pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.14437 · v1 · pith:GS65T5SYnew · submitted 2026-05-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

Not All Who Wander Are Lost: Early Excess Demographics in the Volume-limited ZTF DR2 SN Ia Sample

C\'esar Rojas-Bravo , Ning-Chen Sun , Mathew Smith , Chun Chen , Xiaohan Chen , Zexi Niu , Anyu Wang , Zi-Yang Wang
show 2 more authors
Yi-Han Zhao Jifeng Liu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords Type Ia supernovaeearly flux excessZTF DR2light-curve demographicsSALT2 stretchsecondary maximumsupernova progenitorsvolume-limited sample
0
0 comments X

The pith

Early-excess Type Ia supernovae show significantly larger SALT2 stretch and r-band secondary maximum flux than no-excess events.

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

The paper conducts a systematic search for early-time flux excesses in a volume-limited sample of Type Ia supernovae from ZTF DR2. After applying conservative coverage and quality cuts to light curves, it assembles catalogs of 42 excess events and 110 no-excess events from an initial set of 1547 supernovae. Statistical comparisons reveal the strongest differences in supernova light-curve properties, with excess events displaying higher SALT2 stretch values and brighter r-band secondary maxima. Weaker signals appear in host-galaxy parameters such as local color and stellar mass. The work links early excesses to overall diversity in Type Ia events and calls for expanded studies with future data.

Core claim

In the volume-limited ZTF DR2 sample of Type Ia supernovae, events identified with early-time flux excesses have larger SALT2 stretch x1 at 7.91 sigma significance and larger r-band secondary-maximum flux Fr2 at 6.25 sigma significance compared to no-excess events, while differences in SALT2 color c remain weak at 0.57 sigma; excess events also favor bluer local (g-z) colors and lower local stellar masses.

What carries the argument

Separation of early-excess and no-excess populations via identification of short-lived flux excesses in ZTF g- and r-band light curves shortly after explosion, followed by two-sample statistical tests on derived SN and host parameters.

If this is right

  • Early excesses connect directly to higher-stretch light curves, implying shared underlying explosion physics.
  • Host-environment trends suggest progenitor-system influences on whether an early excess appears.
  • Color differences remain too weak to serve as a reliable separator between the populations.
  • The demographic patterns motivate targeted modeling of early emission in high-stretch supernovae.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the stretch correlation holds, early excesses could serve as an observable flag for one channel among multiple Type Ia progenitor pathways.
  • Upcoming wide-field surveys may exploit early excesses to pre-select events for detailed follow-up on secondary maxima.
  • The absence of strong color differences implies that dust or viewing-angle effects play only a secondary role in the excess phenomenon.

Load-bearing premise

The conservative coverage and quality requirements applied to ZTF light curves produce unbiased excess and no-excess catalogs that accurately reflect intrinsic population differences.

What would settle it

A new independent sample of similar size and redshift limit showing no statistically significant difference in SALT2 stretch x1 between early-excess and no-excess events under the same selection criteria.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14437 by Anyu Wang, C\'esar Rojas-Bravo, Chun Chen, Jifeng Liu, Mathew Smith, Ning-Chen Sun, Xiaohan Chen, Yi-Han Zhao, Zexi Niu, Zi-Yang Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our pipeline to create the final bump and no-bump catalogs from the ZTF DR2 SN Ia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example ZTF DR2 light curves from the final bump and no-bump subsamples. Each panel shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Summary of Gaussian-equivalent significances for all tested light curve and host-galaxy parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms (left column) and empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDFs; right column) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-dimensional distributions for key light-curve and host-environment parameters for the final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Redshift-binned mean comparisons for representative parameters in the final bump and no-bump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Early-time flux excesses in Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) offer a unique insight into their progenitor systems and explosion mechanisms. Although individual early-excess events and larger searches have been reported, demographic studies remain limited by sample size. We present a systematic search for early-time excess emission in a volume-limited sample ($z<0.06$) of SNe~Ia based on the Zwicky Transient Facility Data Release 2 (ZTF DR2). Using ZTF $g$- and $r$-band light curves, we identify candidates showing early-excesses shortly after the explosion time, and we apply conservative coverage and quality requirements to build reliable ``excess'' and ``no-excess'' bump and no-bump catalogs. From an initial sample of 1547 SNe~Ia, our final catalogs contain 42 early-excess and 110 no-excess events. We compare the two populations using SN and host environment parameters from ZTF DR2 and quantify the differences using two-sample statistical tests. We find the strongest differences are in SN light-curve properties: early-excess events have larger SALT2 stretch $x_1$ ($7.91\sigma$) and larger $r$-band secondary-maximum flux $\mathcal{F}_{r_2}$ ($6.25\sigma$), while differences in SALT2 color $c$ are weak ($0.57\sigma$). Early-excess events also favor bluer $(g-z)_{\rm local}$ ($3.41\sigma$) and lower $\log_{10} (M_*/M_\odot)_{\rm local}$ ($2.73\sigma$). Our results connect early excesses with SNe~Ia diversity, and motivate further analyses of upcoming larger samples.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic search for early-time flux excesses in a volume-limited (z < 0.06) sample of 1547 Type Ia supernovae from ZTF DR2. After applying conservative coverage and quality cuts to g- and r-band light curves, catalogs of 42 early-excess and 110 no-excess events are constructed. Two-sample statistical tests reveal that early-excess events show significantly larger SALT2 stretch x1 (7.91σ) and r-band secondary-maximum flux Fr2 (6.25σ), with weaker differences in color c (0.57σ) and host properties such as bluer local (g-z) (3.41σ) and lower log stellar mass (2.73σ).

