Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Discovery of a likely Type II SN at $z$=3.6 with JWST

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST data identify AT 2023adsv as a likely Type IIP supernova at z=3.6, the most distant one with a spectroscopic redshift.

desk verdict A careful, honest single-object paper reporting a record-breaking SN IIP candidate at z=3.6; the classification is provisional because the data cannot exclude a PISN, but the paper earns its place through transparency. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05513 v2 pith:KODGJHJJ submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

D. A. Coulter , J. D. R. Pierel , C. DeCoursey , T. J. Moriya , M. R. Siebert , B. A. Joshi , M. Engesser , A. Rest
show 25 more authors
E. Egami M. Shahbandeh W. Chen O. D. Fox L. G. Strolger Y. Zenati A. J. Bunker P. A. Cargile M. Curti D. J. Eisenstein S. Gezari S. Gomez M. Guolo K. Hainline J. Jencson B. D. Johnson M. Karmen R. Maiolino R. M. Quimby P. Rinaldi B. Robertson S. Tacchella F. Sun Q. Wang T. Wevers
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords supernovaeTypeIIPhigh-redshifttransientsJWSTcore-collapselow-metallicitygalaxieslightcurveclassificationpair-instability
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

This paper reports the discovery and classification of AT 2023adsv, a transient caught in JWST deep images of a galaxy at spectroscopic redshift $z = 3.613 \pm 0.001$. The authors argue that its multi-band light curve is best matched by a normal Type IIP supernova template with a peak absolute magnitude $M_B \approx -18.3$ mag, making it the most distant photometrically classified Type IIP supernova with a measured redshift. Synthetic explosion models favor a roughly $20\,M_\odot$ red supergiant progenitor with an explosion energy of about $2 \times 10^{51}$ erg, higher than typical for local Type IIP supernovae but consistent with low-metallicity progenitors. If the classification holds, the object opens a window onto core-collapse supernovae when the Universe was less than two billion years old and suggests that Type IIP supernovae may be systematically brighter at low metallicity.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by light-curve template matching backed by synthetic explosion models. Observed spectral templates of supernova subtypes are redshifted and fitted to the photometry in the observer-frame JWST filters, with the best-fitting template determining both the type and the peak luminosity. A grid of red supergiant progenitor models with masses of 12, 16, and 20 solar masses at 0.3 solar metallicity, with and without a confined circumstellar shell, is evolved and exploded with varied energies to predict light curves; the 20 solar mass models with roughly $2\times10^{51}$ erg match best. Host metallicity is pinned by the O3O2 ratio (the [O III]/[O II] line ratio) of the forbidden oxygen lines in the NIRSpec spectrum, because the supernova's own spectral features are too contaminated by host light to measure directly.

What would settle it

A NIRSpec spectrum taken during the hydrogen-recombination plateau that shows broad $\mathrm{H}\alpha$ or Fe II $\lambda 5018$ absorption would confirm the Type II identification; a spectrum with no hydrogen features, or photometry that keeps rising instead of entering a plateau, would rule it out. A later JWST epoch that shows the source still bright hundreds of rest-frame days after peak would favor the $175\,M_\odot$ pair-instability alternative over the inferred red supergiant explosion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AT 2023adsv is a Type II supernova, specifically a Type IIP, defined as a hydrogen-rich core-collapse explosion whose light curve lingers on a plateau. The classification is photometric: the six-filter JWST light curve is fitted against empirical spectral templates, and the normal Type IIP template SN 2006kv wins with reduced $\chi^2/\nu = 1.10$, while Type Ia and Type Ib/c templates are strongly disfavored ($16.63$ and $6.76$). Matching that template to the observed brightness puts the peak at $M_B = -18.3 \pm 0.1$ mag, about $0.5$ mag brighter than SN 2006kv itself but still within the local Type II luminosity range. Synthetic light curves from red supergiant progenitors at $0.3\,Z_\odot$ favor a $20\,M_\odot$ zero-age main-sequence star exploding with about $2\times 10^{51}$ erg, and the authors explicitly note that a $175\,M_\odot$ pair-instability model also fits well enough that the current data cannot exclude it. They conclude that AT 2023adsv is the most distant photometrically classified Type IIP supernova with a spectroscopic redshift and may represent a redshift-dependent shift in Type IIP properties.

