pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.15899 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.IM· cs.LG

CIGaRS I: Combined simulation-based inference from type Ia supernovae and host photometry

Konstantin Karchev , Roberto Trotta , Raul Jimenez This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMcs.LG
keywords type Ia supernovaephotometric redshiftssimulation-based inferenceBayesian hierarchical modelcosmologyhost galaxy photometrydelay-time distributionprogenitor properties
0
0 comments X

The pith

A unified Bayesian model infers supernova brightness dependencies, delay-time distributions, cosmology, and photometric redshifts for all hosts from photometry alone.

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

The paper presents a unified Bayesian hierarchical model that jointly analyzes type Ia supernovae and host galaxy photometry using only photometric observations. It incorporates physics-based prescriptions for star formation, chemical evolution, dust extinction, and selection effects to infer how supernova brightness depends on progenitor metallicity and age, the delay-time distribution, cosmological parameters, and redshifts for every host. Neural simulation-based inference on mock catalogs of about 16,000 supernovae up to redshift 0.9 shows distinct observational signatures for metallicity and age effects, with the former mimicking the known magnitude step at host masses of 10^10 solar masses. The approach yields photometric redshifts with roughly 0.01 median scatter and improves cosmological constraints by a factor of about four compared to analyses restricted to the small fraction of objects with spectroscopic follow-up.

Core claim

Using type Ia supernovae as cosmological probes requires empirical corrections correlated with host environment. The unified Bayesian hierarchical model infers from purely photometric observations the intrinsic dependence of supernova brightness on progenitor metallicity and age, the delay-time distribution governing their rate as a function of age, and cosmology, as well as the redshifts of all hosts. The model incorporates physics-based prescriptions for star formation and chemical evolution, dust extinction of both galaxy and supernova light, and observational selection effects, and demonstrates neural simulation-based inference on mock observations of 16,000 type Ia supernovae and hosts,

What carries the argument

unified Bayesian hierarchical model with physics-based prescriptions for star formation and chemical evolution plus neural simulation-based inference

If this is right

  • Metallicity and age dependences produce distinct observational signatures, with metallicity mimicking the known magnitude step across host stellar mass of 10^10 solar masses.
  • The joint model delivers robust photometric redshifts with approximately 0.01 median scatter up to redshift 0.9.
  • Cosmological constraints tighten by a factor of roughly four relative to analyses that use only the spectroscopically followed-up subset.
  • The framework enables an end-to-end simulation-based analysis pipeline for large photometric datasets in the LSST era.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The distinct signatures for metallicity versus age could be leveraged in real data to separate their contributions to supernova standardization.
  • Scaling the same simulation-based pipeline to higher redshifts or larger mock samples would directly test robustness for next-generation surveys.
  • If the prescriptions hold, the method could be combined with other photometric tracers to cross-check cosmological inferences without additional spectroscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The physics-based prescriptions for star formation, chemical evolution, dust extinction, and observational selection effects accurately represent real astrophysical processes and data collection without introducing unmodeled biases.

What would settle it

Applying the trained inference to real photometric supernova samples that also possess a subset of independent spectroscopic redshifts and comparing the recovered redshift scatter and cosmological parameter posteriors against those spectroscopic anchors would test the central claims.

