Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Rapid identification of lensed type Ia supernovae with color-magnitude selection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a modified 'red limit' in color-magnitude space can pick out strongly lensed type Ia supernovae from unlensed ones across redshifts up to z=3.

desk verdict Useful incremental step, but the headline efficiencies are in-sample and the CC contamination claim is contradicted by the paper's own observed sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09412 v2 pith:D3QAOGLY submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.CO

Prajakta Mane , Anupreeta More , Surhud More This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords gravitationallensingtypeIasupernovaecolor-magnitudeselectionLSSTcore-collapsesupernovaidentificationcosmologicalprobes
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

Strongly lensed type Ia supernovae are rare but cosmologically valuable because their time delays and standardizable brightness can pin down the Hubble constant. This paper tries to establish that a simple color-magnitude cut, a 'red limit', can flag them quickly in the flood of LSST-style transient alerts. Simulating LSST-like photometry in $rizy$ bands, the authors find that some lensed SNe Ia sit redward of unlensed SNe Ia of the same apparent magnitude, on both the rising and falling phases of the light curve, out to $z=3$. They propose two explicit selection lines and report that the cut recovers a substantial fraction of simulated lensed SNe Ia while rejecting 91–99% of unlensed SNe Ia. If this holds in real data, the method gives a fast triage step before expensive follow-up or full lens modeling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the observed color-magnitude diagram (CMD) built from SALT2 light-curve simulations and lensing observables; the load-bearing device is the proposed red limit, a straight line in that plane. The light curves are evaluated at fixed observer-frame epochs, three days before and seven days after the $i$-band peak, for both unresolved total flux and resolved individual images. The red limit does the selection: points above the line are candidates for lensed SNe Ia, and the analysis maps how the lensed and unlensed populations fall on either side under varying redshift, phase, and supernova type.

What would settle it

Run the proposed red limits on the first season of real LSST difference-imaging detections with spectroscopic classifications, and compare the fraction of confirmed unlensed SNe Ia that fall above the limit to the simulated 91–99% rejection; if real photometric noise, detection thresholds, or PSF-blended images push ordinary SNe Ia above the line more often, the reported efficiencies will not reproduce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a subset of strongly lensed SNe Ia occupies a region of the observed color-magnitude diagram that unlensed SNe Ia do not, and that a straight-line boundary captures this separation. Lensing magnification makes the supernova appear brighter, while the preferentially higher source redshifts shift its spectral energy distribution redward, pushing candidates above the boundary. The proposed modified red limit is $m_r-m_i > 0.52 m_i - 10.96$ when $m_i > 21.02$ for sources with $z<1.64$, and $m_z-m_y > 0.59 m_y - 13.67$ when $m_y > 23.63$ for $1.64<z<3$. In simulations, the low-redshift cut selects about 44% of lensed SNe Ia while rejecting about 99% of unlensed SNe Ia on the rising edge, and about 67% versus 91% on the falling edge; the high-redshift cut selects about 46% and 45% on the two edges while rejecting 99.5% and 98%. The same limit also selects the known lensed systems PS1-10afx, iPTF16geu, and SN Zwicky in archival photometry.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the simulated photometry of lensed and unlensed supernovae, produced without noise, detection limits, PSF size, cadence, or microlensing, is representative of real LSST observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limit holds in real LSST data, transient alert streams could be filtered in near-real time, cutting the millions of alerts down to a few hundred candidate lensed SNe Ia before spectroscopy is triggered.
  • The method works on the falling edge of the light curve, so supernovae discovered near peak, when falling-phase follow-up is the norm, can still be selected rather than only those caught while rising.
  • The high-redshift extension using $z-y$ color and $y$-band magnitude opens the selection to lensed SNe Ia out to $z=3$, beyond the reach of the original red limit.
  • Contamination from unlensed core-collapse supernovae is predicted to be negligible, while a small fraction of lensed Type Ib and Ic supernovae may be flagged as candidates.
  • Archival tests with the known lensed systems PS1-10afx, iPTF16geu, and SN Zwicky place them above the limit, while most observed unlensed SNe Ia and superluminous supernovae fall below it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the red limit is confirmed on real LSST alerts, it could be combined with light-curve shape or host-galaxy proximity checks to build a fully automated lensed-SN candidate pipeline rather than a single-epoch cut.
  • Beyond the paper: the same logic, magnification plus redshift pushing a standard candle redward, might extend to selecting magnified quasars or other standardizable transients, although the paper only tests supernovae.
  • Beyond the paper: microlensing was deliberately excluded, and since early-time lensed SN Ia colors are nearly achromatic, a multi-epoch requirement that an object stay above the line on consecutive nights could suppress microlensing-induced scatter in a real survey.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a color-magnitude (CM) selection criterion for identifying strongly lensed type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) in LSST-era surveys. The authors simulate LSST-like photometry of lensed and unlensed SNe Ia using SNCosmo and lensing observables from a realistic lens population, and show that a subset of lensed SNe Ia occupy a redder region of the CM plane than unlensed SNe Ia on both rising and falling phases of the light curve and out to z=3. They define a modified 'red limit' (Eqs. 6 and 7), report selection efficiencies of roughly 44-67% of lensed SNe Ia at 91-99.5% rejection of unlensed SNe Ia, find negligible simulated contamination from unlensed core-collapse SNe, and validate the criterion against archival samples of SNe Ia, CC SNe, SLSNe, and three known lensed SNe. The central claim is that the modified red limit is a rapid, effective pre-filter for lensed SNe Ia candidates in LSST alerts.