Load-bearing premise

The classification assumes that local Type IIP templates and the three red supergiant model families adequately represent what a low-metallicity supernova at $z=3.6$ looks like, even though the shortest-wavelength measurement had to be excluded from the template fit and none of the models reproduce the last epoch's redder detections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AT 2023adsv becomes the most distant photometrically classified Type IIP supernova with a spectroscopic redshift, pushing the empirical baseline for core-collapse supernovae from $z\approx2.5$ out to $z=3.6$.
  • The favored explosion model implies a roughly $20\,M_\odot$ red supergiant progenitor and an explosion energy near $2\times10^{51}$ erg, higher than typical local Type IIP energies.
  • The host's low mass and low metallicity ($Z_* \approx 0.3\,Z_\odot$) fit the high-redshift mass-metallicity relation, making the object a test of whether low-metallicity Type IIP supernovae are brighter and bluer.
  • The current data cannot distinguish a normal red supergiant explosion from a $175\,M_\odot$ pair-instability supernova, so continued monitoring of this source is required.
  • If representative, JWST-era samples of high-redshift Type IIP supernovae could become probes of metallicity and massive-star populations in the first two billion years of cosmic history.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the one filter excluded from the template fit probes rest-frame $\sim2500$ Å, exactly where low-metallicity line blanketing is expected to weaken; future samples could turn that same excess into a photometric metallicity proxy for high-redshift Type II supernovae.
  • Because every explosion model fails to reproduce the last epoch's F200W, F277W, and F444W detections, a single additional JWST epoch at matched depth would sharpen the choice between a fading Type IIP, late circumstellar interaction, and a pair-instability explosion.
  • A post-fade NIRSpec observation of the same host, taken with the same shutters, would let the host serve as its own template and could reveal whether broad supernova features were hidden beneath the host light in the existing spectrum.
  • The roughly $0.5$ mag overluminosity relative to SN 2006kv is attributed to higher explosion energy, but the degeneracy between progenitor radius, circumstellar material, and metallicity means one object cannot separate these; a survey sample would be required to establish a true redshift trend.
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 reports the discovery and multi-band JWST light curve of AT 2023adsv, a transient at z=3.613 in a JADES field, and argues that it is a likely Type II supernova (specifically SN IIP-like), most distant of its kind with a spectroscopic redshift. The classification rests on a template fit (SN 2006kv, χ²/ν=1.10) that strongly disfavors SN Ia and SN Ib/c templates, plus MESA/STELLA light-curve models that favor a 20 Msun red supergiant progenitor with explosion energy 2×10^51 erg. The paper also derives host-galaxy properties (log M* ≈ 8.4, Z* ≈ 0.3 Zsun) and discusses the possibility of a pair-instability supernova (PISN), which it cannot rule out.

