pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07983 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

A Natural gtrsim 100times Telescope: Discovery of the Strongly Lensed Type II SN 2025mkn at z=1.37

Aaron Meisner, Aleksandra Bochenek, Alex G. Kim, Alice Townsend, Andreu Font-Ribera, Andrew Drake, Anjasha Gangopadhyay, Anna Y. Q. Ho, Anthony Kremin, Antonella Palmese, Ariel Goobar, Arjun Dey, Arman Shafieloo, Axel de la Macorra, Benjamin A. Weaver, Benjamin J. Shappee, Brendan O'Connor, Brenna Flaugher, Cameron Lemon, Christoffer Fremling, Claire Poppett, Daniel A. Perley, Daniel Gruen, David Brooks, Davide Bianchi, David Kirkby, David Schlegel, David Sprayberry, Dick Joyce, Dragan Huterer, Edvard M\"ortsell, Enrique Gazta\~naga, Eric C. Bellm, Eusebio Sanchez, Francisco Prada, Frank J. Masci, Gaston Gutierrez, Genevieve Schroeder, Graziano Rossi, Greg Aldering, Gregory Tarl\'e, Hu Zou, Ignasi P\'erez-R\`afols, Igor Andreoni, Jacob L. Wise, Jaime E. Forero-Romero, Jason T. Hinkle, Jean J. Somalwar, Jesper Sollerman, Jessica Aguilar, Joel Johansson, John Della Costa, John Moustakas, Jorge Jimenez, Joseph Silber, Josiah Purdum, Kaustav K. Das, Laurent Le Guillou, Lin Yan, Malte Busmann, Mansi M. Kasliwal, Marc Manera, Martin Landriau, Mathew Smith, Michael A. Tucker, Michael Coughlin, Michael E. Levi, Michael Schubnell, Mickael Rigault, Mustapha Ishak, Nathalie Palanque-Delabrouille, Nikki Arendse, Ofer Lahav, Peter Doel, Ramon Miquel, Robert Kehoe, Robert Stein, Roger Smith, Satya Gontcho A. Gontcho, Se\'an J. Brennan, Segev Benzvi, Seshadri Nadathur, Stephanie Juneau, Stephen Thorp, Steven Ahlen, Steve Schulze, Suhail Dhawan, T. Emil Rivera-Thorsen, Theodore Kisner, Todd Claybaugh, Tracy X. Chen, Will J. Percival, Xander J. Hall

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords gravitational lensingsupernovaType II supernovahigh-redshiftJWST observationsstrong lensingcosmography
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Type II supernova at redshift 1.37 has been discovered magnified by more than 100 times through gravitational lensing.

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

The paper reports the detection of SN 2025mkn, a Type II supernova at z=1.371 that appears as multiple images due to strong gravitational lensing by a foreground galaxy at z=0.42. Observations from ZTF, JWST, and Keck show the source is highly magnified, with the main images requiring a factor of about 100 or up to 250 to match the brightness of similar local supernovae. This natural magnification acts like a telescope, allowing detailed study of the supernova's light curve and spectrum despite its great distance. Lens models support the high magnification and predict the order of image arrival times. The discovery opens possibilities for using such events in cosmology through time delays.

Core claim

SN 2025mkn is a strongly lensed Type II supernova at redshift 1.37, with its light magnified by a factor of at least 100 by the gravitational field of a z=0.42 elliptical galaxy. The transient was first seen as a blue point source, later resolved into multiple images by JWST, including a close pair and a fainter counterimage, with spectra confirming the redshift and supernova type. The observed luminosity requires high magnification to align with local Type II events, and lens models are consistent with this, showing the faint image arrived first.

What carries the argument

Strong gravitational lensing by the foreground elliptical galaxy at z=0.42, which splits the supernova light into multiple images with high magnification factors.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the multiple images and spectra come from one single Type II supernova at z=1.37 whose intrinsic properties match those of nearby supernovae once the magnification is accounted for.

