Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Detection of Unresolved Strongly Lensed Supernovae with 7-Dimensional Telescope

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The authors forecast that the 7-Dimensional Telescope, an array of twenty 50-cm telescopes, can detect about 7 Type Ia and 9 core-collapse lensed supernovae per year in known lens fields, and that follow-up of a subset could measure the…

desk verdict A useful, honest forecast of how a small-telescope array could find unresolved lensed SNe; the order-of-magnitude rates are plausible, but the specific numbers and the H0 forecast rest on assumptions a referee should probe. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12525 v2 pith:GKQNZDH3 submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

Elahe Khalouei , Arman Shafieloo , Alex G. Kim , Ryan E. Keeley , William Sheu , Gregory S. H. Paek , Myungshin Im , Xiaosheng Huang
show 1 more author
Hyung Mok Lee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationallylensedsupernovaetime-delaycosmographyHubbleconstantsmall-aperturetelescopearraytransientdetectionratesGaussianprocessregressionstronglenscandidatesunresolvedimages
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 argues that a small-telescope array can serve as a discovery engine for gravitationally lensed supernovae even though it cannot resolve the separate lensed images. Simulating synthetic light curves for 5,807 strong-lens systems and candidates, the authors forecast that the 7-Dimensional Telescope, twenty 50-cm telescopes with a combined 25 deg$^2$ field of view, will detect at most about 7.46 Type Ia and 9.49 core-collapse lensed supernovae per year by monitoring roughly 1,125 target fields in the $r$-band at a depth of 22.04 mag. The physical mechanism is that unresolved systems add their lensed images together, so the short-delay systems that small telescopes can see are the brighter ones. With dedicated follow-up of a subset of the detected systems, the paper forecasts a model-independent measurement of the Hubble constant to 2.7% precision, $H_0 = 70.03 \pm 1.9$ km/s/Mpc. If these rates hold, a modest ground-based facility becomes a viable feeder for one of the few independent cosmological probes of the expansion rate.

What carries the argument

The detection forecast is carried by synthetic light curves: SNCosmo with the SALT3 model for Type Ia and six template families for core-collapse subtypes, with image multiplicities, log-normal magnifications, and exponential time delays (mean 6.83 days) tuned to the unresolved, short-delay population inferred from ZTF and LSST studies, and with a system counted as detected when the combined (unresolved) light curve rises above the survey depth for a control time long enough to be caught. The cosmological forecast is carried by the time-delay distance relation $H_0 D_{\Delta t} = (1+z_l)\, H_0 D_l\, H_0 D_s / H_0 D_{ls}$, evaluated with distances from Gaussian-process reconstructions of the unanchored luminosity distance $H_0 D_L(z)$ built from the Pantheon sample, and then compared against mock time-delay distances drawn from a flat $\Lambda$CDM fiducial model with 10% noise; $H_0$ is obtained by marginalizing over the Gaussian-process realizations.

What would settle it

Count the number of the 5,807 candidate lens fields that contain a bright background source at $z_s \lesssim 0.7$ using existing deep imaging; the predicted annual yields are nearly proportional to that count, so a much smaller population would collapse the forecast. A direct empirical check is the first year of the proposed 7DT $r$-band monitoring: observing far fewer than roughly 17 unresolved lensed supernovae would indicate that the source-redshift tail, the magnification distribution, or the unresolved fraction is more optimistic than reality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that unresolved, blended gravitationally lensed supernovae are detectable at useful rates with a small-aperture multi-telescope system, and that the systems thereby found are sufficient for a model-independent constraint on the Hubble constant. Under ideal conditions, monitoring the strong-lens and candidate sample in the $r$-band at a depth of 22.04 mag yields maximum annual rates of 7.46 Type Ia and 9.49 core-collapse detections, split among the core-collapse subtypes (2.49 Ic, 0.80 IIb, 0.52 IIL, 0.78 IIn, 3.75 IIP, 1.15 Ib); a shallower medium-band program at 20.61 mag yields 2.53 Type Ia events per year. Taking the detected systems as the input to a model-independent Gaussian-process analysis that anchors the Pantheon supernova distances to measured time-delay distances, the forecast returns $H_0 = 70.03 \pm 1.9$ km/s/Mpc, i.e., 2.7% precision, for a combined sample of seven Type Ia and seven core-collapse systems.