Significance. If the classification holds, this is a valuable probe of core-collapse supernovae in the early universe, with implications for progenitor masses, explosion energies, and the SN II rate at z>3. The paper is honest about its main limitations: no SN spectral features are isolated, F115W is excluded from the template fit, the PISN model matches the photometry, and all MESA models fail to reproduce the last-epoch detections in F200W, F277W, and F444W. These caveats are stated clearly, and the accompanying MESA/STELLA modeling and public data release are strengths. However, because the central 'likely Type II' claim depends on a prior on PISN rates rather than on a secure fit, the paper's significance is conditional on further observations or a more complete model comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Table 3] The template-fit χ²/ν comparison that drives the Type II classification is performed without F115W, the only filter probing rest-frame ~2500 Å at z=3.613. The paper states that no template covers this wavelength and therefore excludes it from the fit (§3.1). Yet the early blue UV flux seen in F115W and F150W is precisely the feature that motivates the confined-CSM and PISN alternatives in §3.3. The classification not only leaves out a discriminating band, but excludes the band where the empirical templates are most likely to be unrepresentative. Please quantify the effect of including F115W (for example, by using UV-extended templates or by showing the predicted F115W flux of SN 2006kv and the resulting change in Δχ²) or otherwise justify that the exclusion does not bias the Type II preference.
  2. [§3.3.1] The paper states that the 175 Msun PISN model 'matches well' to the photometry and that 'the dataset as it stands is not sufficient to differentiate between a PISN model and those explored' in §3.3. The conclusion that AT 2023adsv is 'likely to be a RSG explosion' is then justified by 'the expected low PISN event rates.' This is a prior, not an inference from the photometric data. The central claim 'likely Type II' therefore rests on an external rate argument. To make the claim quantitative, please present a formal comparison, e.g., the Δχ² between the best RSG model and the PISN model on the same photometric points, or a posterior probability that includes an explicit rate prior. As written, the abstract and conclusions overstate the evidential weight of the light curve alone.
  3. [§3.3, §3.4] Section 3.3 states that 'all models fail to fit the last epoch F200W, F277W, and F444W detections,' which are the same bands that would discriminate between SN II and PISN at late times. Despite this, the section concludes that the best overall fit is the 20 Msun progenitor. This conclusion is not supported by any reported fit statistic for the MESA/STELLA models (Table 3 lists only the empirical template fits; the model fits in Figure 6 are presented visually). Please report reduced χ² or equivalent goodness-of-fit values for the RSG models (with and without CSM) and for the PISN model, computed over all filters and epochs, so that the 'best overall fit' claim can be evaluated. Without such statistics, the preferred-progenitor inference is not quantitatively grounded.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries: Kasen et al. (2011) appears twice, and Pierel et al. (2024a,b,c) each appear twice with identical bibliographic data. Please consolidate the list and renumber citations consistently.
  2. [§1] The text mentions 'SN 20015bs' in the Introduction; this is presumably a typo for SN 2015bs (or another object). Please verify the object name and year.
  3. [§3.2] In the sentence describing the horizontal dashed lines in Figure 5, 'the the 1.0, 0.3, and 0.1 solar oxygen abundance values' contains a duplicated article. Please fix this and similar typographical issues in the figure captions.
  4. [§5] The Conclusion contains 'we limited our our analysis' — the duplicated 'our' should be removed. Also, the companion paper Moriya et al. (2025) is cited as arXiv:2501.xxxxx; this placeholder needs to be replaced with the actual identifier before publication.
  5. [Figure 3] The legend labels 'T ype II', 'T ype Ib/c', and 'T ype Ia' contain a spurious space after the capital T. Please correct the label formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Type II classification rests on external empirical templates and independent radiation-hydrodynamics models, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central claim that AT 2023adsv is a likely Type II SN is obtained by comparing the measured multi-band photometry against external empirical spectral templates (SN 2006kv from D'Andrea et al. 2010, SALT3-NIR, and SDSS Ib/c templates) and against independent MESA/STELLA progenitor/explosion models, whose input assumptions are described in an accompanying paper (Moriya et al. 2025). The explosion energy, CSM mass, and progenitor mass are fitted model parameters, not quantities predicted from the same data and then presented as independent confirmations, so the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern does not apply. The host metallicity is used to set the model metallicity, and the models are then compared with the observed light curve; this is an input choice rather than a circular derivation, since the classification itself is not defined in terms of those models. The paper explicitly notes that the F115W filter is excluded from the template fitting because no template covers rest-frame ~2500 Å, and it states that all MESA models fail to fit the last-epoch F200W, F277W, and F444W detections and that a PISN model (R175) matches well enough that the dataset cannot differentiate PISN from RSG explosions. These are honest caveats about model coverage and discriminating power, not evidence that a result is being derived from itself. The preference for a normal SN II over a PISN is explicitly based on the expected low PISN event rates, an external rate prior rather than a circular step. Self-citations to companion and prior JADES papers (Moriya et al. 2025; DeCoursey et al. 2024) provide model details and context for the 'most distant' comparison, but the classification and light-curve interpretation do not reduce to those citations. No step in the derivation equates an output with an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central claim is observational, so the ledger is dominated by modeling choices and calibration assumptions rather than invented physics. The main free parameters are the explosion energy, CSM mass, progenitor mass, and host properties, all fitted to the data. The host metallicity choice is especially consequential because it sets the model metallicity.

