pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22173 · v1 · pith:HDUWBAACnew · submitted 2026-06-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.HE

The local ultraviolet signature of Type Ia supernova environments from HST and MUSE

Llu\'is Galbany , Cullen Abelson , Alaa Alburai , Joseph P Anderson , Yago Ascasibar , Chris Ashall , Carles Badenes , Chris Burns
show 12 more authors
\`Elia Di\'eguez Gurn\'es Albert Garc\'ia Soto Claudia P. Guti\'errez Eric Y. Hsiao Hanindyo Kuncarayakti Andrew J. Levan Jospeh Lyman Mark M. Phillips Sebastian F. S\'anchez Ramon Sanfeliu Maximilian Stritzinger Danny Steeghs
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 11:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords Type Ia supernovaesupernova environmentsultraviolet imagingintegral-field spectroscopystellar populationslight-curve stretchHubble residuals
0
0 comments X

The pith

Local stellar age and specific star-formation rates at Type Ia supernova sites correlate strongly with the SALT3 stretch parameter.

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

The paper combines HST near-UV imaging with VLT/MUSE optical spectroscopy at 340 low-redshift Type Ia supernova sites to measure local stellar populations. Including the UV data shifts the derived luminosity-weighted ages older and reveals tight correlations between those ages, the H-alpha specific SFR, and the UV specific SFR with the supernova light-curve stretch. After the standard SALT3 corrections are applied the remaining trends in Hubble residuals shrink to 0.04-0.06 magnitudes, indicating that the dominant environmental effect on luminosity is already absorbed by existing standardization.

Core claim

Within the 169-SN Ia calibration sample the joint stellar age, the H-alpha specific SFR, and the UV specific SFR all correlate strongly with the SALT3 stretch parameter x1 at significances above 6.8 sigma. After standardization Hubble-residual trends weaken to amplitudes of 0.04-0.06 mag, supporting a primary age-stretch mechanism that is largely absorbed by the corrections.

What carries the argument

Joint UV+optical stellar-population modeling of 1 kpc aperture spectra that yields luminosity-weighted ages and specific star-formation rates while reducing age-dust-metallicity degeneracies.

If this is right

  • Joint stellar age, H-alpha specific SFR, and UV specific SFR each correlate with stretch x1 above 6.8 sigma.
  • UV data shift luminosity-weighted ages older by a median 0.20 dex for detections and 0.45 dex for non-detections.
  • Post-standardization Hubble-residual variations with local environment remain at the 0.04-0.06 mag level.
  • The primary environmental dependence on supernova luminosity is captured by standard light-curve stretch corrections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the age-stretch link holds, progenitor delay-time distributions could be constrained directly from larger local samples.
  • Residual environmental trends at 0.05 mag could still matter for next-generation cosmological surveys even if absorbed at current precision.
  • The joint UV+optical fitting method may reduce systematics when applied to higher-redshift supernovae observed with future facilities.

Load-bearing premise

A 1 kpc aperture spectrum plus the joint UV+optical fit accurately captures the progenitor environment and resolves degeneracies without introducing biases that affect the reported correlations.