Significance. If the demographic differences are intrinsic, the work provides a statistically meaningful link between early excesses and SN Ia light-curve diversity in a volume-limited sample, using standard two-sample tests on measured parameters. The large initial sample and focus on observable quantities strengthen its potential impact on progenitor studies, though verification of selection robustness is required.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3] §3 (Sample Selection): The conservative coverage and quality requirements used to define the excess (N=42) and no-excess (N=110) catalogs may preferentially retain high-x1 events, as broader light curves are more likely to meet the minimum pre- and post-peak epoch thresholds for reliable excess detection. This creates a direct selection channel that correlates with the central 7.91σ x1 difference; the manuscript does not report a quantitative test (e.g., selection-function simulation or matched-subsample comparison) to demonstrate that the difference is not partly induced by the cuts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] The exact numerical thresholds for coverage (e.g., number of epochs) and quality cuts should be stated explicitly in the main text rather than referenced only as 'conservative'.
  2. [§4] The specific two-sample test (KS, Anderson-Darling, or t-test) and whether uncertainties on x1 and Fr2 are propagated should be stated when reporting the σ values in §4.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the detailed review of our manuscript. We appreciate the referee's concern regarding potential selection biases in our sample construction. Below we provide a point-by-point response to the major comment.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Sample Selection): The conservative coverage and quality requirements used to define the excess (N=42) and no-excess (N=110) catalogs may preferentially retain high-x1 events, as broader light curves are more likely to meet the minimum pre- and post-peak epoch thresholds for reliable excess detection. This creates a direct selection channel that correlates with the central 7.91σ x1 difference; the manuscript does not report a quantitative test (e.g., selection-function simulation or matched-subsample comparison) to demonstrate that the difference is not partly induced by the cuts.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the coverage and quality cuts could introduce a selection bias favoring higher x1 events, since events with broader light curves are more likely to have sufficient pre- and post-peak observations. The manuscript does not include a quantitative assessment of this effect. To address this concern, we will perform a selection-function simulation using mock SN Ia light curves with a range of x1 values, applying the same cuts, and compare the resulting x1 distributions between the simulated excess and no-excess samples. We will also consider a matched-subsample analysis where we select no-excess events with similar coverage properties. These additional tests and their results will be incorporated into the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational sample comparison with standard statistical tests

full rationale

The paper constructs excess and no-excess catalogs by applying coverage/quality cuts to ZTF light curves after explosion-time estimation, then compares the resulting populations on independently measured parameters (SALT2 x1, c, Fr2, host properties) via two-sample tests. No derivation, equation, or prediction reduces to its own inputs by construction. The selection criteria are defined independently of the demographic variables reported as differing (e.g., x1 is not used to define excess). Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for any central claim. This is a standard observational demographic analysis whose validity hinges on whether the cuts are unbiased (a separate systematic concern), not on any self-referential reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard statistical tests and the assumption that ZTF light-curve quality cuts cleanly separate populations; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Two-sample statistical tests (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov or similar) are appropriate for comparing SN and host parameters between excess and no-excess groups.
    Used to report sigma-level differences in stretch, secondary flux, color, and host mass.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5672 in / 1236 out tokens · 36861 ms · 2026-05-15T01:29:27.843548+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, A&A, 694, A3 6