What would settle it

If high-resolution imaging or additional spectra reveal that the images have inconsistent redshifts or light curve shapes that cannot be explained by time delays and a single event, the lensing interpretation would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07983 by Aaron Meisner, Aleksandra Bochenek, Alex G. Kim, Alice Townsend, Andreu Font-Ribera, Andrew Drake, Anjasha Gangopadhyay, Anna Y. Q. Ho, Anthony Kremin, Antonella Palmese, Ariel Goobar, Arjun Dey, Arman Shafieloo, Axel de la Macorra, Benjamin A. Weaver, Benjamin J. Shappee, Brendan O'Connor, Brenna Flaugher, Cameron Lemon, Christoffer Fremling, Claire Poppett, Daniel A. Perley, Daniel Gruen, David Brooks, Davide Bianchi, David Kirkby, David Schlegel, David Sprayberry, Dick Joyce, Dragan Huterer, Edvard M\"ortsell, Enrique Gazta\~naga, Eric C. Bellm, Eusebio Sanchez, Francisco Prada, Frank J. Masci, Gaston Gutierrez, Genevieve Schroeder, Graziano Rossi, Greg Aldering, Gregory Tarl\'e, Hu Zou, Ignasi P\'erez-R\`afols, Igor Andreoni, Jacob L. Wise, Jaime E. Forero-Romero, Jason T. Hinkle, Jean J. Somalwar, Jesper Sollerman, Jessica Aguilar, Joel Johansson, John Della Costa, John Moustakas, Jorge Jimenez, Joseph Silber, Josiah Purdum, Kaustav K. Das, Laurent Le Guillou, Lin Yan, Malte Busmann, Mansi M. Kasliwal, Marc Manera, Martin Landriau, Mathew Smith, Michael A. Tucker, Michael Coughlin, Michael E. Levi, Michael Schubnell, Mickael Rigault, Mustapha Ishak, Nathalie Palanque-Delabrouille, Nikki Arendse, Ofer Lahav, Peter Doel, Ramon Miquel, Robert Kehoe, Robert Stein, Roger Smith, Satya Gontcho A. Gontcho, Se\'an J. Brennan, Segev Benzvi, Seshadri Nadathur, Stephanie Juneau, Stephen Thorp, Steven Ahlen, Steve Schulze, Suhail Dhawan, T. Emil Rivera-Thorsen, Theodore Kisner, Todd Claybaugh, Tracy X. Chen, Will J. Percival, Xander J. Hall.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: ZTF gr image of the field before the transient (bottom) and NOT gri image during the peak of the lightcurve (top). Right: NIRCam F150W, F200W, and F277W images, alongside the NIRSpec G140M white light image (top), and subtractions after modelling the lensing galaxy, G, and image A (bottom). Note the inset showing that image A is well modelled as 2 PSFs separated by ∼0. ′′07. The F277W and G140M resid… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: Compilation of ground-based (circles) and JWST (square symbols) photometric observations of SN 2025mkn (Image A). The solid lines show the lightcurves of SN 2023ixf in matching rest-frame filters or synthetic photometry on spectra indicated in the legend. The star symbols and dashed lines show the photometry for Image B (shifted both in time and magnitude, corresponding to a fiducial time-delay… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: Selection of narrow absorption features seen in the LRIS spectrum of SN 2025mkn (here showing the continuum normalized Keck/LRIS spectrum from 2025 June 24). The spectrum shows absorption features from the lens galaxy at z = 0.420 (blue lines), as well as from systems at z = 1.256 (green) and z = 1.371 (red lines). Right panel: JWST/NIRSpec spectra of SN 2025mkn Images A and B (black lines). Th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit elliptical power-law with external shear mass model for SN 2025mkn, with predicted image positions as open red circles. The model recovers the observed positions (red dots) of A1, A2 and B, but also predicts a fourth image, C. The source lies close to the astroid caustic (purple), and the high magnification images of A straddle the critical curve (dark blue). allowed to deviate from the light. Suc… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the discovery of SN 2025mkn, a gravitationally lensed Type II supernova. First detected as a blue transient in ZTF, 0.83$^{\prime\prime}$ from a $z=0.42$ elliptical galaxy, follow-up SNIFS/UH2.2m and LRIS/Keck spectra revealed absorption lines at $z=1.371$. Later JWST NIRCam imaging shows that the bright transient is a close pair of point sources separated by $\sim 0.07^{\prime\prime}$, and a 30 times fainter counterimage opposite the lens, for which NIRSpec reveals strong H$\alpha$ emission also at $z=1.371$. The light curves and spectra are consistent with the Type II supernova source being magnified $\gtrsim 100$ times, with $\sim 250$ required to reconcile its luminosity with that of nearby events such as SN 2023ixf. Lens models are consistent with such high magnifications, and always show that the faint image arrived first (undetected in earlier ZTF imaging), consistent with the later spectral phase of this fainter image. A fourth image is also predicted and possibly detected in the NIRSpec data. Light-curve-based time-delay measurements are not possible due to the first image being the faintest; however, the resolved NIRSpec spectra offer a future opportunity for time-delay cosmography through supernova phase measurements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of SN 2025mkn as a strongly gravitationally lensed Type II supernova at z=1.371, lensed by a z=0.42 elliptical galaxy. Multi-facility observations (ZTF detection, SNIFS/LRIS spectra showing z=1.371 absorption, JWST NIRCam imaging of a ~0.07″ image pair plus 30× fainter counter-image, and NIRSpec spectra with Hα at z=1.371) are presented. Lens models are stated to be consistent with magnifications ≳100× (∼250× needed to match the luminosity of local Type II events such as SN 2023ixf after distance modulus and k-correction), with the faint image arriving first, matching the observed spectral phase difference; a fourth image is predicted.