Load-bearing premise

The entire detection-rate forecast rests on the assumed redshift distribution of the supernova sources behind the lens candidates, specifically the low-redshift tail below $z_s = 0.7$ that the 7DT can actually see; the paper imposes this tail by multiplying the lens redshift distribution with a truncated normal distribution rather than measuring it from the lens catalog or from observed lensed supernovae.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under ideal conditions, the 7DT target program in the $r$-band at depth 22.04 mag should detect about 7.46 Type Ia and 9.49 core-collapse lensed supernovae per year within the ~1,125 fields covering 5,807 strong-lens systems and candidates.
  • The 7DS wide-field medium-band program at the m6000 filter depth of 20.61 mag is forecast to detect about 2.53 Type Ia lensed supernovae per year.
  • Following up seven Type Ia and seven core-collapse detections with larger telescopes, the model-independent Gaussian-process method yields $H_0 = 70.03 \pm 1.9$ km/s/Mpc, a 2.7% precision measurement.
  • Unresolved glSNe, having median time delays of a few days, are the bright, blended channel that small telescopes can catch; the trade-off is that short delays worsen time-delay-measurement precision for $H_0$.
  • A complementary strategy, proposed but not simulated, places 7DT monitoring in LSST's low-cadence rolling-season fields to add early detection and medium-band classification where LSST coverage is sparse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The yield is calibratable before the survey runs: a count of $z_s \lesssim 0.7$ background sources behind the candidate fields, from existing deep multi-band imaging, would pin down the dominant uncertainty in the rate forecast.
  • The 2.7% $H_0$ precision should be read as an ideal-case bound rather than a guaranteed outcome, since the simulated systems have short delays and the paper itself flags these as disadvantaged for precise time-delay measurement; including microlensing, which the paper sets aside, would tend to add scatter on exactly these short-delay systems.
  • The same control-time machinery transfers to other small-telescope arrays and to larger future lens catalogs, so the reusable result is the method for turning an unresolved-transient survey into a lensed-supernova yield estimate, not just the 7DT numbers.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper simulates the detection of unresolved strongly lensed supernovae with the 7DT small-telescope array, using 5807 strong lens candidates from DECaLS/DESI Legacy Surveys. It predicts annual detection rates for Type Ia and several core-collapse subtypes under different 7DT observing strategies, and uses a Gaussian-process, model-independent method with Pantheon SNe Ia to forecast H0 precision from follow-up of the detected systems. The headline results are 7.46 SNe Ia yr^-1 and 9.49 CC SNe yr^-1 (sum of subtypes) in the r-band deep target mode at 22.04 mag, and 2.53 SNe Ia yr^-1 in the WTS medium-band program, leading to a forecasted 2.7% H0 precision (70.03 ± 1.9 km/s/Mpc) from 7 Ia + 7 CC systems.