What would settle it

An independent sample of comparable size showing no significant correlation between the jointly fitted stellar age and SALT3 x1 after identical selection would falsify the central correlation result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22173 by Alaa Alburai, Albert Garc\'ia Soto, Andrew J. Levan, Carles Badenes, Chris Ashall, Chris Burns, Claudia P. Guti\'errez, Cullen Abelson, Danny Steeghs, \`Elia Di\'eguez Gurn\'es, Eric Y. Hsiao, Hanindyo Kuncarayakti, Joseph P Anderson, Jospeh Lyman, Llu\'is Galbany, Mark M. Phillips, Maximilian Stritzinger, Ramon Sanfeliu, Sebastian F. S\'anchez, Yago Ascasibar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Redshift distribution of the SN host galaxy samples used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representative environmental-imaging examples ordered left to right by increasing SN redshift: SN 2017hgz, SN 2009jr, SN 2013da, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of the 1 kpc MUSE spectral analysis at the SN position for SN 2007as. The large panel on the left compares the optical-only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hubble-diagram for the final 211 SNe Ia sample used in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions and cross-comparison of local UV- and H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of local luminosity-weighted stellar ages from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of luminosity-weighted stellar age versus host [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scatter plots between SN Ia light-curve stretch ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagnostics for the sncosmo color parameter 𝑐 versus local environment properties, restricted to the 169 SNe Ia used in the Tripp calibration. The four panels show 𝑐 as a function of log 𝑀★, log sSFRH𝛼, log sSFRUV, and log 𝑡𝐿 (from the UV+optical fit). In each panel, points are split at the median of the x-variable; blue and red horizontal bands indicate the low- and high-bin medians of 𝑐 with their uncert… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Diagnostics for SALT Hubble residuals (HRSALT) versus local environment properties, restricted to the 169-object Tripp-calibration sample. The three panels show HRSALT as a function of log sSFRH𝛼, log sSFRUV, and log 𝑡𝑀. In the UV-based panel, upper limits are shown with arrows and are included, using their limit values, both in defining the x-median split and in computing the low/high-bin medians. As in … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

(Abridged.) The local environment of a Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) encodes information on progenitor age, star formation, dust, and chemical enrichment that may influence both its light-curve properties and its standardized luminosity. We assemble a homogeneous explosion-site dataset to test how near-ultraviolet (UV) imaging combined with optical integral-field spectroscopy improves the characterization of SN Ia environments and their connection to SN observables. We analyze 340 low-redshift SN Ia sites observed with HST/WFC3 F275W and matched VLT/MUSE spectroscopy. For each site we measure local photometry, extract a 1 kpc-aperture spectrum, model the stellar continuum with a joint UV+optical fit, derive local stellar and gas-phase properties, and fit the SN light curves with SALT3-NIR. UV emission is detected at 235 of the 337 sites with valid HST imaging. The UV- and Halpha-based SFR surface densities are strongly correlated, with the UV estimates systematically higher by about 0.5 dex. Including the UV constraint shifts local luminosity-weighted ages toward older values by a median of +0.20 dex for UV detections and +0.45 dex for UV non-detections, showing that UV data help break age-dust-metallicity degeneracies. Consistently, F275W-r is very strongly correlated with the joint-fit stellar age. Within the 169-SN Ia calibration sample, the joint stellar age, the Halpha specific SFR, and the UV specific SFR all correlate strongly with the SALT3 stretch parameter x1, with significances above 6.8 sigma. After standardization, Hubble-residual trends are weaker, with amplitudes of about 0.04-0.06 mag. The results support a primary age-stretch mechanism largely absorbed by standard light-curve corrections, while any residual luminosity dependence on local environment is weaker and subtler.

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 analyzes 340 low-redshift Type Ia supernova explosion sites with HST/WFC3 F275W UV imaging and matched VLT/MUSE integral-field spectroscopy. For each site a 1 kpc aperture spectrum is extracted and modeled via joint UV+optical stellar-population fitting to obtain local stellar age, Hα sSFR, and UV sSFR. In the 169-SN calibration subsample these quantities correlate with the SALT3 stretch parameter x1 at >6.8σ significance; after standardization the residual Hubble-residual trends with environment have amplitudes of only 0.04–0.06 mag. The work concludes that the dominant age–stretch relation is largely removed by standard light-curve corrections while any remaining environmental luminosity dependence is weaker.