    Amenouche, M., Rosnet, P., Smith, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A3 6

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22 3

    Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A22 3

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Blondin, S., & Tonry, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1024 4

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 26 2

    Brout, D., & Scolnic, D. 2021, ApJ, 909, 26 2

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 110 2

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 110 2

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    A., Yao, Y ., et al

    Bulla, M., Miller, A. A., Yao, Y ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 48 19

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A., Sand, D

    Burke, J., Howell, D. A., Sand, D. J., & Hosseinzadeh, G. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.11201 3, 19

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    J., Wolf, C., & Zahid, H

    Childress, M. J., Wolf, C., & Zahid, H. J. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1898 2

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    R., et al

    Deckers, M., Maguire, K., Magee, M. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1317 2, 3, 6, 19, 21, 22, 23

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    2025, A&A, 694, A12 4, 5, 20

    Deckers, M., Maguire, K., Shingles, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A12 4, 5, 20

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    2016, A&A, 588, A84 4

    Dhawan, S., Leibundgut, B., Spyromilio, J., & Blondin, S. 2016, A&A, 588, A84 4

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 2228 2, 3, 20, 21

    Dhawan, S., Goobar, A., Smith, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2228 2, 3, 20, 21

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    J., Rest, A., et al

    Dimitriadis, G., Foley, R. J., Rest, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, L1 2 Demographics of Early-time Excess Emission in ZTF DR2 SNe Ia 33

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    2025, A&A, 694, A10 4, 5, 6, 15

    Dimitriadis, G., Burgaz, U., Deckers, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A10 4, 5, 6, 15

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    H., Frogel, J

    Elias, J. H., Frogel, J. A., Hackwell, J. A., & Persson, S. E. 1981, ApJ, 251, L13 4

    work page 1981

  16. [16]

    M., Vallely, P

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Vallely, P. J., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 51 3

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    M., Vallely, P

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Vallely, P. J., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 108 3

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R¨opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53 22

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

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

    Foley, R. J., Scolnic, D., Rest, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 193 6

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

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

    Gupta, R. R., Kuhlmann, S., Kovacs, E., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 154 4

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11 3

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 11 3

    work page 2007

  22. [22]

    2010, A&A, 523, A7 3

    Guy, J., Sullivan, M., Conley, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A7 3

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357 23

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    B., Shappee, B

    Hoogendam, W. B., Shappee, B. J., Brown, P. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 139 3

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    J., Valenti, S., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Sand, D. J., Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, L11 2

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Hoyle, F., & Fowler, W. A. 1960, ApJ, 132, 565 2

    work page 1960

  27. [27]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 044001 22

    Huang, Y ., Liu, J., Wu, H., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 044001 22

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90 23 Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111 22

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    W., Maguire, K., & Sullivan, M

    Jha, S. W., Maguire, K., & Sullivan, M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 706 2

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 149 3

    Jiang, J.-a., Doi, M., Maeda, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2018, ApJ, 865, 149 3

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    O., Scolnic, D

    Jones, D. O., Scolnic, D. M., Foley, R. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 19 2

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 1025 2, 22

    Kasen, D. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1025 2, 22

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2007, ApJ, 656, 661 3

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773 9

    work page 1995

  35. [35]

    L., Hicken, M., Burke, D

    Kelly, P. L., Hicken, M., Burke, D. L., Mandel, K. S., & Kirshner, R. P. 2010, ApJ, 715, 743 2

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3046 2

    Kelsey, L., Sullivan, M., Wiseman, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3046 2

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    1996, PASP, 108, 190 4

    Kim, A., Goobar, A., & Perlmutter, S. 1996, PASP, 108, 190 4

    work page 1996

  38. [38]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 24 21

    Kim, Y .-L., Smith, M., Sullivan, M., & Lee, Y .-W. 2018, ApJ, 854, 24 21

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    2016, in ELPUB, 87 23

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´erez, F., et al. 2016, in ELPUB, 87 23

