by dark matter subhalos contributes negligibly to flux ratio anomalies.
    Section 6 caveat; if significant, alpha_IMF inferences would be biased because anomalies are attributed to stellar microlensing.
  • domain assumption The supernova photosphere expands as a uniform disk at 10^4 km/s.
    Section 3 sets the physical scale converting d_caustic to t_caustic, and therefore determines the m_star inference.
  • standard math Standard microlensing simulation methods (inverse polygon mapping, fast multipole method, Witt's critical curve method) are accurate.
    Used without derivation, citing Mediavilla et al. 2006, 2011; Jimenez-Vicente and Mediavilla 2022; Witt 1990.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stars as cosmic scales: measuring stellar mass with microlensed supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYJ2AGXB

@misc{pith2026250201728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stars as cosmic scales: measuring stellar mass with microlensed supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYJ2AGXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01728}
}
abstract

Gravitational microlensing is a unique probe of the stellar content in strong lens galaxies. Flux ratio anomalies from gravitationally lensed supernovae (glSNe), just like lensed quasars, can be used to constrain the stellar mass fractions at the image positions. Type Ia supernovae are of particular interest as knowledge of the intrinsic source brightness helps constrain the amount of (de)magnification from the macromodel predictions that might be due to microlensing. In addition, the presence or absence of caustic crossings in the light curves of glSNe can be used to constrain the mass of the microlenses. We find that a sample of 50 well-modeled glSNe Ia systems with single epoch observations at peak intrinsic supernova luminosity should be able to constrain an average stellar mass-to-light ratio to within $\sim 15\%$. A set of systems with light curve level information providing the location (or absence) of caustic crossing events can also constrain the mass of the microlenses to within $\sim 50\%$. Much work is needed to make such a measurement in practice, but our results demonstrate the feasibility of microlensing to place constraints on astrophysical parameters related to the initial mass function of lensing galaxies without any prior assumptions on the stellar mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the distance to the nearest caustic 𝑑caustic (top left) and the microlensing (de)magnification Δ𝑚 relative to the macromodel (bottom left) as a function of position in the source plane for 𝜅 = 𝛾 = 0.4. The probability distributions of 𝑑caustic and Δ𝑚 are shown in the right column. The thick lines show the specific distributions for the value of 𝜅★/𝜅 of the left column, while the thinner opaque lines… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posteriors of 𝛼IMF for 50 or 200 glSNe Ia systems, assuming an uncertainty for the intrinsic source brightness of 0.1 mag (top) or 0.3 mag (bottom). The true value is 𝛼IMF = 1 . In the case of larger uncertainty for the intrinsic source brightness, the sharp cutoff near 𝛼IMF ≈ 1.75 is because 𝜅★ must be ≤ 𝜅. We note that we are limited by microlensing simulations to sam￾pling the parameter space in discrete values o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Joint probability distribution of the magnification and the distance to the nearest caustic for various 𝜅 = 𝛾 and 𝜅★ values. Distances are in units of the Einstein radius of the microlenses 𝜃★ ∝ √ 𝑚★. Note the different axes scales for each subplot, particularly for 𝑑c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Joint posterior of 𝛼IMF and 𝑚★ for 50 glSNe Ia systems, assuming a 0.1 mag error on the intrinsic source brightness, a uniform prior on 𝛼IMF such that 𝜅★ ≤ 𝜅, and a uniform prior between 0 and 1 𝑀⊙ for 𝑚★. Solid and opaque contours denote the 68% and 95% confidence int…

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. A GPU Code for Finding Microlensing Critical Curves and Caustics

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A publicly available GPU code computes microlensing critical curves and caustics in parallel and produces maps of caustic crossing counts and distances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arendse N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3509A 531, 3509

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1356 2024

  2. [2]

    arXiv:2501.01578

    Arendse N., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01578 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250101578A p. arXiv:2501.01578

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.01578 2025

  3. [3]

    W., Treu T., Bolton A

    Auger M. W., Treu T., Bolton A. S., Gavazzi R., Koopmans L. V. E., Marshall P. J., Moustakas L. A., Burles S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..511A 724, 511

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/511 2010

  4. [4]

    Barnab \`e M., Spiniello C., Koopmans L. V. E., Trager S. C., Czoske O., Treu T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436..253B 436, 253

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1727 2013

  5. [5]

    H., Taubenberger S., Sluse D., Chan J

    Bayer J., Huber S., Vogl C., Suyu S. H., Taubenberger S., Sluse D., Chan J. H. H., Kerzendorf W. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A..29B 653, A29