free parameters (6)
  • Explosion energy = 2.0e51 erg (grid 2.0-3.0e51 erg)
    Adjusted to match the observed brightness; presented as a match in the abstract and conclusion.
  • Confined CSM mass = 0.07, 0.11, 0.16 Msun for 12, 16, 20 Msun progenitors
    Chosen ad hoc to reproduce the early UV flux in F115W and F150W.
  • Progenitor ZAMS mass = 20 Msun (grid 12, 16, 20 Msun)
    The 20 Msun model is selected as the best overall fit; the grid itself bounds the inference.
  • Host extinction Av = 0.15 mag
    Fitted in Prospector SED modeling; affects host luminosity and the mass-metallicity comparison.
  • Peak absolute magnitude M_B = -18.3 AB mag
    Set by scaling the SN 2006kv template to the observed photometry; a fitted normalization.
  • Host metallicity Z* = 0.3 Zsun (O3O2 diagnostic)
    Adopted over the Prospector value of 0.02 Zsun; used to set progenitor metallicity in MESA models, so the choice directly shapes the model grid.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard flat LCDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.315.
    Stated in the introduction and used for luminosity distance and rest-frame conversions.
  • domain assumption MESA and STELLA provide reliable red supergiant progenitor and SN light-curve models.
    Used in Section 3.3; the details are deferred to the companion paper Moriya et al. 2025.
  • domain assumption Empirical CC SN templates such as SN 2006kv represent SNe II, including at high redshift and low metallicity.
    Used in Section 3.1 for classification; F115W is excluded because templates lack UV coverage.
  • domain assumption The O3O2 metallicity calibration of Curti et al. (2020), derived for low-redshift galaxies, applies at z=3.6.
    Used in Section 3.2 to infer Z*=0.3 Zsun; the Prospector SED fit gives 0.02 Zsun, so the calibration choice is consequential.
  • domain assumption The host galaxy's redshift and metallicity, measured from host emission lines, apply to the supernova.
    The SN spectrum has no identifiable SN features, so all physical inferences rely on the host association.
  • domain assumption Difference imaging and PSF photometry remove host light without systematic bias.
    The entire photometric classification depends on the subtraction accuracy; only relative alignment is quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of a likely Type II SN at $z$=3.6 with JWST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KODGJHJJ

@misc{pith2026250105513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of a likely Type II SN at $z$=3.6 with JWST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KODGJHJJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05513}
}
read the original abstract

Transient astronomy in the early, high-redshift (z > 3) Universe is an unexplored regime that offers the possibility of probing the first stars and the Epoch of Reionization. During Cycles 1 and 2 of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES) program enabled one of the first searches for transients in deep images (~30 AB mag) over a relatively wide area (25 arcmin^2). One transient, AT 2023adsv, was discovered with an F200W magnitude of 28.04 AB mag, and subsequent JWST observations revealed that the transient is a likely supernova (SN) in a host with z_spec = 3.613 +/- 0.001 and an inferred metallicity at the position of the SN of Z_* = 0.3 +/- 0.1 Z_{\odot}. At this redshift, the first detections in F115W and F150W show that AT 2023adsv had bright rest-frame ultraviolet flux at the time of discovery. The multi-band light curve of AT 2023adsv is best matched by a template of an SN IIP with a peak absolute magnitude of M_B ~ -18.3 AB mag. We find a good match to a 20 M_{\odot} red supergiant progenitor star with an explosion energy of 2.0x10^51 ergs, likely higher than normally observed in the local Universe, but consistent with SNe IIP drawn from local, lower metallicity environments. AT 2023adsv is the most distant photometrically classified SN IIP yet discovered with a spectroscopic redshift measurement, and may represent a global shift in SNe IIP properties as a function of redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left column) Full color images using F115W+F150W (Blue) F200W+F277W (Green) and F356W+F444W (Red), with the 2022 JADES epoch on top and 2023 (including AT 2023adsv) on the bottom. (Col￾umn 2-4) Difference images were created from the two JADES epochs (2023 − 2022), with the AT 2023adsv position marked with a red indicator. All images are drizzled to 0.03′′/pix and have the same spatial extent. Alignment Tool (JHAT;… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a: The MSA slitlet position over AT 2023adsv. b: The 2D NIRSpec Prism spectrum of AT 2023adsv and JADES-GS+53.16439-27.83877. c: The 1D-extracted NIRSpec spectrum for AT 2023adsv transformed into the rest￾frame, with host emission lines color-coded and labeled. A spectroscopic redshift of z =3.613 ± 0.001 was measured based on the host’s [O III] and Hα lines. No SN features are readily apparent in the resulting 1D s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The photometry measured in Section 2.1 is shown as black circles with errors, with (2σ) upper-limits denoted by triangles. The best fit SN II (red solid line), SN Ib/c (green dashed line), and SN Ia (blue dotted line) models are shown for comparison. The SN II model shown is the SN 2006kv template discussed in Section 3.1. The uncertainties shown are purely statistical. Because there are no clear SN features in the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Host template photometry fit using Prospector. The blue circles represent the observed JADES pre-SN photometry, and the dark grey shaded line represents the 50th percentile of the final Prospector fit to the photometry, with a lighter grey color showing the 16th and 84…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: AT 2023adsv’s inferred host galaxy mass and metallicity (gold star) compared to a selection of local galax￾ies. Grey contours correspond to galaxies selected from SDSS DR8 with z < 0.7 (Aihara et al. 2011; Eisenstein et al. 2011), purple points correspond to core-colla…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A grid of light-curve models for AT 2023adsv based on the 0.3 Z⊙ RSG SN progenitors used in this study. Each row corresponds to a different ZAMS mass (from the top to bottom row: 12, 16, and 20 M⊙) with the left column free from confined CSM, and the right column conta…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: AT 2023adsv compared with the RSG PISN model (R175) from Kasen et al. (2011). While the PISN model fit is reasonable for AT 2023adsv, long term monitoring of this object would be needed to distinguish whether AT 2023adsv is a typical SNe or a more exotic PISN. hotter a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Four observed colors (labeled by row) vs. magnitude (F356W, rest-frame ∼I-band) shown in the legend as black points with error bars, with the symbols corresponding to the three observed epochs (a legend in upper-left; order of observations is circle, star, square), and…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Figure adapted from Scott et al. (2019), with a sample of local, low-metallicity selected SN IIP (or￾ange points) compared to a “control” sample of local, SN IIP from the literature (purple points). All photom￾etry is reported in r-band, and SN luminosities are taken d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. A Type Ia Supernova Candidate at $z\sim4.3$: A Transient Interloper in the Search for $z\sim14$ Galaxies