Significance. If the local-property measurements prove robust, the results supply direct observational support for an age-driven stretch effect that is absorbed by current standardization, thereby reducing one class of potential systematic uncertainty in SN Ia cosmology. The homogeneous multi-wavelength dataset and the explicit demonstration that UV constraints shift luminosity-weighted ages older (median +0.20 dex for detections, +0.45 dex for non-detections) constitute clear strengths. The reported 0.5 dex systematic offset between UV- and Hα-based SFR surface densities is also quantified and discussed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (1 kpc aperture and joint-fit description)] Methods (1 kpc aperture extraction and joint UV+optical fit): the central correlations with x1 rest on the assumption that the fixed 1 kpc aperture plus joint fit faithfully recovers progenitor-environment age and sSFR without scale-dependent biases. The abstract already notes the 0.5 dex UV–Hα SFR offset and the age shifts; however, no quantitative test is described that shows these choices do not artifactually strengthen the >6.8σ x1 trends (e.g., via smaller-aperture mocks or alternative spatial binning). This is load-bearing for the claim that standardization largely absorbs the environmental dependence.
  2. [Results (x1 correlations paragraph)] Results (correlation significances): the reported >6.8σ correlations of joint age, Hα sSFR, and UV sSFR with x1 are stated without an accompanying table or section that details the precise statistical estimator, covariance treatment, or handling of the 102 UV non-detections. Because the age shift is larger for non-detections, any differential selection or weighting could affect the quoted significance levels and the subsequent conclusion about residual Hubble-residual amplitudes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4] The abstract states that UV emission is detected at 235 of 337 sites; the corresponding sentence in the main text should cross-reference the exact sample definition used for the 169-SN calibration subsample.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the correlation plots should explicitly state the Spearman or Pearson coefficient and the precise p-value or σ level rather than only quoting “>6.8 sigma.”

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and for recognizing the value of the homogeneous HST+MUSE dataset and the quantified UV-driven age shifts. We respond to each major comment below and outline revisions that directly address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Methods (1 kpc aperture extraction and joint UV+optical fit): the central correlations with x1 rest on the assumption that the fixed 1 kpc aperture plus joint fit faithfully recovers progenitor-environment age and sSFR without scale-dependent biases. The abstract already notes the 0.5 dex UV–Hα SFR offset and the age shifts; however, no quantitative test is described that shows these choices do not artifactually strengthen the >6.8σ x1 trends (e.g., via smaller-aperture mocks or alternative spatial binning). This is load-bearing for the claim that standardization largely absorbs the environmental dependence.

    Authors: We agree that explicit robustness checks would strengthen the manuscript. In the revised version we will add an appendix presenting correlation results for the 169-SN calibration sample using alternative apertures of 0.5 kpc and 2 kpc on the spatially resolved subset; the x1 correlations remain significant at >5.5σ in both cases. The 1 kpc scale is physically motivated by the typical size of star-forming complexes and matches the MUSE PSF; it is also consistent with prior SN-environment studies. The joint UV+optical modeling is required to break the age-dust-metallicity degeneracies, as directly shown by the reported median age shifts of +0.20 dex (detections) and +0.45 dex (non-detections). revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results (correlation significances): the reported >6.8σ correlations of joint age, Hα sSFR, and UV sSFR with x1 are stated without an accompanying table or section that details the precise statistical estimator, covariance treatment, or handling of the 102 UV non-detections. Because the age shift is larger for non-detections, any differential selection or weighting could affect the quoted significance levels and the subsequent conclusion about residual Hubble-residual amplitudes.

    Authors: We will add a new results subsection and accompanying table that reports the Spearman rank correlation coefficients, bootstrap-derived p-values (10 000 resamples), and effective sample sizes for each environmental parameter versus x1. UV non-detections are treated by (i) assigning conservative upper limits to UV sSFR and (ii) repeating all correlations on the 235-site detection subsample alone; significances remain >6σ in both analyses. The table will also list the corresponding Hubble-residual amplitudes (0.04–0.06 mag) for direct comparison. These additions remove ambiguity regarding the statistical procedure and the impact of non-detections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct empirical correlations between independently measured quantities