Significance. If the claimed separation and rejection rates hold under realistic survey conditions, this would be a practically useful, inexpensive filter for a regime (lensed SNe Ia) that is scientifically valuable but extremely rare. The paper's strengths include the use of a realistic lens population from the HSC catalog, the extension of CM selection to the falling edge and to z=3 via z-y colors, and the independent check against the known lensed systems PS1-10afx, iPTF16geu, and SN Zwicky, which do lie above the proposed limit. The pipeline is built from public tools (SNCosmo, Glafic, SNData) and the methodology is reproducible in principle. However, the quantitative efficiency claims are weakened by in-sample fitting of the selection curve and by an unresolved internal contradiction between the simulated CC contamination estimate and the observed CC validation sample; these issues must be addressed before the headline numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.4-4.5 and Abstract] There is a direct internal contradiction in the core-collapse contamination estimate. Section 4.4 concludes from simulations that contamination by unlensed CC SNe is 'very low to negligible (<0.05%)', and the abstract repeats this. Section 4.5, applying the same limit to the observed SDSS-II CC SNe, states that 'the cut is, however, found to select a majority of the low redshift unlensed CC SNe sample.' Since CC SNe vastly outnumber lensed SNe Ia in an LSST alert stream, a majority selection of observed CC SNe would dominate the candidate list even if the simulated CC rejection fractions are correct. The authors attribute the discrepancy to a small sample and defer a full study, but the tension is not resolved: either the simulated CC templates or luminosity functions are too faint or too blue, the red limit is not robust to real CC SEDs, or the bandpass mismatch makes the validation invalid for LSST. In any of these cases, the quantitative rejection claim in the abstract and Sec. 4.4 is not supported by the paper's own evidence. This must be resolved by either re-fitting the CC simulation ingredients, quantifying the expected number of CC SNe passing the cut relative to lensed SNe Ia using realistic number densities, or explicitly retracting the '<0.05%' claim.
  2. [4.1, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The selection efficiencies (≈44%/67% for Set 1 low-z, ≈46%/45% for high-z) are computed on the same simulated distributions that were used to fit the modified red limit. The curve in Eq. (6) is described as selected to 'better suit our Set 1 distribution,' and the reported completeness figures are therefore in-sample calibration, not independent predictions. The paper should either perform out-of-sample validation (e.g., fitting on one simulation draw and testing on an independent draw, or a cross-validation split) or clearly state that the reported numbers are in-sample efficiencies that may overstate performance when applied to real data.
  3. [2.3, 4.1, 5] The simulations contain no photometric noise, detection limits, PSF size, cadence, or microlensing, as the authors acknowledge in Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 5. These are not minor omissions for a method whose purpose is to filter LSST alerts: real detections will be biased toward brighter, noisier, and epoch-restricted light curves, and photometric scatter will smear objects across the sharp red limit in Eqs. (6)-(7). The paper already notes a companion study that injects SNe into HSC data with an LSST-like cadence, which is appropriate, but as it stands the quantitative LSST applicability of Sec. 4.1 is not established. I recommend that the paper either present the idealized efficiencies as upper limits with an explicit caveat, or include a simple noise-injection experiment (e.g., adding magnitude errors and a detection threshold) to show how the efficiencies degrade.