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A JWST candidate z~14 galaxy is reclassified as a Type Ia supernova at z~4.3, implying SN Ia minimum delay times shorter than 1 Gyr.

  2. Properties of high-redshift Type II supernovae discovered by the JADES transient survey

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Modeling JWST light curves of six Type II supernovae at z = 0.66 - 3.61 yields explosion energies of (0.5 - 3) x 10^51 erg, with two high-energy events and two showing signs of dense circumstellar matter.

  3. Testing for Intrinsic Type Ia Supernova Luminosity Evolution at z>2 with JWST

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JWST spectroscopy confirms SN 2023aeax as a normal Type Ia supernova at z=2.15, and its standardized distance is consistent with the standard cosmological model.

  4. Surrogate models for type II supernovae: Probing low-energy explosions and interaction-free regimes

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

    Trained on STELLA grids, two autoencoder-plus-emulator surrogates reconstruct type II SN SEDs at ~1e-4 MSE and recover progenitor masses for SN 2005cs, SN 2012aw, and SN 1999em in minutes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 2011

  2. [2]

    Hamuy, M., & Habergham, S. M. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2660, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17118.x

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    P., Gutiérrez, C

    Anderson, J. P., Gutiérrez, C. P., Dessart, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527691

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527691 2016

  4. [4]

    P., Dessart, L., Gutiérrez, C

    Anderson, J. P., Dessart, L., Gutiérrez, C. P., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 574, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0458-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0458-4 2018

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    2009, A&A, 499, 653, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911847

    Bazin, G., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Rich, J., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 653, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911847

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911847 2009

  7. [7]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction

    2015

  8. [8]

    A., Skillman, E

    Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., Marble, A. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/98

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/98 2012

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 1132, doi: 10.1086/308588

    Blinnikov, S., Lundqvist, P., Bartunov, O., Nomoto, K., & Iwamoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1132, doi: 10.1086/308588

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Woosley, S

    Popolitov, V . A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454, doi: 10.1086/305375

    1998 doi

  3. [11]

    I., Röpke, F

    Blinnikov, S. I., Röpke, F. K., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054594

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Riello, M., Cappellaro, E., et al