read the original abstract

Using type Ia supernovae as cosmological probes requires empirical corrections that are correlated with their host environment. Here we present a unified Bayesian hierarchical model designed to infer, from purely photometric observations, the intrinsic dependence of the brightness of type Ia supernovae on progenitor properties (metallicity and age), the delay-time distribution that governs their rate as a function of age, and cosmology, as well as the redshifts of all hosts. The model incorporates physics-based prescriptions for star formation and chemical evolution from Prospector-beta, dust extinction of both galaxy and supernova light, and observational selection effects. We show with simulations that intrinsic dependences on metallicity and age have distinct observational signatures, with metallicity mimicking the well-known step of magnitudes of type Ia supernovae across a host stellar mass of $\sim 10^{10}\~M_{\odot}$. We then demonstrate neural simulation-based inference of all model parameters from mock observations of ~16,000 type Ia supernovae and their hosts up to redshift 0.9. Our joint physics-based approach delivers robust and precise photometric redshifts (~0.01 median scatter) and improves cosmological constraints by a factor of ~4 over analyses of the small fraction of objects with spectroscopic follow-up. This approach unlocks the full power of photometric data and paves the way for an end-to-end simulation-based analysis pipeline in the LSST era.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents CIGaRS, a unified Bayesian hierarchical model for joint simulation-based inference of cosmological parameters, photometric redshifts, SN Ia intrinsic brightness dependencies on progenitor metallicity and age, and the delay-time distribution, all from purely photometric SN Ia and host-galaxy observations. It incorporates physics-based prescriptions for star formation, chemical evolution, dust extinction, and selection effects drawn from Prospector-beta. Simulations of ~16,000 SNe Ia to z=0.9 are used to show that metallicity and age effects produce distinct observational signatures (with metallicity mimicking the known host-mass step), to recover injected parameters via neural SBI, and to report ~0.01 median photo-z scatter together with a factor-of-~4 tightening of cosmological constraints relative to spectroscopic subsets.

Significance. If the adopted physics prescriptions prove sufficiently accurate, the framework could meaningfully expand the cosmological leverage of photometric SN Ia samples by enabling joint inference without requiring spectroscopic redshifts for the majority of events. The explicit demonstration that metallicity and age dependencies imprint distinguishable signatures is a useful step toward reducing reliance on empirical host-mass corrections. The work also illustrates how simulation-based inference can be applied to a high-dimensional hierarchical model that couples galaxy evolution and SN Ia standardization.

major comments (2)
  1. [results / mock validation] § on mock catalog generation and neural SBI validation (results section following the model description): All reported performance metrics, including the ~0.01 photo-z scatter and factor-of-~4 cosmological improvement, are obtained exclusively on test mocks drawn from the identical hierarchical model (Prospector-beta star-formation/chemical-evolution tracks, dust laws, delay-time distribution, and selection effects) used to generate the training data. This demonstrates self-consistent parameter recovery but leaves the central claims vulnerable to unmodeled astrophysical mismatches; a concrete test with an alternative galaxy-evolution prescription or injected systematics would be required to substantiate robustness.
  2. [model description / abstract] Model description paragraph and abstract: The claim that the joint physics-based approach 'delivers robust' photo-z and cosmological constraints rests on the assumption that the Prospector-beta prescriptions accurately capture real star-formation, metallicity, dust, and selection effects without residual biases. No quantitative assessment of sensitivity to plausible variations in these prescriptions (e.g., metallicity-dependent dust or host-mass-dependent selection) is provided, which directly affects the load-bearing factor-of-~4 improvement statement.
minor comments (2)
  1. [model description] The notation for the free parameters (metallicity dependence coefficient, age dependence coefficient, delay-time distribution parameters) should be introduced with explicit symbols and ranges in the model section to improve readability.
  2. [figures] Figure captions for the signature plots should explicitly state the injected parameter values and the exact mock sample size used in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our validation strategy. We respond point by point to the two major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [results / mock validation] § on mock catalog generation and neural SBI validation (results section following the model description): All reported performance metrics, including the ~0.01 photo-z scatter and factor-of-~4 cosmological improvement, are obtained exclusively on test mocks drawn from the identical hierarchical model (Prospector-beta star-formation/chemical-evolution tracks, dust laws, delay-time distribution, and selection effects) used to generate the training data. This demonstrates self-consistent parameter recovery but leaves the central claims vulnerable to unmodeled astrophysical mismatches; a concrete test with an alternative galaxy-evolution prescription or injected systematics would be required to substantiate robustness.