Significance. If the rates and H0 precision hold, this would demonstrate that a modest-aperture, wide-field telescope array can contribute to glSNe discovery and time-delay cosmography, complementing LSST and Roman. The paper includes a concrete simulation pipeline, explicit SN-rate formulas imported from the literature, and a reproducible GP-based analysis framework. The main value is in showing the feasibility of unresolved glSNe detection with small telescopes; however, the quantitative forecasts are currently undermined by inconsistencies in the source-redshift prescription and an unsupported time-delay distance uncertainty assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1] The source-redshift prescription as written is internally inconsistent: a truncated normal N(2,0.5) with lower bound 1 has zero probability below zs=0.7, yet the text immediately applies a selection zs < 0.7, and Figures 3, 5, and 6 show simulated source redshifts below 0.7. Taken literally, the simulation would produce no systems at all, while the paper reports nonzero rates (e.g., 7.46 SNe Ia yr^-1 and the 7 Ia + 7 CC sample used in Section 4). Please correct the description (e.g., if the implementation is zs = zl × x with x drawn from a truncated normal, state that explicitly) or re-run the simulation with the stated distribution and re-derive the rates. As written, the central detection-rate and H0-precision forecasts are not reproducible.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4)] The H0 forecast assumes sigma_DDelta_t = 0.1 D for every mock system, including unresolved systems whose simulated time delays have a median of 6.83 days (Section 3.3). The paper itself notes that short delays are disadvantaged for precise time-delay measurements. A 10% time-delay distance uncertainty for a few-day delay in an unresolved, blended system is optimistic and is the main driver of the 2.7% precision in Table 2. Please justify this assumption with a realistic error budget or present the H0 precision as a function of sigma_DDelta_t; otherwise the forecast is a self-consistency check of the assumed noise rather than a prediction of the 7DT+follow-up program.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 3.4] The headline detection rates are quoted as 'maximum expected' under ideal conditions, but the simulation uses the full 5807-candidate sample without a lens-likelihood threshold (Figure 2 shows many candidates with likelihood near 0.1–0.3), assumes 100% observing efficiency and 7-hour nights with no weather or moon-phase losses, and does not model the lens-galaxy subtraction or image blending in detail. Please provide a fiducial scenario (e.g., applying a likelihood cut, adopting a weather fraction, or including a detection-efficiency factor) alongside the ideal-case maxima, so that the annual rates quoted in the abstract are not read as realistic expectations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3] Change 'microlensig' to 'microlensing'.
  2. [Section 3.1] Clarify the relation between the 5807-candidate parent sample and the ~1225 systems within the 7DT footprint; the text says 'around 1225 lens systems and candidates' but does not state the declination or likelihood cuts used.
  3. [Abstract and Table 1] Unify the WTS depth: the abstract quotes 20.61 mag for the m6000 filter, while Table 1 lists 20.60 for m600; also the filter is referred to as both m6000 and m600.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states zs <= 0.6, while Section 3.4.1 says systems with 0.6 < zs < 0.7 are not detectable; make the redshift ranges consistent across text and figures.
  5. [Section 4] Equation (3) uses H0DDelta_t but does not define DDelta_t before first use; add a sentence defining the time-delay distance.
  6. [Throughout] Fix rendering artifacts in author names (e.g., 'Sagu´ es', 'Ca˜ nameras') and the spacing in '2 .7%' in the abstract.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Detection-rate simulation is self-contained; the quoted 2.7% H0 precision reduces to the assumed 10% time-delay-distance noise divided by sqrt(14).

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Eq. 4 and Table 2)]
    "This mock data is calculated by taking a flat ΛCDM model with H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc and Ωm = 0.3 ... Then 10% noise is added to these mock time-delay distances, which we estimate to be a reasonable uncertainty associated with the time-delay distances (σD∆t,i = 0.1Dsim∆t,i). ... Table 2 ... 7 Ia + 7 CC (Broad-band) 70.03 ± 1.9 2.7%"

    The forecast precision is not an output of the survey simulation or the Gaussian-process machinery; it is the input per-system fractional uncertainty divided by the square root of the number of systems. With σ_DΔt/D = 10% and N = 14, 10%/√14 = 2.7%, exactly the Table 2 value (and 10%/√7 = 3.8% for the 7-Ia row). Because the mock DΔt are generated from the same H0 = 70 fiducial model used in the likelihood, the recovered central value 70.03 is enforced by construction. The '2.7% precision' is therefore a restatement of the assumed noise and chosen sample size, not an independent prediction derived from 7DT's detection capability.

full rationale

The detection-rate simulation is self-contained: rates are computed by Monte Carlo over the selected DECaLS lens catalog with imported SN-rate formulas (Shu et al. 2018), SALT3/Nugent light-curve models, and explicitly stated magnification and time-delay distributions; the quoted yields (7.46 Ia, etc.) do not reduce to any fitted quantity. The source-redshift recipe in §3.1 (lens distribution multiplied by a truncated normal with lower bound 1, then selecting zs < 0.7) is a modeling prior imported from Sheu et al. 2023, not a circular step; it is an assumption that controls the yield and deserves external calibration, but that is a robustness/correctness concern rather than circularity. Several citations (Liao et al. 2019, 2020; Bag et al. 2021, 2024; Sheu et al. 2023) include the present authors, but the methods are re-implemented in the text rather than invoked as black-box theorems, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The one genuine reduction is in the H0 forecast: the quoted 2.7% precision for 7 Ia + 7 CC equals 10%/√14, i.e., the assumed per-system time-delay-distance uncertainty divided by the square root of the sample size, and the recovered central value is forced by generating the mock data from H0 = 70. This makes the cosmological precision forecast a statistically forced restatement of its input assumptions. The circularity is partial and localized to the cosmological forecast, not to the detection-rate simulation, hence a score of 4.