    Botticella, M. T., Riello, M., Cappellaro, E., et al. 2008, A&A, 479, 49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078011

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, Nature, 589, 29, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w

    Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7325378

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7325378

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    1986, MNRAS, 223, 811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/223.4.811

    Campbell, A., Terlevich, R., & Melnick, J. 1986, MNRAS, 223, 811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/223.4.811

    1986 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Oguri, M., et al

    Chen, W., Kelly, P. L., Oguri, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 611, 256, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05252-5

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

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

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    E., & White, M

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

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    2012, Nature, 491, 228, doi: 10.1038/nature11521

    Cooke, J., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 491, 228, doi: 10.1038/nature11521

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2910

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346698

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    G., et al

    Dahlen, T., Strolger, L.-G., Riess, A. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/70

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05060

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2020, A&A, 642, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038148 —. 2022, A&A, 660, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243372

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt861

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Hamuy, M., et al

    Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu417

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10 D’Andrea, C

    Dotter, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P., & Asplund, M. 2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10 D’Andrea, C. B., Sako, M., Dilday, B., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 661, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/661

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Pinto, P. A. 1994, ApJ, 430, 300, doi: 10.1086/174404

    1994 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, JWST NIRSpec/NIRCam Follow-Up of the High-Redshift Transients Discovered in the GOODS-S JADES-Deep Field

    Egami, E., Bonaventura, N., Charlot, S., et al. 2023, JWST NIRSpec/NIRCam Follow-Up of the High-Redshift Transients Discovered in the GOODS-S JADES-Deep Field

    2023

  22. [30]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2022, A&A, 661, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    Ferruit, P., Jakobsen, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293 Förster, F., Moriya, T

    Fitzpatrick, E. 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293 Förster, F., Moriya, T. J., Maureira, J. C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 808, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0563-4

    1999 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Levan, A

    Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Strolger, L., et al. 2006, Nature, 441, 463, doi: 10.1038/nature04787

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471, doi: 10.1038/nature13304

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    O., Sanders, N

    Gezari, S., Jones, D. O., Sanders, N. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/28

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f52 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Sullivan, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS,...

    2011 doi

  34. [43]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  35. [44]

    1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  36. [45]

    J., et al

    Hounsell, R., Scolnic, D., Foley, R. J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac08b

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    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

    2021 doi

  39. [49]

    E., & Heger, A

    Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2011, ApJ, 734, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/102

    2011 doi

  40. [50]

    J., et al

    Katz, H., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2657

    2023 doi

  41. [51]

    L., & Kirshner, R

    Kelly, P. L., & Kirshner, R. P. 2012, ApJ, 759, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/107

    2012 doi

  42. [52]

    A., & Skillman, E

    Kobulnicky, H. A., & Skillman, E. D. 1997, ApJ, 489, 636, doi: 10.1086/304830

    1997 doi

  43. [53]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    2011 doi

  44. [54]

    2000, ARA&A, 38, 613, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.613

    Kudritzki, R.-P., & Puls, J. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 613, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.613

    2000 doi

  45. [55]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., & Cassinelli, J. P. 1999, Introduction to Stellar Winds

    1999

  46. [56]

    A., de Koter, A., et al

    Langer, N., Norman, C. A., de Koter, A., et al. 2007, A&A, 475, L19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078482

    2007 doi

  47. [57]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdbc1

    Langeroodi, D., Hjorth, J., Chen, W., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdbc1

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    Larson, R. B. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 569, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02045.x

    1998

  49. [59]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf470

    Li, M., Cai, Z., Bian, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf470

    2023 doi

  50. [60]

    2012, Reviews of Modern Physics, 84, 25, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.84.25

    Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2012, Reviews of Modern Physics, 84, 25, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.84.25

    2012 doi

  51. [61]

    2012, A&A, 545, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219364

    Melinder, J., Dahlen, T., Mencía Trinchant, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219364

    2012 doi

  52. [62]

    P., et al

    Modjaz, M., Blondin, S., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/99

    2014 doi

  53. [63]

    R., de Koter, A., Vink, J

    Mokiem, M. R., de Koter, A., Vink, J. S., et al. 2007, A&A, 473, 603, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077545

    2007 doi

  54. [64]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Grillo, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5290

    2024 doi

  55. [65]