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040169 2021

  6. [6]

    Bernardi M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..757B 475, 757

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3171 2018

  7. [7]

    Cappellari M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..597C 54, 597

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122432 2016

  8. [8]

    Cappellari M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.484..485C 484, 485

    doi:10.1038/nature10972 2012

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Chang K., Refsdal S., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1038/282561a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.282..561C 282, 561

    1979 doi

  2. [10]

    E., et al., 2018, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aao2469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Sci...360.1342C 360, 1342

    Collett T. E., et al., 2018, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aao2469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Sci...360.1342C 360, 1342

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Conroy C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..393C 51, 393

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    G., Villaume A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..166C 837, 166

    Conroy C., van Dokkum P. G., Villaume A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..166C 837, 166

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...439..671D 439, 671

    Dessart L., Hillier D. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...439..671D 439, 671

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Bernstein G., Chen W., Goobar A., Johansson J

    Diego J. M., Bernstein G., Chen W., Goobar A., Johansson J. P., Kelly P. L., M \"o rtsell E., Nightingale J. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202143009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..34D 662, A34

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653.1391D 653, 1391

    Dobler G., Keeton C. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653.1391D 653, 1391

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    G., Schmidt B

    Eastman R. G., Schmidt B. P., Kirshner R., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...466..911E 466, 911

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    Fabbri R., Costa L. D. F., Torelli J. C., Bruno O. M., 2008, @doi [ACM Comput. Surv.] 10.1145/1322432.1322434 , 40

    2008

  11. [19]

    E., Gorenstein M

    Falco E. E., Gorenstein M. V., Shapiro I. I., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184422 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...289L...1F 289, L1

    1985 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Vernardos G., Goldstein D

    Foxley-Marrable M., Collett T. E., Vernardos G., Goldstein D. A., Bacon D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.5081F 478, 5081

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Frohmaier C., Goldstein D

    Foxley-Marrable M., Collett T. E., Frohmaier C., Goldstein D. A., Kasen D., Swann E., Bacon D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4622F 495, 4622

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Gilman D., Birrer S., Nierenberg A., Treu T., Du X., Benson A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.6077G 491, 6077

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Nugent P

    Goldstein D. A., Nugent P. E., Kasen D. N., Collett T. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...22G 855, 22

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Nugent P

    Goldstein D. A., Nugent P. E., Goobar A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1fe0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243....6G 243, 6

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Goobar A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aal2729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...356..291G 356, 291

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Goobar A., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01981-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1098G 7, 1098

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Wambsganss J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...583..575G 583, 575

    Granot J., Schechter P. L., Wambsganss J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...583..575G 583, 575

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    Greengard L., Rokhlin V., 1987, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/0021-9991(87)90140-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987JCoPh..73..325G 73, 325

    1987 doi

  21. [29]

    Y., Conley A., Howell D

    Hsiao E. Y., Conley A., Howell D. A., Sullivan M., Pritchet C. J., Carlberg R. G., Nugent P. E., Phillips M. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663.1187H 663, 1187

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Huber S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A.161H 631, A161

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    H., Noebauer U

    Huber S., Suyu S. H., Noebauer U. M., Chan J. H. H., Kromer M., Sim S. A., Sluse D., Taubenberger S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.110H 646, A110

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Huber S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A.157H 658, A157

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Bernardi M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14445.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.394.1978H 394, 1978

    Hyde J. B., Bernardi M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14445.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.394.1978H 394, 1978

    2009

  26. [34]

    J., Webster R

    Irwin M. J., Webster R. L., Hewett P. C., Corrigan R. T., Jedrzejewski R. I., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989AJ.....98.1989I 98, 1989

    1989 doi

  27. [35]

    Jim \'e nez-Vicente J., Mediavilla E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885...75J 885, 75

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Jim \'e nez-Vicente J., Mediavilla E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941...80J 941, 80

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..265K 923, 265

    Kenworthy W. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..265K 923, 265

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Kwan J., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...193...27K 193, 27

    Kirshner R. P., Kwan J., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...193...27K 193, 27

    1974 doi

  31. [39]

    S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605...58K 605, 58

    Kochanek C. S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605...58K 605, 58

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    Larison C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ada776 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980..172L 980, 172

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    F., Gil-Merino R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645..835L 645, 835

    Lewis G. F., Gil-Merino R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645..835L 645, 835

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    F., Irwin M

    Lewis G. F., Irwin M. J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/276.1.103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.276..103L 276, 103

    1995 doi

  35. [43]