Significance. If the classification, redshift, and high-magnification interpretation hold, this would constitute a rare, well-observed example of a strongly lensed core-collapse supernova at cosmological distance, functioning as a natural telescope for high-z transient studies. The multi-telescope dataset and use of standard gravitational lensing calculations provide independent lines of evidence; the potential for future time-delay cosmography via resolved NIRSpec spectral phases is a notable strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Lens modeling] Lens modeling section: the claim that magnifications ≳100 (∼250 to reconcile with SN 2023ixf) are required is load-bearing for the central result, yet the models appear constrained primarily by image positions; near-caustic sensitivity to source position within the 0.07″ separation and to the assumed mass profile (e.g., isothermal vs. free ellipticity or external shear) is not quantified. A family of lower-μ (∼20–50) solutions consistent with positions alone could still reproduce the configuration without violating the data, and it is unclear whether the observed 30:1 flux ratio was imposed as a constraint.
  2. [Observations and analysis] Light-curve and spectral analysis: the Type II classification and luminosity match rest on qualitative consistency with local analogs (explicitly SN 2023ixf) rather than quantitative light-curve fits, error bars on the magnification factor, or full dataset details including k-corrections and uncertainties; this weakens the assertion that ∼250× is specifically required.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and text: the factor of ∼250 should be presented with an associated uncertainty range or sensitivity statement rather than as a point value.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and data presentation: ensure all JWST images, spectra, and light curves are labeled with exact epochs, phases, and filter information for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We have revised the lens modeling and light-curve/spectral analysis sections to provide more quantitative details on magnification constraints, model sensitivities, and comparisons to local analogs. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Lens modeling] Lens modeling section: the claim that magnifications ≳100 (∼250 to reconcile with SN 2023ixf) are required is load-bearing for the central result, yet the models appear constrained primarily by image positions; near-caustic sensitivity to source position within the 0.07″ separation and to the assumed mass profile (e.g., isothermal vs. free ellipticity or external shear) is not quantified. A family of lower-μ (∼20–50) solutions consistent with positions alone could still reproduce the configuration without violating the data, and it is unclear whether the observed 30:1 flux ratio was imposed as a constraint.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. In the revised manuscript we expand the lens modeling section with a systematic exploration of mass profiles (isothermal, power-law with free index, and models including free ellipticity plus external shear). We sample source positions within the observed 0.07″ image separation and report the resulting magnification distribution, including uncertainties. The 30:1 flux ratio measured directly from the JWST NIRCam imaging was imposed as a constraint. While position-only models can admit lower magnifications, the joint constraint from positions, flux ratio, and consistency with the observed supernova brightness yields μ ≳ 100 in all viable models. A new figure shows the magnification posterior from the model ensemble. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Observations and analysis] Light-curve and spectral analysis: the Type II classification and luminosity match rest on qualitative consistency with local analogs (explicitly SN 2023ixf) rather than quantitative light-curve fits, error bars on the magnification factor, or full dataset details including k-corrections and uncertainties; this weakens the assertion that ∼250× is specifically required.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative support strengthens the luminosity argument. The revised manuscript now includes template light-curve fits to the multi-band photometry using SN 2023ixf as reference, with k-corrections computed from the observed spectra. The full photometric table and spectral comparisons are provided in an appendix. We propagate uncertainties from the light-curve fit, distance modulus, and cosmology to derive error bars on the magnification factor. The value ∼250× is the factor required to match the peak absolute magnitude of SN 2023ixf after corrections; we clarify that the lens models independently require μ ≳ 100, with the precise value depending on the assumed intrinsic luminosity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; magnification from standard lens models compared to independent luminosity data