full rationale

The paper extracts 1 kpc MUSE spectra, performs joint UV+optical stellar population fits to derive age and sSFR, measures UV photometry, and fits SN light curves with SALT3 to obtain x1. It then computes Pearson/Spearman correlations between these quantities. No equation defines one measured quantity in terms of another from the same dataset, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no self-citation chain supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the reported >6.8σ correlations or the 0.04-0.06 mag residual amplitudes. The analysis is self-contained observational statistics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are stated in the abstract; the analysis rests on conventional choices for aperture size and stellar population synthesis assumptions common to the field.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard stellar population synthesis models can be jointly fit to UV+optical data to derive luminosity-weighted ages and SFRs.
    Invoked for the joint-fit stellar properties and age shifts.
  • domain assumption A 1 kpc radius aperture provides a representative local environment for the supernova progenitor.
    Choice of extraction aperture for spectra and photometry.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5999 in / 1352 out tokens · 33472 ms · 2026-06-26T11:33:01.683029+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Adamów, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20

    2021

  2. [2]

    2016, SNCosmo: Python Library for Supernova Cosmology

    Barbary, K., Barclay, T., Biswas, R., et al. 2016, SNCosmo: Python Library for Supernova Cosmology

    2016

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  4. [4]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22

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

    2014

  5. [5]

    F., Ciesla, L., et al

    Bitsakis, T., Sánchez, S. F., Ciesla, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 370

    2019

  6. [6]

    2022, A&A, 657, A22

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

    2022

  7. [7]

    & Scolnic, D

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

    2021

  8. [8]

    J., Dawson, K

    Brown, P. J., Dawson, K. S., de Pasquale, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 22

    2012

  9. [9]

    & Charlot, S

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

    2003

  10. [10]

    C., et al

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

    2000

  11. [11]

    C., Magnier, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 108 CidFernandes,R.,Stasińska,G.,Schlickmann,M.S.,etal.2010,MNRAS,403, 1036

    Childress, M., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 108 CidFernandes,R.,Stasińska,G.,Schlickmann,M.S.,etal.2010,MNRAS,403, 1036

    2013

  13. [13]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393 deGrijs,R.,Fritze-v.Alvensleben,U.,Anders,P.,etal.2003,MNRAS,342,259

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393 deGrijs,R.,Fritze-v.Alvensleben,U.,Anders,P.,etal.2003,MNRAS,342,259

    2013

  14. [14]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 250 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, L14

    2025

  15. [15]

    J., Lang, D., et al

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

    2019

  16. [16]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  17. [17]

    Eldridge, J. J. & Stanway, E. R. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 455

    2022

  18. [18]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

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

    2010

  19. [19]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63

    1999

  20. [20]

    P., Rosales-Ortega, F

    Galbany, L., Anderson, J. P., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4087

    2016

  21. [21]

    M., et al

    Galbany, L., Stanishev, V., Mourão, A. M., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A38 Götberg,Y.,deMink,S.E.,Groh,J.H.,Leitherer,C.,&Norman,C.2019,A&A, 629, A134

    2014

  22. [22]

    T., Gupta, R

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

    2013

  23. [23]

    Hogg, D. W. 1999, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:astro-ph/9905116]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  24. [24]

    R., Fox, D

    Horesh, A., Kulkarni, S. R., Fox, D. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 21

    2012

  25. [25]

    & Tutukov, A

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

    1984

  26. [26]

    G., Levan, A

    Inkenhaag, A., Jonker, P. G., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A39 Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2025

  27. [27]

    L., Fox, O

    Kelly, P. L., Fox, O. D., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 3

    2014

  28. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4861

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

    2021

  29. [29]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    2012

  30. [30]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  31. [31]

    R., et al

    Krisciunas, K., Contreras, C., Burns, C. R., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 211

    2017

  32. [32]

    P., Galbany, L., et al

    Kuncarayakti, H., Anderson, J. P., Galbany, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A35

    2018

  33. [33]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

    Li, W., Leaman, J., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

    2011

  34. [34]

    K., & Han, Z

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

    2023

  35. [35]

    1990, ApJ, 354, L53 López-Cobá, C., Sánchez, S

    Livne, E. 1990, ApJ, 354, L53 López-Cobá, C., Sánchez, S. F., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 167 López Fernández, R., Cid Fernandes, R., González Delgado, R. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 184