  4. [3 and 4.5] The observed validation uses photometry from survey-specific r/i bands (DES, ESSENCE, JLA, ZTF, SDSS) that differ from the LSST bandpasses for which the red limit was defined. The paper acknowledges this in Sec. 4.5 but does not quantify the effect. As a result, the 'works well on observed data' claim is qualitative and cannot be used to independently confirm the simulated rejection percentages. The authors should either apply bandpass corrections (or approximate transformations) to place the observed data on the LSST system, or explicitly restrict the validation claim to a demonstration of qualitative separation without quoting effective rejection rates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3] Sec. 3 contains a typo: 'Trasient' should be 'Transient' in 'Zwicky Trasient Facility'.
  2. [4.1] The units for the magnitude and color in Eqs. (6) and (7) are not stated; since the paper defines AB magnitudes, it would be helpful to write 'magnitudes in AB' explicitly near the equations. Also, the thresholds 21.02 and 23.63 should be described as apparent i- and y-band magnitudes, respectively.
  3. [4.5 / Fig. 5] The text says the criterion 'selects the known lensed SNe Ia systems on the falling edges of respective light curves,' but Fig. 5 shows both rising and falling edge panels. Please clarify whether the known lensed systems are selected on both edges or only the falling edge, and whether the rising-edge panels are also consistent with the textual claim.
  4. [2.3 / 5] The phrase 'Mane et al., 2025, in prep.' is not a citable reference; if the companion study is not yet public, it should be referred to as 'companion study in preparation' in the text and omitted from the reference list, or the arXiv number should be provided if posted.
  5. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says 'All simulated data are available from the corresponding author upon request.' For reproducibility, it would be better to place the simulation scripts, the HSC galaxy catalog subset, and the generated light curves in a public repository (e.g., Zenodo or GitHub), since the paper aims to provide a practical filter for LSST.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline lensed-SN selection efficiencies are measured on the same simulated CMD used to tune the modified red limit, so the 44-67% completeness and 91-99.5% rejection numbers are in-sample fits rather than independent predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Figure 2, Equation 6]
    "We modify this curve slightly to better suit our Set 1 distribution and propose the modified red limit (black bold curve in figure 2). We observe that in our sample, the proposed criterion selects lensed SNe Ia more efficiently using the modified red limit and hence continue to use this modified curve throughout the remainder of this paper. We find that this curve selects ≈ 44% of lensed SNe Ia while rejecting ≈ 99% of unlensed SNe Ia on the rising edge, and selects ≈ 67% of lensed SNe Ia while rejecting ≈ 91% of unlensed SNe Ia on the falling edge."