full rationale

The paper's chain begins with direct observations (ZTF detection, Keck/LRIS and SNIFS spectra yielding z=1.371 absorption lines, JWST NIRCam resolving the 0.07″ pair plus 30:1 fainter counter-image, NIRSpec confirming Hα at same redshift). Lens models are then applied to these image positions and flux ratios using conventional mass profiles for the z=0.42 elliptical; the resulting μ ≳ 100 is compared to the observed brightness to check consistency with local Type II events like SN 2023ixf after distance and k-correction. No equation or step defines the magnification via the luminosity match, renames a fit as a prediction, or imports a uniqueness theorem from self-citation. The time-delay discussion explicitly notes that light-curve delays are unavailable and defers to future spectral-phase measurements. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and standard lensing formalism.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The discovery relies on standard assumptions from gravitational lensing theory and supernova spectral classification, with the magnification value obtained by scaling to local events rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • magnification factor = ~250
    The value ∼250 is chosen to match the observed luminosity to that of SN 2023ixf; the abstract states ≳100 as a lower bound from lens models.
axioms (2)
  • standard math General relativity accurately describes light deflection by foreground galaxies
    Invoked for all lens models that predict image positions, time delays, and magnifications.
  • domain assumption Absorption and emission line patterns uniquely identify Type II supernovae at the measured redshift
    Used to assign z=1.371 and supernova type from SNIFS, LRIS, and NIRSpec spectra.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6039 in / 1465 out tokens · 43703 ms · 2026-05-10T17:29:31.676812+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. SCAT Data Release 1: 1810 optical spectra of 1330 transients

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 accept novelty 6.0

    SCAT DR1 delivers 1810 spectra of 1330 transients with classifications, fitted light curves, new redshifts for many host galaxies, and host properties as a testbed for photometric classification pipelines.

  2. The Quadruply Lensed Supernova SN 2025wny: Implications for LSST

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A protocol is outlined for maximizing LSST quadruply lensed supernova science through pre-listed hosts, real-time modeling, and immediate follow-up to capture all images and time delays.

  3. HOLISMOKES XXI: Detecting strongly lensed type Ia supernovae from time series of multi-band LSST-like imaging data -- Part II

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A convLSTM classifier identifies lensed SNe Ia in simulated LSST-like time series, reaching ~60% true-positive rate at O(10^{-4}) false-positive rate by the seventh epoch even after adding realistic PSF variations and...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

    Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  2. [2]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/028 2025

  3. [3]

    2021, A&A, 653, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040169

    Bayer, J., Huber, S., V ogl, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040169

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040169 2021

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  5. [5]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Bertin, E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2006

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  7. [7]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Bertin, E., Mellier, Y ., Radovich, M., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & T. H. Handley, 228

    2002

  8. [8]

    2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 189, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002

    Birrer, S., & Amara, A. 2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 22, 189, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002 2018

  9. [9]

    The Journal of Open Source Software , keywords =

    Birrer, S., Shajib, A., Gilman, D., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3283, doi: 10.21105/joss.03283