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

The central claim imports most of its physical inputs from prior literature (SN rate formulas, SNCosmo models, Pantheon data, lens catalogs). The paper's own free parameters are the distributions describing unresolved systems, the source-redshift construction, and the assumed time-delay distance uncertainty. These are plausible but unvalidated, and the H0 precision forecast reduces to the assumed 10% error and the chosen sample size.

free parameters (6)
  • Source redshift distribution of lensed SNe = N(2,0.5), truncated at lower bound 1; selection cut z_s < 0.7
    The 7DT detection rates are dominated by the low-redshift tail of this assumed distribution; no calibration to observed lensed SNe.
  • Unresolved image magnification distribution = log-normal with mean 1.07 and std 0.465 (converted from Sagues Carracedo et al. 2024)
    Sets how bright the blended light curves appear; directly controls which systems cross the detection depth.
  • Unresolved time-delay distribution = exponential with mean 6.83 days
    Chosen from Bag et al. 2024 and Sagues Carracedo et al. 2024; affects control times and the H0 forecast with short delays.
  • Time-delay distance fractional uncertainty = 10% (sigma_Ddt = 0.1 D_sim)
    The forecast H0 precision of 2.7% scales directly with this assumed error; no lens-model systematic error is included.
  • Fraction of systems with completely unresolved images = 50% or 90% (scenarios)
    The headline rates use 90%, motivated by Goldstein et al. 2019 and Bag et al. 2024; the true fraction is unconstrained by data.
  • Host galaxy dust extinction parameters = E(B-V)_host up to 0.2, R_V in [1.63, 3.85]
    Dims synthetic light curves and reduces detectability; drawn uniformly without calibration to lensed SN hosts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lensed SN rates follow cosmic star formation history (kcc=0.0068 per solar mass; SNe Ia delay-time distribution t_D^-1.07)
    Imported from Shu et al. 2018 and Sheu et al. 2023 via Equations (1)-(2); if these volumetric rates are wrong for lensed galaxies, the predicted annual yields scale directly.
  • domain assumption The DECaLS strong-lens candidate catalog used here (Huang et al. 2020, 2021; Storfer et al. 2024) is representative of real lens systems and is used without a lens-probability cut
    Section 3.1 selects all 1225 systems below declination 30; contamination by non-lenses would inflate rates.
  • domain assumption Unresolved lensed SN light curves can be modeled as the simple sum of 2 or 4 image fluxes with no microlensing
    Section 3.3 states microlensing is ignored; the authors note this is a caveat, and microlensing can suppress or magnify individual images.
  • standard math Gaussian process reconstruction of H0D_L from Pantheon SNe Ia, anchored by time-delay distances, recovers H0 without model bias
    Method from Liao et al. 2019, 2020 and Li et al. 2024; the paper uses it with 1000 GP realizations (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Mock time-delay distances are generated from flat LambdaCDM with H0=70 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.3, then 10% noise is added
    Section 4; the forecast precision depends on this injected noise level and does not include selection or measurement systematics.
  • ad hoc to paper Source redshifts are drawn by multiplying the lens redshift distribution by a truncated normal N(2,0.5) with lower bound 1, then cutting at z_s<0.7
    Section 3.1; this construction is unique to this paper, is not derived from the lens catalog, and drives all detections in the low-redshift tail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of Unresolved Strongly Lensed Supernovae with 7-Dimensional Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKQNZDH3

@misc{pith2026250112525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of Unresolved Strongly Lensed Supernovae with 7-Dimensional Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKQNZDH3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12525}
}
abstract