    F., Irwin M

    Lewis G. F., Irwin M. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/283.1.225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283..225L 283, 225

    1996 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Lopez P., Mediavilla T., Abajas C., Gonzalez-Morcillo C., Gil-Merino R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653..942M 653, 942

    Mediavilla E., Mu \ n oz J. A., Lopez P., Mediavilla T., Abajas C., Gonzalez-Morcillo C., Gil-Merino R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653..942M 653, 942

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    Mediavilla E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706.1451M 706, 1451

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Ariza O., Lopez P., Gonzalez-Morcillo C., Jimenez-Vicente J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...42M 741, 42

    Mediavilla E., Mediavilla T., Mu \ n oz J. A., Ariza O., Lopez P., Gonzalez-Morcillo C., Jimenez-Vicente J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...42M 741, 42

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Vives-Arias H., Calder \'o n-Infante J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5dab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836L..18M 836, L18

    Mediavilla E., Jim \'e nez-Vicente J., Mu \ n oz J. A., Vives-Arias H., Calder \'o n-Infante J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5dab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836L..18M 836, L18

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Schechter P

    Mortonson M. J., Schechter P. L., Wambsganss J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..594M 628, 594

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3270M 496, 3270

    M \"o rtsell E., Johansson J., Dhawan S., Goobar A., Amanullah R., Goldstein D. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3270M 496, 3270

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Metcalf R

    Moustakas L. A., Metcalf R. B., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06055.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339..607M 339, 607

    2003

  43. [51]

    B., Smith R

    Newman A. B., Smith R. J., Conroy C., Villaume A., van Dokkum P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa816d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845..157N 845, 157

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Treu T., Wright S

    Nierenberg A. M., Treu T., Wright S. A., Fassnacht C. D., Auger M. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2434N 442, 2434

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Auger M

    Oldham L. J., Auger M. W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..133O 476, 133

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Paczynski B., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...301..503P 301, 503

    1986 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Hollenbach D

    Parravano A., McKee C. F., Hollenbach D. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...726...27P 726, 27

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L.105P 413, L105

    Phillips M. M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L.105P 413, L105

    1993 doi

  49. [57]

    Pierel J. D. R., Rodney S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab164a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876..107P 876, 107

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Rappaport S., Schechter P

    Pooley D., Blackburne J. A., Rappaport S., Schechter P. L., Fong W.-f., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648...67P 648, 67

    2006 doi

  52. [60]

    A., Rappaport S., Schechter P

    Pooley D., Blackburne J. A., Rappaport S., Schechter P. L., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661...19P 661, 19

    2007 doi

  53. [61]

    L., Schwab J., Wambsganss J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1892P 697, 1892

    Pooley D., Rappaport S., Blackburne J., Schechter P. L., Schwab J., Wambsganss J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1892P 697, 1892

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    Riess A. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    E., Magee M

    Sainz de Murieta A., Collett T. E., Magee M. R., Weisenbach L., Krawczyk C. M., Enzi W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.4296S 526, 4296

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    E., Magee M

    Sainz de Murieta A., Collett T. E., Magee M. R., Pierel J. D. R., Enzi W. J. R., Lokken M., Gagliano A., Ryczanowski D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2523S 535, 2523

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    L., 2018, in Jensen J., Rich R

    Schechter P. L., 2018, in Jensen J., Rich R. M., de Grijs R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 514, Stellar Populations and the Distance Scale. p. 79 ( @eprint arXiv 1712.00393 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1712.00393

    2018 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    L., Wambsganss J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/343856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580..685S 580, 685

    Schechter P. L., Wambsganss J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/343856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580..685S 580, 685

    2002 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Wambsganss J., Lewis G

    Schechter P. L., Wambsganss J., Lewis G. F., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613...77S 613, 77

    2004 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Pooley D., Blackburne J

    Schechter P. L., Pooley D., Blackburne J. A., Wambsganss J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793...96S 793, 96

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    W., Wambsganss J., 2010, @doi [General Relativity and Gravitation] 10.1007/s10714-010-0956-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010GReGr..42.2127S 42, 2127

    Schmidt R. W., Wambsganss J., 2010, @doi [General Relativity and Gravitation] 10.1007/s10714-010-0956-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010GReGr..42.2127S 42, 2127

    2010 doi

  62. [70]

    Schneider P., Sluse D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.103S 564, A103

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Treu T., Agnello A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..210S 473, 210

    Shajib A. J., Treu T., Agnello A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..210S 473, 210

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Treu T., Birrer S., Sonnenfeld A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.2380S 503, 2380