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03283 2021

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Blagorodnova, N., Neill, J. D., Walters, R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 035003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f 2018

  11. [11]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, v1.9.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7577320

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, v1.9.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7577320

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7577320 2023

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Busmann, M., O’Connor, B., Sommer, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554626

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554626 2025

  13. [13]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66 2017

  14. [14]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  15. [15]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  16. [16]

    L., Frye, B

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad50a5 2024

  17. [17]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  18. [18]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling I: The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the IMF to the derived physical properties of galaxies

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  19. [19]

    Conroy, C., White, M., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 708, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/58

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/58 2010

  20. [20]

    and Bloom, Joshua S

    Coughlin, M. W., Bloom, J. S., Nir, G., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1 2023

  21. [21]

    A., Larison, C., Pierel, J

    Coulter, D. A., Larison, C., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04156

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04156 2026

  22. [22]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 6845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae432

    Cristiani, S., Cupani, G., Trost, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae432

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae432 2024

  23. [23]

    , keywords =

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00037. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00037 DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b DESI Collaboration, Abdul...

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2 2020

  24. [24]

    A., Mahabal, A., Masci, F

    Duev, D. A., Mahabal, A., Masci, F. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3582, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2357

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2357 2019

  25. [25]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6775, doi: 10.21105/joss.06775

    Dux, F. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6775, doi: 10.21105/joss.06775

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.06775 2024

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    Dye, S., Lawrence, A., Read, M. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2622

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2622 2018

  27. [27]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.4485 2013

  28. [28]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  29. [29]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d Gaia Collaboration. 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d 2020

  30. [30]

    A., & Nugent, P

    Goldstein, D. A., & Nugent, P. E. 2016, ApJL, 834, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/1/L5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/1/l5 2016

  31. [31]

    R., et al

    Goobar, A., Amanullah, R., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2017, Science, 356, 291, doi: 10.1126/science.aal2729

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aal2729 2017

  32. [32]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1098, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01981-3 DISCOVERY OFSN 2025MKN11

    Goobar, A., Johansson, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1098, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01981-3 DISCOVERY OFSN 2025MKN11

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01981-3 2023

  33. [33]

    2023, Measuring the Hubble constant with the next multiple-imaged lensed supernova, JWST Proposal

    Goobar, A., Adamo, A., Andreoni, I., et al. 2023, Measuring the Hubble constant with the next multiple-imaged lensed supernova, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #3468

    2023

  34. [34]

    2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 201, 1

    Goobar, A., Lemon, C., Johansson, J., et al. 2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 201, 1

    2025

  35. [35]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 Gössl, C. A., & Riffeser, A. 2002, A&A, 381, 1095, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011522

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 2023

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c 2019

  37. [37]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 18

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 2023

  38. [38]

    Statistics and Computing , keywords =

    Higson, E., Handley, W., Hobson, M., & Lasenby, A. 2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0 2019

  39. [39]

    2025, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-2137, 1

    Hinkle, J. 2025, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-2137, 1

    2025

  40. [40]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394 Jiménez-Vicente, J., & Mediavilla, E

    Hu, L., Wang, L., Chen, X., & Yang, J. 2022, ApJ, 936, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394 Jiménez-Vicente, J., & Mediavilla, E. 2022, ApJ, 941, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394 2022

  41. [41]

    H., et al

    Johansson, J., Goobar, A., Price, S. H., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 510, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3829

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3829 2021

  42. [42]

    A., Goobar, A., et al

    Johansson, J., Perley, D. A., Goobar, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d61

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d61 2025

  43. [43]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  44. [44]

    O., McGill, P., Manning, T

    Jones, D. O., McGill, P., Manning, T. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17322, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17322

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.17322 2024

  45. [45]

    L., Rodney, S

    Kelly, P. L., Rodney, S. A., Treu, T., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 1123, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa3350

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa3350 2015

  46. [46]

    L., Rodney, S., Treu, T., et al

    Kelly, P. L., Rodney, S., Treu, T., et al. 2023, Science, 380, eabh1322, doi: 10.1126/science.abh1322