Gravitationally lensed supernovae (glSNe) are a powerful tool for exploring the realms of astronomy and cosmology. Time-delay measurements and lens modeling of glSNe can provide a robust and independent method for constraining the expansion rate of the universe. The study of unresolved glSNe light curves presents a unique opportunity for utilizing small telescopes to investigate these systems. In this work, we investigate diverse observational strategies for the initial detection of glSNe using the 7-Dimensional Telescope (7DT), a multitelescope system composed of twenty 50-cm telescopes. We implement different observing strategies on a subset of 5807 strong lensing systems and candidates identified within the Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey (DECaLS), as reported in various publications. Our simulations under ideal observing conditions indicate the maximum expected annual detection rates for various glSNe types (Type Ia and core-collapse (CC)) using the 7DT target observing mode in the $r$-band at a depth of 22.04 mag, as follows: 7.46 events for type Ia, 2.49 for type Ic, 0.8 for type IIb, 0.52 for type IIL, 0.78 for type IIn, 3.75 for type IIP, and 1.15 for type Ib. Furthermore, in the case of medium-band filter observations (m6000) at a depth of 20.61 in the Wide-field Time-domain Survey (WTS)program, the predicted detection rate for glSNe Ia is 2.53 $yr^{-1}$. Given targeted follow-up observations of these initially detected systems with more powerful telescopes, we can apply a model-independent approach to forecast the ability to measure $H_{0}$ using a Gaussian process from Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) data and time-delay distance information derived from glSNe systems, which include both Ia and CC types. We forecast that the expected detection rate of glSNe systems can achieve a $2.7\%$ precision in estimating the $H_{0}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12525 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 7DT transmission curves for broad-band and medium-band filters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Likelihood of lens candidates distribution, x1 ∼ Ns (a = −8.24, µ = 1.23, σ = 1.67), c fol￾lows a skew-normal distribution, c ∼ Ns (a = 2.48, µ = −0.089, σ = 0.12), and the absolute B-band magnitude (MB) is sampled from a normal distribution, MB ∼ N(µ = −19.43, σ = 0.12). The SNCosmo package also provides a variety of CC mod￾els for SNe, allowing us to choose different models for each SN type. We employ various mode… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of redshifts for selected lens galaxies/ candidates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 7DT skyfootprint (blue tile patterns) and the loca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average detection rate of glSNe Ia for different 7DT medium-band filters and source redshifts z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panels: Control time distribution of glSNe Ia at different observing depths for source redshifts z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reconstruction of the H0DL(z) function using GP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 4667

    Alam, S., de Mattia, A., Tamone, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4667

    2021

  2. [2]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3509

    Arendse, N., Dhawan, S., Sagu´ es Carracedo, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3509

    2024

  3. [3]

    H., et al

    Bag, S., Huber, S., Suyu, S. H., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A100

    2024

  4. [4]

    G., Linder, E

    Bag, S., Kim, A. G., Linder, E. V., & Shafieloo, A. 2021, ApJ, 910, 65

    2021

  5. [5]

    2024, Zenodo, doi: https://zenodo.org/records/10602402

    Barbary, K., Bailey, S., Barentsen, G., et al. 2024, Zenodo, doi: https://zenodo.org/records/10602402

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    F., Zheng, X

    Bell, E. F., Zheng, X. Z., Papovich, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 834

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Birrer, S., Dhawan, S., & Shajib, A. J. 2022, ApJ, 924, 2

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    J., Galan, A., et al

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

    2020

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    & Treu, T

    Birrer, S. & Treu, T. 2021, A&A, 649, A61

    2021

  2. [10]

    M., Horne, K., Albrow, M

    Bramich, D. M., Horne, K., Albrow, M. D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2275

    2013

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 110 Ca˜ nameras, R., Schuldt, S., Shu, Y., et al

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 110 Ca˜ nameras, R., Schuldt, S., Shu, Y., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, L6 Ca˜ nameras, R., Schuldt, S., Suyu, S. H., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A163

    2022

  4. [12]

    L., Oguri, M., et al

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

    2022

  5. [13]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 118

    Chiang, Y.-K. 2023, ApJ, 958, 118

    2023

  6. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1077

    Craig, P., O’Connor, K., Chakrabarti, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1077

    2024

  7. [15]

    G., Linder, E

    Denissenya, M., Bag, S., Kim, A. G., Linder, E. V., & Shafieloo, A. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1210

    2022

  8. [16]

    J., Lang, D., et al

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

    2019

  9. [17]