    The curve in Equation 6 is introduced as a modification that "better suit[s] our Set 1 distribution," meaning it is tuned to the very simulated lensed and unlensed SNe Ia CMD shown in Figure 2. The reported completeness (44% and 67%) and rejection (99% and 91%) are then measured on that same Set 1 simulation. By construction, moving the curve upward or downward changes these percentages, so the numbers are summaries of the fitted curve's placement relative to the training data, not predictions on independent data. No held-out simulated sample or noise-realized test set is used for these headline efficiencies.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Figure 3, Equation 7]
    "Similar to the case of low redshift SNe Ia in the r−i versus i panel, a subset of even high redshift lensed SNe Ia occupy a non-overlapping region of CM parameter space with the high redshift unlensed SNe Ia in the z−y versus y panel. This allows us to determine the red limit for the high-redshift SNe Ia sample as well. ... This curve selects ≈ 46% of lensed SNe Ia at high redshift while rejecting ≈ 99.5% of unlensed SNe Ia on the rising edge, and selects ≈ 45% of lensed SNe Ia while rejecting ≈ 98% of unlensed SNe Ia on the falling edge."

    The high-redshift red limit in Equation 7 is derived from the same simulated high-z lensed and unlensed SNe Ia distributions shown in Figure 3, and the quoted selection and rejection efficiencies are computed on those same distributions. The phrase "this allows us to determine the red limit" shows that the boundary is drawn from the data being evaluated, so the resulting 46%/45% completeness and 99.5%/98% rejection are in-sample descriptions of the fit rather than independent predictions of the criterion's performance.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims—the 44-67% lensed-SN completeness and 91-99.5% unlensed-SN rejection for the proposed red limit—are computed on the same simulated Set 1 and high-z CMDs that were used to tune the curves in Equations 6 and 7. The authors state explicitly that they modified the Quimby et al. curve "to better suit our Set 1 distribution," and then measured efficiency on that same distribution. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern and accounts for the score of 6. There is meaningful independent content that prevents a higher score: the starting point is the earlier Quimby et al. (2014) limit, the three observed lensed SNe (PS1-10afx, iPTF16geu, SN Zwicky) were not used to define the curve, and the observed unlensed SNe Ia and SLSNe in Figure 5 are mostly rejected. However, those external checks are qualitative and do not validate the specific efficiency numbers. The paper also contains a serious internal inconsistency that is not circularity but undermines the CC-contamination claim: Section 4.4 reports simulated unlensed CC contamination below 0.05%, while Section 4.5 states the same cut "select[s] a majority of the low redshift unlensed CC SNe sample" in observed SDSS data. This contradiction, together with the paper's own caveats that LSST PSF, cadence, noise, and microlensing are not modeled (Sections 2.3 and 5), means the headline rejection rates should be read as idealized in-sample values rather than validated predictions for LSST.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entity; its free parameters are the red limit curve coefficients and the epoch choices, all fitted to the simulated CMDs. The key assumptions are the SIE lens model, the SALT2 SN model, the adopted SN rates, and the idealized noise-free, detection-free simulated photometry. These assumptions are standard for this kind of feasibility study, but they limit the direct transferability of the quantitative efficiency claims to real LSST operations.

free parameters (8)
  • low-z red limit slope = 0.52
    Chosen to 'better suit our Set 1 distribution' (Sec 4.1); separates simulated lensed from unlensed SNe Ia in the r-i versus i diagram.
  • low-z red limit intercept = -10.96
    Same hand-fitted curve as the slope; defines the red limit for m_i > 21.02.
  • low-z red limit magnitude threshold = 21.02
    The magnitude below which the red limit is set to zero color offset; chosen by inspection of the simulated CMD.
  • high-z red limit slope = 0.59
    Fitted to the high-redshift (1.64 < z < 3) simulated z-y versus y CMD.
  • high-z red limit intercept = -13.67
    Fitted with the high-z slope to separate lensed from unlensed at z > 1.64.
  • high-z red limit magnitude threshold = 23.63
    Magnitude threshold for the high-z red limit, set by eye in figure 3.
  • optical depth boost factor = not specified
    Constant boost applied to the lensing optical depth (Sec 2.1); affects the lensed sample size but not the per-population selection fractions.
  • epoch choices for Set 1 = 3 days before and 7 days after i-band peak
    Chosen by hand to represent rising and falling phases; the reported efficiencies depend on this choice, and other epochs (Sets 2 and 3) are set aside as less practical.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Strong lensing by SIE mass profile with mass following light, no external shear
    Sec 2.1; standard for galaxy-scale lenses but ignores line-of-sight shear and complex baryonic effects.
  • domain assumption L-sigma_v scaling relation from Parker et al. (2007) converts galaxy luminosity to velocity dispersion
    Sec 2.1; introduces scatter, but no scatter is modeled in the simulation.
  • domain assumption SALT2 model accurately represents SNe Ia spectral energy distributions and colors out to z=3
    Sec 2.3; SALT2 rest-frame coverage is 2000-9200 Å, and beyond that the model may be extrapolated.
  • domain assumption SNe Ia volumetric rates from Dilday et al. (2008) and Hounsell et al. (2018)
    Sec 2.2; rates are uncertain at z>1, and the high-z rate drives the lensed high-z sample.
  • ad hoc to paper No photometric noise, detection limits, cadence, PSF, or microlensing in simulated photometry
    Sec 2.3 and Sec 5; the authors explicitly defer survey realism to a companion paper, so the efficiency numbers apply to an idealized dataset.
  • domain assumption Lensed SNe Ia are redder than unlensed SNe Ia at a given magnitude, so a single red limit separates them
    The premise of the method; supported by redshift and magnification arguments and by the observed lensed systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid identification of lensed type Ia supernovae with color-magnitude selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D3QAOGLY