    I., Baklanov, P

    Moriya, T., Tominaga, N., Blinnikov, S. I., Baklanov, P. V ., & Sorokina, E. I. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 199, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18689.x

    2011

  56. [66]

    J., Coulter, D

    Moriya, T. J., Coulter, D. A., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.xxxxx, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.xxxxx

    2025 doi

  57. [67]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y ., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd556

    2023 doi

  58. [68]

    R., & Snyder, H

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Snyder, H. 1939, Physical Review, 56, 455, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.56.455

    1939 doi

  59. [69]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  60. [70]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  61. [71]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  62. [72]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 20

    2018 doi

  63. [73]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  64. [74]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    2004

  65. [75]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Rodney, S., Avelino, A., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 114504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadb7a

    2018 doi

  66. [76]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Jones, D. O., Kenworthy, W. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93f9

    2022 doi

  67. [77]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 967, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c43

    doi

  68. [81]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Engesser, M., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 971, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6908

    doi

  69. [82]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Newman, A. B., Dhawan, S., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02139, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02139

    doi arXiv

  70. [83]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Coulter, D. A., Siebert, M. R., et al. 2024c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.11953, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.11953

    doi arXiv

  71. [84]

    2012, ApJS, 199, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25

    Postman, M., Coe, D., Benítez, N., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/25

    2012 doi

  72. [85]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Quimby, R. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 487, doi: 10.1038/nature10095

    2011 doi

  73. [86]

    2023, arminrest/jhat: The JWST HST Alignment Tool (JHAT), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    Rest, A., Pierel, J., Correnti, M., et al. 2023, arminrest/jhat: The JWST HST Alignment Tool (JHAT), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    2023 doi

  74. [87]

    C., et al

    Rest, A., Stubbs, C., Becker, A. C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1103, doi: 10.1086/497060

    2005 doi

  75. [88]

    E., Wold, I

    Rhoads, J. E., Wold, I. G. B., Harish, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaaaf

    2023 doi

  76. [89]

    2014, AJ, 147, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/118

    Maddox, L. 2014, AJ, 147, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/118

    2014 doi

  77. [90]

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

    Rose, B. M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.03081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.03081

    2021 doi arXiv

  78. [91]

    2017, A&A, 597, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629612

    Grassitelli, L. 2017, A&A, 597, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629612

    2017 doi

  79. [92]

    2022, A&A, 665, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244556

    Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., Barrufet, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244556

    2022 doi

  80. [93]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  81. [94]

    Schlegel, E. M. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 269

    1990

  82. [95]

    2019, ApJL, 870, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf8ad

    Berger, E. 2019, ApJL, 870, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf8ad

    2019 doi

  83. [96]

    R., Decoursey, C., Coulter, D

    Siebert, M. R., Decoursey, C., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05076, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05076

    2024 doi arXiv

  84. [97]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737

    2009 doi

  85. [98]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    2014 doi

  86. [99]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  87. [100]

    A., et al

    Strolger, L.-G., Dahlen, T., Rodney, S. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/93

    2015 doi

  88. [101]

    2016, A&A, 587, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527983

    Taddia, F., Moquist, P., Sollerman, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527983

    2016 doi

  89. [102]

    J., Barger, A

    Taylor, A. J., Barger, A. J., & Cowie, L. L. 2022, ApJL, 939, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac959d

    2022 doi

  90. [103]

    A., Hinkle, J., Angus, C

    Tucker, M. A., Hinkle, J., Angus, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8448

    2024 doi

  91. [104]

    1998, A&A Rv, 9, 63, doi: 10.1007/s001590050015

    Vanbeveren, D., De Loore, C., & Van Rensbergen, W. 1998, A&A Rv, 9, 63, doi: 10.1007/s001590050015

    1998 doi

  92. [105]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  93. [106]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2017 doi

  94. [107]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2006, ApJ, 637, 914, doi: 10.1086/498500

    2006 doi

  95. [108]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    Wu, S., & Fuller, J. 2021, ApJ, 906, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    2021 doi

  96. [109]

    Zeh, A., Klose, S., & Hartmann, D. H. 2004, ApJ, 609, 952, doi: 10.1086/421100

    2004 doi

  97. [110]

    J., Edwards, T

    Ziegler, J. J., Edwards, T. D. P., Suliga, A. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2748

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.