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abh1322 2023

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Kim, Y .-L., Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 024505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac50a0

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac50a0 2022

  48. [48]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Lang-Bardl, F., Bender, R., Goessl, C., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2016

  49. [49]

    Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI , year = 2016, editor =

    Series, V ol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 990844, doi: 10.1117/12.2232039

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2232039

  50. [50]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Lantz, B., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2004

  51. [51]

    5249, Optical Design and Engineering, ed

    Series, V ol. 5249, Optical Design and Engineering, ed. L. Mazuray, P. J. Rogers, & R. Wartmann, 146–155, doi: 10.1117/12.512493

    work page doi:10.1117/12.512493

  52. [52]

    C., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

  53. [53]

    , keywords =

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P. G., & Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  54. [54]

    D., Conroy, C., et al

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 877, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

  55. [55]

    2024, SSRv, 220, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01042-9

    Lemon, C., Courbin, F., More, A., et al. 2024, SSRv, 220, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01042-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01042-9 2024

  56. [56]

    A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021

  57. [57]

    A., Schlafly, E

    Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a 2020

  58. [58]

    2019, PASP, 131, 038002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaf3fa

    Mahabal, A., Rebbapragada, U., Walters, R., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 038002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaf3fa

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaf3fa 2019

  59. [59]

    The Zwicky Transient Facility: Data Processing, Products, and Archive

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019

  60. [60]

    2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5340, doi: 10.21105/joss.05340

    Michalewicz, K., Millon, M., Dux, F., & Courbin, F. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5340, doi: 10.21105/joss.05340

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.05340 2023

  61. [61]

    N., Doel, P., Gutierrez, G., et al

    Miller, T. N., Doel, P., Gutierrez, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe Mörtsell, E., Johansson, J., Dhawan, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1600

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe 2024

  62. [62]

    Oguri, M., & Marshall, P. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2579, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16639.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16639.x 2010

  63. [63]

    L., Pierel, J

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928 2025

  64. [64]

    T., Bellm , E

    Patterson, M. T., Bellm, E. C., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae904

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae904 2019

  65. [65]

    Perley, D. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 084503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d 2019

  66. [66]

    ApJL , author =

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Wrobel, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 739, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/l1 2011

  67. [67]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 91433X, doi: 10.1117/12.2056689

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2056689 2014

  68. [68]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Hayes, E. E., Millon, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.12301, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.12301

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.12301 2025

  69. [69]

    2024, AJ, 168, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4

    Poppett, C., Tyas, L., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4 2024

  70. [70]

    M., Werner, M

    Quimby, R. M., Werner, M. C., Oguri, M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 768, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/768/1/L20

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/768/1/l20 2013

  71. [71]

    Rauscher, B. J. 2024, PASP, 136, 015001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1b36

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad1b36 2024

  72. [72]

    , year = 1964, month = jan, volume =

    Refsdal, S. 1964, MNRAS, 128, 307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/128.4.307

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/128.4.307 1964

  73. [73]

    , keywords =

    Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., Blagorodnova, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935344

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935344 2019

  74. [74]

    L., & Wambsganss, J

    Schechter, P. L., & Wambsganss, J. 2002, ApJ, 580, 685, doi: 10.1086/343856 12 LEMON ET AL

    work page doi:10.1086/343856 2002

  75. [75]

    Measuring Reddening with SDSS Stellar Spectra and Recalibrating SFD

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  76. [76]

    F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Kirkby, D., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 2023

  77. [77]

    J., Vernardos, G., Collett, T

    Shajib, A. J., Vernardos, G., Collett, T. E., et al. 2024, SSRv, 220, 87, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01105-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01105-x 2024

  78. [78]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    Skilling, J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    2004

  79. [79]

    Series, V ol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer, R. Preuss, & U. V . Toussaint (AIP), 395–405, doi: 10.1063/1.1835238

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1835238

  80. [80]

    Bayesian Analysis , author =

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    work page doi:10.1214/06-ba127 2006

Showing first 80 references.