@misc{pith2026241109412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid identification of lensed type Ia supernovae with color-magnitude selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D3QAOGLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09412}
}
abstract

Strongly lensed type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) provide a unique cosmological probe to address the Hubble tension problem in cosmology. In addition to the sensitivity of the time delays to the value of the Hubble constant, the transient and standard candle nature of SNe Ia also enable valuable joint constraints on the model of the lens and the cosmological parameters. The upcoming Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) with the Vera C. Rubin Observatory is expected to increase the number of observed SNe Ia by an order of magnitude in ten years of its lifetime. However, finding such systems in the LSST data is a challenge. In this work, we revisit the color-magnitude (CM) diagram used previously as a means to identify lensed SNe Ia and extend the work further as follows. We simulate LSST-like photometric data ($rizy$-bands) of lensed SNe Ia and analyze it in the CM parameter space. We find that a subset of lensed SNe Ia are redder compared to unlensed SNe Ia at a given magnitude, both in the rising and falling phases of their light curves and for SNe up to $z=3$. We propose a modified selection criterion based on these new results. We show that the contamination coming from unlensed core-collapse (CC) SNe is negligible, whereas a small fraction of lensed CC SNe types Ib and Ic may get selected by this criterion as potential lensed SNe. Finally, we demonstrate that our criterion works well on a wide sample of observed unlensed SNe Ia, a handful of known multiply-imaged lensed SNe systems, and a representative sample of observed CC SNe as well as super-luminous supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Distribution of the source (SNe Ia and CC SNe) and the lens redshifts used in the analysis. obtain the velocity dispersion. Similarly, assuming mass follows light, we obtain the position of the lens poten￾tial and the ellipticity parameters. We do not consider external shear in this analysis. Given the lens and the source redshifts, the probability that such a configuration could lead to lensing is calcu￾lated fro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the CMDs of simulated SNe Ia for the two sets of epochs of observation. We note that a subset of lensed SNe Ia occupy a region in CM parameter space that does not overlap with unlensed SNe Ia, both during the early epochs (set 1) and the late epochs (set 2) of the light curves, regardless of the phase. The original red limit (Quimby et al. 2014), given by the black dashed curve, is able to separate the non-ove… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. — CMDs of the simulated lensed and unlensed CC SNe for z < 1.33 comparing both the rising (left panel) and falling (right panel) edges. The red limit (black bold curve) that separates lensed SNe Ia from the unlensed also eliminates almost all of the unlensed CC SNe, but may allow a small fraction of lensed CC SNe with fainter magnitudes to be selected. lensed SNe Ia distribution shifts to fainter i-band magni￾tudes … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — CMDs of the observed unlensed SNe Ia, CC SNe, and SLSNe along with the small sample observed lensed SNe to verify the validity of the proposed criterion for real SNe. The proposed selection criterion eliminates a majority of unlensed SNe Ia, and SLSNe while selecting…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Allison, J., Anderson, S

    Abell, P. A., Allison, J., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2009, arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.0201

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3509

    Arendse, N., Dhawan, S., Sagu´ es Carracedo, A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3509

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    Barbary, K., Barclay, T., Biswas, R., et al. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    E., Branch, D., & Hauschildt, P

    Baron, E., Nugent, P. E., Branch, D., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, L91