    Shajib A. J., Treu T., Birrer S., Sonnenfeld A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.2380S 503, 2380

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-024-01105-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221010790S 220, 87

    Shajib A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-024-01105-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221010790S 220, 87

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-020217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..577S 58, 577

    Smith R. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-020217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..577S 58, 577

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Auger M

    Sonnenfeld A., Treu T., Gavazzi R., Marshall P. J., Auger M. W., Suyu S. H., Koopmans L. V. E., Bolton A. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...752..163S 752, 163

    2012 doi

  68. [76]

    J., Suyu S

    Sonnenfeld A., Treu T., Marshall P. J., Suyu S. H., Gavazzi R., Auger M. W., Nipoti C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/94 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800...94S 800, 94

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    W., Gavazzi R., Treu T., More S., Komiyama Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..164S 481, 164

    Sonnenfeld A., Leauthaud A., Auger M. W., Gavazzi R., Treu T., More S., Komiyama Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..164S 481, 164

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    T., Chan J., More A., Suyu S

    Sonnenfeld A., Jaelani A. T., Chan J., More A., Suyu S. H., Wong K. C., Oguri M., Lee C.-H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A..71S 630, A71

    2019 doi

  71. [80]

    C., Koopmans L

    Spiniello C., Trager S. C., Koopmans L. V. E., Chen Y. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/753/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753L..32S 753, L32

    2012 doi

  72. [81]

    H., Goobar A., Collett T., More A., Vernardos G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-024-01044-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024SSRv..220...13S 220, 13

    Suyu S. H., Goobar A., Collett T., More A., Vernardos G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-024-01044-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024SSRv..220...13S 220, 13

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    Tak \'a ts K., Vink \'o J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19921.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.2783T 419, 2783

    2012

  74. [83]

    Treu T., Koopmans L. V. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611..739T 611, 739

    2004 doi

  75. [84]

    W., Koopmans L

    Treu T., Auger M. W., Koopmans L. V. E., Gavazzi R., Marshall P. J., Bolton A. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709.1195T 709, 1195

    2010 doi

  76. [85]

    Vernardos G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5583V 483, 5583

    2019 doi

  77. [86]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.1223V 445, 1223

    Vernardos G., Fluke C. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.1223V 445, 1223

    2014 doi

  78. [87]

    Vernardos G., Tsagkatakis G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1944V 486, 1944

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    Vernardos G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-024-01043-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024SSRv..220...14V 220, 14

    2024 doi

  80. [89]

    F., Weymann R

    Walsh D., Carswell R. F., Weymann R. J., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1038/279381a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.279..381W 279, 381

    1979 doi

  81. [90]

    Wambsganss J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...386...19W 386, 19

    1992 doi

  82. [91]

    J., Schneider P., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...258..591W 258, 591

    Wambsganss J., Witt H. J., Schneider P., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...258..591W 258, 591

    1992

  83. [92]

    L., Pontula S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...70W 922, 70

    Weisenbach L., Schechter P. L., Pontula S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...70W 922, 70

    2021 doi

  84. [93]

    S., Krawczyk C., Vernardos G., Enzi W., Lundgren A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4349W 531, 4349

    Weisenbach L., Collett T., de Murieta A. S., Krawczyk C., Vernardos G., Enzi W., Lundgren A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4349W 531, 4349

    2024 doi

  85. [94]

    J., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...236..311W 236, 311

    Witt H. J., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...236..311W 236, 311

    1990

  86. [95]

    J., Mao S., Schechter P

    Witt H. J., Mao S., Schechter P. L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...443...18W 443, 18

    1995 doi

  87. [96]

    Wojtak R., Hjorth J., Gall C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.3342W 487, 3342

    2019 doi

  88. [97]

    Wyithe J. S. B., Turner E. L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03917.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.320...21W 320, 21

    2001

  89. [98]

    H., Chen G

    Y ld r m A., Suyu S. H., Chen G. C. F., Komatsu E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A..21Y 675, A21

    2023 doi

  90. [99]

    Young P., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...244..756Y 244, 756

    1981 doi

  91. [100]

    L., Filippenko A

    Zheng W., Kelly P. L., Filippenko A. V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabaeb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858..104Z 858, 104

    2018 doi

  92. [101]

    van Dokkum P., Conroy C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad77b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973L..32V 973, L32

    2024 doi

  93. [102]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...68V 841, 68

    van Dokkum P., Conroy C., Villaume A., Brodie J., Romanowsky A. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...68V 841, 68

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.