    Dhawan, S., Pierel, J. D. R., Gu, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2939 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, CQG, 38, 153001

    2024

  10. [18]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 5621

    Ding, X., Liao, K., Birrer, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5621

    2021

  11. [19]

    E., Gorenstein, M

    Falco, E. E., Gorenstein, M. V., & Shapiro, I. I. 1985, ApJ, 289, L1

    1985

  12. [20]

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

    1999

  13. [21]

    E., Vernardos, G., Goldstein, D

    Foxley-Marrable, M., Collett, T. E., Vernardos, G., Goldstein, D. A., & Bacon, D. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5081

    2018

  14. [22]

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

    Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 171

    2024

  15. [23]

    L., Nugent, P

    Gilliland, R. L., Nugent, P. E., & Phillips, M. M. 1999, ApJ, 521, 30

    1999

  16. [24]

    A., Nugent, P

    Goldstein, D. A., Nugent, P. E., & Goobar, A. 2019, ApJS, 243, 6

    2019

  17. [25]

    A., Nugent, P

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

    2018

  18. [26]

    R., et al

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

    2017

  19. [27]

    2023, Nat

    Goobar, A., Johansson, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2023, Nat. Astron., 7, 1098

    2023

  20. [28]

    Green, G. 2018, J. Open Source Software, 3, 695

    2018

  21. [29]

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

    1999 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 27

    Huang, X., Storfer, C., Gu, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 27

    2021

  23. [31]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 78

    Huang, X., Storfer, C., Ravi, V., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 78

    2020

  24. [32]

    H., Noebauer, U

    Huber, S., Suyu, S. H., Noebauer, U. M., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A161

    2019

  25. [33]

    2021, in 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly

    Im, M. 2021, in 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 28 January - 4 February, Vol. 43, 1537

    2021

  26. [34]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 17

    Jacobs, C., Collett, T., Glazebrook, K., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 17

    2019

  27. [35]

    E., Shafieloo, A., L’Huillier, B., & Linder, E

    Keeley, R. E., Shafieloo, A., L’Huillier, B., & Linder, E. V. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3983

    2020

  28. [36]

    2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-2356, 1

    Kelly, P., Zitrin, A., Oguri, M., et al. 2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-2356, 1

    2022

  29. [37]

    L., Rodney, S

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

    2015

  30. [38]

    D., Jones, D

    Kenworthy, W. D., Jones, D. O., Dai, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 265

    2021

  31. [39]

    H., Im, M., Lee, H., et al

    Kim, J. H., Im, M., Lee, H., et al. 2024, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., 13094, 130940X

    2024

  32. [40]

    W., et al

    Lemon, C., Anguita, T., Auger-Williams, M. W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3305

    2023

  33. [41]

    E., Shafieloo, A., & Liao, K

    Li, X., Keeley, R. E., Shafieloo, A., & Liao, K. 2024, ApJ, 960, 103

    2024

  34. [42]

    E., & Linder, E

    Liao, K., Shafieloo, A., Keeley, R. E., & Linder, E. V. 2019, ApJ, 886, L23

    2019

  35. [43]

    E., & Linder, E

    Liao, K., Shafieloo, A., Keeley, R. E., & Linder, E. V. 2020, ApJ, 895, L29

    2020

  36. [44]

    2015, ApJ, 800, 11 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P

    Liao, K., Treu, T., Marshall, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 11 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 2

    Matsuura, S., Shirahata, M., Kawada, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 2

    2011

  38. [46]

    2020, A&A, 640, A105

    Millon, M., Courbin, F., Bonvin, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A105

    2020

  39. [47]

    2007, PASJ, 59, S369

    Murakami, H., Baba, H., Barthel, P., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S369

    2007

  40. [48]

    & Marshall, P

    Oguri, M. & Marshall, P. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2579

    2010

  41. [49]

    Paek, G. S. H., Im, M., Kim, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 113

    2024

  42. [50]

    L., Pierel, J

    Pascale, M., Frye, B. L., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 13

    2025

  43. [51]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Arendse, N., Ertl, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 115

    2023

  44. [52]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Newman, A. B., Dhawan, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, L37

    2024

  45. [53]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Rodney, S., Vernardos, G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 190 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et a...