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, A22

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

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A165

    Birrer, S., Shajib, A., Galan, A., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A165

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 106

    Brout, D., Sako, M., Scolnic, D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 106

    work page 2019

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    C., Fassnacht, C

    Chen, G. C., Fassnacht, C. D., Suyu, S. H., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1743

    2019

  2. [10]

    L., Oguri, M., et al

    Chen, W., Kelly, P. L., Oguri, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 611, 256

    2022

  3. [11]

    M., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 114

    2011

  4. [12]

    2024, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 535, 2939 Di Carlo, E., Massi, F., Valentini, G., et al

    Dhawan, S., Pierel, J., Gu, M., et al. 2024, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 535, 2939 Di Carlo, E., Massi, F., Valentini, G., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 144

    2024

  5. [13]

    A., et al

    Dilday, B., Kessler, R., Frieman, J. A., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 682, 262

    2008

  6. [14]

    & Keeton, C

    Dobler, G. & Keeton, C. R. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 653, 1391

    2006

  7. [15]

    Crockett, R. M. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 774

    2013

  8. [16]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1997, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 309

    1997

  9. [17]

    E., Vernardos, G., Goldstein, D

    Foxley-Marrable, M., Collett, T. E., Vernardos, G., Goldstein, D. A., & Bacon, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 5081

    2018

  10. [18]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 47

    2001

  11. [19]

    L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al

    Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 171

    2024

  12. [20]

    2012, Science, 337, 927

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927

    2012

  13. [21]

    2019, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 305

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 305

    2019

  14. [22]

    L., Nugent, P

    Gilliland, R. L., Nugent, P. E., & Phillips, M. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 521, 30

    1999

  15. [23]

    Goldstein, D. A. & Nugent, P. E. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 834, L5

    2016

  16. [24]

    A., Nugent, P

    Goldstein, D. A., Nugent, P. E., Kasen, D. N., & Collett, T. E. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 22

    2018

  17. [25]

    2017, Science, 356, 291

    Goobar, A., Amanullah, R., Kulkarni, S., et al. 2017, Science, 356, 291

    2017

  18. [26]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1098

    Goobar, A., Johansson, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1098

    2023

  19. [27]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 466, 11

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 466, 11

    2007

  20. [28]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 523, A7

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

    2010

  21. [29]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 23

    Hounsell, R., Scolnic, D., Foley, R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 23

    2018

  22. [30]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 98

    Howell, D., Kasen, D., Lidman, C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 98

    2013

  23. [31]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A110

    Huber, S., Suyu, S., Noebauer, U., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A110

    2021

  24. [32]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 128

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 128

    2013

  25. [33]

    J., Gall, E., et al

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Gall, E., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 1046 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111

    2018

  26. [34]

    Ivezic, Z. et al. 2011, Large synoptic survey telescope (lsst) science requirements document

    2011

  27. [35]

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

    Kelly, P. L., Rodney, S., Treu, T., et al. 2023, Science, 380, eabh1322

    2023

  28. [36]

    L., Rodney, S

    Kelly, P. L., Rodney, S. A., Treu, T., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 1123

    2015

  29. [37]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, L51

    Koopmans, L., Bolton, A., Treu, T., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, L51

    2009

  30. [38]

    1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol

    Kormann, R., Schneider, P., & Bartelmann, M. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 284, no. 1, p. 285-299, 284, 285

    1994

  31. [39]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 880

    Levan, A., Nugent, P., Fruchter, A., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 880

    2005

  32. [40]

    2022, Chinese Physics Letters, 39, 119801

    Liao, K., Biesiada, M., & Zhu, Z.-H. 2022, Chinese Physics Letters, 39, 119801

    2022

  33. [41]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 11

    Liao, K., Treu, T., Marshall, P., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 11

    2015

  34. [42]

    Linder, E. V. 2004, Physical Review D, 70, 043534

    2004

  35. [43]

    Linder, E. V. 2011, Physical Review D, 84, 123529

    2011

  36. [44]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 90

    Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 90

    2015

  37. [45]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    2014

  38. [46]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 542

    Magee, M., Sainz de Murieta, A., Collett, T., & Enzi, W. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 542