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    C., et al

    Lampeitl, H., Smith, M., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 566 2, 19 Le Borgne, D., & Rocca-V olmerange, B. 2002, A&A, 386, 446 4

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 12 2

    Li, W., Wang, X., Vink´o, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 12 2

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001 2

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    R., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., et al

    Magee, M. R., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A37 22

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    R., Sim, S

    Magee, M. R., Sim, S. A., Kotak, R., & Kerzendorf, W. E. 2018, A&A, 614, A115 22

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107 2

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107 2

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    A., Yao, Y ., Bulla, M., et al

    Miller, A. A., Yao, Y ., Bulla, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 47 19

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    J., Mazzali, P

    Moriya, T. J., Mazzali, P. A., Ashall, C., & Pian, E. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6035 2, 22 M¨uller-Bravo, T., & Galbany, L. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4508 4 34 C. Rojas-Bravo et al

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M

    Ni, Y . Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 3 3

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    2005, A&A, 437, 789 4

    Nobili, S., Amanullah, R., Garavini, G., et al. 2005, A&A, 437, 789 4

    work page 2005

  50. [50]

    2002, PASP, 114, 803 4

    Nugent, P., Kim, A., & Perlmutter, S. 2002, PASP, 114, 803 4

    work page 2002

  51. [51]

    P., Mushotzky, R., Shaya, E

    Olling, R. P., Mushotzky, R., Shaya, E. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 521, 332 3 Padilla Gonzalez, E., Joshi Bhavin, A., Strolger, L. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.20834 2 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 23

    work page arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 5045 4

    Papadogiannakis, S., Goobar, A., Amanullah, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5045 4

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 565 2

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565 2

    work page 1999

  54. [54]

    Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L105 2, 3

    work page 1993

  55. [55]

    L., & Morozova, V

    Piro, A. L., & Morozova, V . S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 96 2, 22

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    L., & Nakar, E

    Piro, A. L., & Nakar, E. 2014, ApJ, 784, 85 2, 22

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    L., & Nakar, E

    Piro, A. L., & Nakar, E. 2025, ApJ, 993, 63 2

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 84 2, 22

    Polin, A., Nugent, P., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJ, 873, 84 2, 22

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    J., Wiseman, P., & Sullivan, M

    Ramaiya, S., Vincenzi, M., Jarvis, M. J., Wiseman, P., & Sullivan, M. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2180 2

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009 2

    work page 1998

  61. [61]

    2013, A&A, 560, A66 19, 22

    Rigault, M., Copin, Y ., Aldering, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A66 19, 22

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    2020, A&A, 644, A176 2, 21

    Rigault, M., Brinnel, V ., Aldering, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A176 2, 21

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    2018, A&A, 615, A68 19, 22

    Roman, M., Hardin, D., Betoule, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A68 19, 22

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    M., Garnavich, P

    Rose, B. M., Garnavich, P. M., & Berg, M. A. 2019, ApJ, 874, 32 2

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, A&A Rev., 33, 1 2

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 113 6

    Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Carr, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 113 6

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    2025, A&A, 694, A14 2, 4, 5, 14

    Senzel, R., Maguire, K., Burgaz, U., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A14 2, 4, 5, 14

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    J., Holoien, T

    Shappee, B. J., Holoien, T. W.-S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 13 2

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 4311 4

    Shariff, H., Dhawan, S., Jiao, X., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 4311 4

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1861 15

    work page 2001

  71. [71]

    J., et al

    Sullivan, M., Le Borgne, D., Pritchet, C. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 868 2, 4

    work page 2006

  72. [72]

    A., et al

    Sullivan, M., Conley, A., Howell, D. A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 782 2

    work page 2010

  73. [73]

    E., et al

    Taylor, G., Lidman, C., Tucker, B. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4111 3

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Thorp, S., & Mandel, K. S. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2360 2

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 181 2

    Toy, M., Wiseman, P., Sullivan, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 181 2

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    A., Shappee, B

    Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., Vallely, P. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1044 2

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 86 2, 6

    Vincenzi, M., Brout, D., Armstrong, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 86 2, 6

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Medicine, 17, 261 23

    work page 2020

  79. [79]

    2012, New Astron

    Wang, B., & Han, Z. 2012, New Astron. Rev., 56, 122 2

    work page 2012

  80. [80]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 17 2

    Wang, Q., Rest, A., Dimitriadis, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 17 2

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.