    1990

  36. [36]

    D., Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M

    Lyman, J. D., Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1359

    2018

  37. [37]

    2005, A&A, 433, 807

    Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., Panagia, N., et al. 2005, A&A, 433, 807

    2005

  38. [38]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

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

    2014

  39. [39]

    J., Laher, R

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

    2019

  40. [40]

    W., Foley, R

    McCully, C., Jha, S. W., Foley, R. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 512, 54

    2014

  41. [41]

    P., & De Donder, E

    Mennekens, N., Vanbeveren, D., De Greve, J. P., & De Donder, E. 2010, A&A, 515, A89 Müller-Bravo, T. & Galbany, L. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4508

    2010

  42. [42]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.16597

    Murakami, Y., Tweddle, J., Wiseman, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.16597

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    2021, A&A, 649, A74

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

    2021

  44. [44]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e061

    2024

  45. [45]

    Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  46. [46]

    Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei, 2nd edn. (Sausalito, CA: University Science Books)

    2006

  47. [47]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 565

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

    1999

  48. [48]

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

    1993

  49. [49]

    M., Contreras, C., Hsiao, E

    Phillips, M. M., Contreras, C., Hsiao, E. Y., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 014001

    2019

  50. [50]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Coulter, D. A., Siebert, M. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, L9

    2025

  51. [51]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Jones, D. O., Kenworthy, W. D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 70 Planck Collaboration. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6 Article number, page 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa

    2022

  52. [52]

    J., Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., & Whittam, I

    Ramaiya, S., Jarvis, M. J., Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., & Whittam, I. H. 2026, MNRAS, 549, stag832

    2026

  53. [53]

    G., Filippenko, A

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

    1998

  54. [54]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 20

    Rigault, M., Aldering, G., Kowalski, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 20

    2015

  55. [55]

    2020, A&A, 644, A176

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

    2020

  56. [56]

    2013, A&A, 560, A66

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

    2013

  57. [57]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 290

    Roelofs, G., Bassa, C., Voss, R., & Nelemans, G. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 290

    2008

  58. [58]

    2018, A&A, 615, A68

    Roman, M., Hardin, D., Betoule, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A68

    2018

  59. [59]

    M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al

    Rose, B. M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.03081

    arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.02556

    Roy, A., Feldman, S., Klupar, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.02556

    arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    J., Belczynski, K., Sim, S

    Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., Sim, S. A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 408

    2011

  62. [62]

    Ruiter, A. J. & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, A&A Rev., 33, 1

    2025

  63. [63]

    & Narayanan, D

    Salim, S. & Narayanan, D. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 529

    2020

  64. [64]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267

    2007

  65. [65]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  66. [66]

    E., Barclay, T., Barnes, A., et al

    Schlieder, J. E., Barclay, T., Barnes, A., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical InstrumentationEngineers(SPIE)ConferenceSeries,Vol.13092,SpaceTele- scopesandInstrumentation2024:Optical,Infrared,andMillimeterWave,ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 130920S

    2024

  67. [67]

    M., Jones, D

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

    2018

  68. [68]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785

    2002

  69. [69]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  70. [70]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63

    2009

  71. [71]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 4426

    Smith, M., Sullivan, M., Wiseman, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4426

    2020

  72. [72]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium

    1978

  73. [73]

    Storey, P. J. & Zeippen, C. J. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 813

    2000

  74. [74]

    A., et al

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

    2010

  75. [75]

    J., et al

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

    2006

  76. [76]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505

    2018

  77. [77]

    A., Burns, C

    Uddin, S. A., Burns, C. R., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 72 VanDyk,S.D.2017,PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon Series A, 375, 20160277

    2024

  78. [78]

    & Nelemans, G

    Voss, R. & Nelemans, G. 2008, Nature, 451, 802

    2008

  79. [79]

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

    1984

  80. [80]

    & Iben, Jr., I

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

    1973

Showing first 80 references.