    2023

  39. [47]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 1206

    McCrum, M., Smartt, S., Rest, A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 1206

    2015

  40. [48]

    1979, in A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1900–1975 (Harvard University Press), 478–480

    Minkowski, R. 1979, in A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1900–1975 (Harvard University Press), 478–480

    1979

  41. [49]

    & More, S

    More, A. & More, S. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1044

    2022

  42. [50]

    E., et al

    Narayan, G., Rest, A., Tucker, B. E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 224, 3

    2016

  43. [51]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 55 Rapid identification of lensed SNe Ia 9

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 55 Rapid identification of lensed SNe Ia 9

    2017

  44. [52]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 2096

    Nicholl, M., Smartt, S., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 2096

    2014

  45. [53]

    2002, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 114, 803

    Nugent, P., Kim, A., & Perlmutter, S. 2002, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 114, 803

    2002

  46. [54]

    2010, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    Oguri, M. 2010, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    2010

  47. [55]

    2019, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 126901

    Oguri, M. 2019, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 126901

    2019

  48. [56]

    & Kawano, Y

    Oguri, M. & Kawano, Y. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 338, L25

    2003

  49. [57]

    & Marshall, P

    Oguri, M. & Marshall, P. J. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 2579

    2010

  50. [58]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 21

    Mellier, Y. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 21

    2007

  51. [59]

    L., Pierel, J

    Pascale, M., Frye, B. L., Pierel, J. D., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 13

    2025

  52. [60]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 967, L37

    Pierel, J., Newman, A., Dhawan, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 967, L37

    2024

  53. [61]

    2011, Nature, 474, 487

    Quimby, R., Kulkarni, S., Kasliwal, M., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 487

    2011

  54. [62]

    M., Oguri, M., More, A., et al

    Quimby, R. M., Oguri, M., More, A., et al. 2014, Science, 344, 396

    2014

  55. [63]

    1964, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 128, 307

    Refsdal, S. 1964, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 128, 307

    1964

  56. [64]

    L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L

    Richardson, D., Jenkins III, R. L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 118

    2014

  57. [65]

    G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al

    Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L6

    2021

  58. [66]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A1

    Rigault, M., Smith, M., Goobar, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A1

    2025

  59. [67]

    A., Brammer, G

    Rodney, S. A., Brammer, G. B., Pierel, J. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1118

    2021

  60. [68]

    C., et al

    Sako, M., Bassett, B., Becker, A. C., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 064002

    2018

  61. [69]

    & Kessler, R

    Scolnic, D. & Kessler, R. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 822, L35

    2016

  62. [70]

    J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al

    Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 6072

    2020

  63. [71]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 054201

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 054201

    2017

  64. [72]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1409

    Smartt, S., Eldridge, J., Crockett, R., & Maund, J. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1409

    2009

  65. [73]

    H., Bonvin, V., Courbin, F., et al

    Suyu, S. H., Bonvin, V., Courbin, F., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 2590

    2017

  66. [74]

    H., Goobar, A., Collett, T., More, A., & Vernardos, G

    Suyu, S. H., Goobar, A., Collett, T., More, A., & Vernardos, G. 2024, Space Science Reviews, 220, 13

    2024

  67. [75]

    S., et al

    Townsend, A., Nordin, J., Carracedo, A. S., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A146

    2025

  68. [76]

    A., Nicholl, M., & Berger, E

    Villar, V. A., Nicholl, M., & Berger, E. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 166

    2018

  69. [77]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5802

    Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., Firth, R., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5802

    2019

  70. [78]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 3342

    Wojtak, R., Hjorth, J., & Gall, C. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 3342

    2019

  71. [79]

    C., Suyu, S

    Wong, K. C., Suyu, S. H., Auger, M. W., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 4895

    2017

  72. [80]

    C., Suyu, S

    Wong, K. C., Suyu, S. H., Chen, G. C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 1420 APPENDIX ADDITIONAL CMDS Additional CMDs showing the comparison between re- solved and unresolved SNe Ia and CC SNe separated by their subtypes are added here inste...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.