    2021

  46. [54]

    2023, A&A, 675, L4

    Polletta, M., Nonino, M., Frye, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, L4

    2023

  47. [55]

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

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

    2014

  48. [56]

    1964, MNRAS, 128, 307

    Refsdal, S. 1964, MNRAS, 128, 307

    1964

  49. [57]

    & Bondi, H

    Refsdal, S. & Bondi, H. 1964, MNRAS, 128, 295

    1964

  50. [58]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, L7

    2022

  51. [59]

    A., Brammer, G

    Rodney, S. A., Brammer, G. B., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2021, Nat. Astron., 5, 1118

    2021

  52. [60]

    J., Maturi, M., et al

    Rydberg, C.-E., Whalen, D. J., Maturi, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2447 Sagu´ es Carracedo, A., Goobar, A., M¨ ortsell, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00052

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2011, ApJ, 738, 162

    Sako, M., Bassett, B., Connolly, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 162

    2011

  54. [62]

    2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Vol

    Schlegel, D., White, M., & Eisenstein, D. 2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Vol. 2010, 314

    2009

  55. [63]

    Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., & Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (New York: Springer)

    1992

  56. [64]

    & Sluse, D

    Schneider, P. & Sluse, D. 2013, A&A, 559, A37

    2013

  57. [65]

    M., Jones, D

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

    2018

  58. [66]

    E., & Linder, E

    Shafieloo, A., Keeley, R. E., & Linder, E. V. 2020, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2020, 019

    2020

  59. [67]

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

    Shajib, A. J., Birrer, S., Treu, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 6072 9 Khalouei et al: Cosmography with 7DT 7DT: SNe Ia 0 20 40 60 80 100 Control Time (days) Normalized Density Control Time Distribution (mag 21.02, 50% unresolved images) zs 0.6 (Median: 24.29 days) zs > 0.6 (Med...

    2020

  60. [68]

    J., Mozumdar, P., Chen, G

    Shajib, A. J., Mozumdar, P., Chen, G. C. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A9

    2023

  61. [69]

    J., Smith, G

    Shajib, A. J., Smith, G. P., Birrer, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08919

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 10

    Sheu, W., Huang, X., Cikota, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 10

    2023

  63. [71]

    S., Mao, S., et al

    Shu, Y., Bolton, A. S., Mao, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 91

    2018

  64. [72]

    2022, A&A, 662, A4

    Shu, Y., Ca˜ nameras, R., Schuldt, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A4

    2022

  65. [73]

    J., Franx, M., et al

    Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 14

    2012

  66. [74]

    N., et al

    Sobral, D., Smail, I., Best, P. N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1128

    2013

  67. [75]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 107

    Stein, G., Blaum, J., Harrington, P., Medan, T., & Luki´ c, Z. 2022, ApJ, 932, 107

    2022

  68. [76]

    2024, ApJS, 274, 16

    Storfer, C., Huang, X., Gu, A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 16

    2024

  69. [77]

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

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

    2024

  70. [78]

    H., Marshall, P

    Suyu, S. H., Marshall, P. J., Auger, M. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 201

    2010

  71. [79]

    2025, A&A, 694, A146

    Townsend, A., Nordin, J., Sagu´ es Carracedo, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A146

    2025

  72. [80]

    H., & Marshall, P

    Treu, T., Suyu, S. H., & Marshall, P. J. 2022, A&A Rev., 30, 8

    2022

  73. [81]

    1972, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (New York: John Wiley and Sons)

    Weinberg, S. 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (New York: John Wiley and Sons)

    1972

  74. [82]

    L., & Pontula, S

    Weisenbach, L., Schechter, P. L., & Pontula, S. 2021, ApJ, 922, 70

    2021

  75. [83]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3342

    Wojtak, R., Hjorth, J., & Gall, C. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3342

    2019

  76. [84]

    C., Suyu, S

    Wong, K. C., Suyu, S. H., Chen, G. C. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1420 11 Khalouei et al: Cosmography with 7DT Appendix A: Control time distribution of glSNe Ia at different 7DT medium-band filters 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Control Time (days) Normalized Density 7DTm425 (Median: ...

    2020

Pith tools

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