    Authors: We agree that the reported metrics demonstrate self-consistent recovery within the assumed model rather than robustness to model misspecification. This is a standard and necessary step for validating the neural SBI pipeline on a high-dimensional hierarchical model. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit limitations subsection that discusses the implications of potential astrophysical mismatches and outlines how the framework could be extended to alternative prescriptions. We do not claim the current results prove robustness beyond the model; the distinct observational signatures of metallicity and age are shown independently of the recovery metrics. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [model description / abstract] Model description paragraph and abstract: The claim that the joint physics-based approach 'delivers robust' photo-z and cosmological constraints rests on the assumption that the Prospector-beta prescriptions accurately capture real star-formation, metallicity, dust, and selection effects without residual biases. No quantitative assessment of sensitivity to plausible variations in these prescriptions (e.g., metallicity-dependent dust or host-mass-dependent selection) is provided, which directly affects the load-bearing factor-of-~4 improvement statement.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract language and model description could be read as implying broader robustness than the tests support. We will revise the abstract and the relevant model-description paragraph to qualify the claims, stating that the reported precision and improvement are obtained under the adopted Prospector-beta prescriptions. A brief paragraph will be added noting that sensitivity to plausible variations (e.g., alternative dust laws) remains to be quantified in future work. This change will better align the wording with the scope of the present study. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A concrete test with an alternative galaxy-evolution prescription or injected systematics, which would require generating and processing an entirely new set of ~16,000 mock SNe Ia plus retraining the neural density estimators.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: validation on self-generated mocks is standard and does not reduce claims by construction.

full rationale

The paper defines a Bayesian hierarchical model that incorporates external physics prescriptions (Prospector-beta star-formation tracks, dust laws, delay-time distributions) and then applies neural SBI to recover injected parameters from mock catalogs generated under that same model. This is a conventional forward-modeling validation test that demonstrates self-consistency and recovery accuracy rather than a derivation whose outputs are forced to equal its inputs. No equations or steps are shown that rename a fitted quantity as a prediction, import uniqueness via self-citation, or smuggle an ansatz; the factor-of-4 improvement is reported as an empirical outcome on the simulated data, not as a mathematical identity. The framework remains self-contained against its stated benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about galaxy evolution modeling and observational effects rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • metallicity dependence coefficient
    Parameter controlling intrinsic SN brightness variation with host metallicity, inferred from data.
  • age dependence coefficient
    Parameter controlling intrinsic SN brightness variation with progenitor age, inferred from data.
  • delay-time distribution parameters
    Parameters describing SN rate as function of stellar population age.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Prospector-beta prescriptions accurately model star formation and chemical evolution in host galaxies.
    Invoked to generate realistic host photometry and SN rates.
  • domain assumption Dust extinction laws for galaxies and supernovae are correctly specified.
    Used to model observed magnitudes.
  • domain assumption Observational selection effects are fully captured in the simulation pipeline.
    Required for unbiased inference from mock observations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5791 in / 1486 out tokens · 59503 ms · 2026-05-18T21:22:25.523691+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Sullivan M, Ellis RS, Aldering G, et al (2003) The Hubble diagram of type Ia supernovae as a function of host galaxy morphology. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 340:1057–1075. https: //doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06312.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06312.x 2003

  2. [2]

    The Astrophysical Journal 648:868–883

    Sullivan M, Le Borgne D, Pritchet CJ, et al (2006) Rates and Properties of Type Ia Supernovae as a Function of Mass and Star Formation in Their Host Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 648:868–883. https://doi.org/10.1086/506137

    work page doi:10.1086/506137 2006

  3. [3]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics 492:631–636

    Aubourg ´E, Tojeiro R, Jimenez R, et al (2008) Evidence of short-lived SN Ia progenitors. Astronomy and Astrophysics 492:631–636. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200809796

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809796 2008

  4. [4]

    The Astrophysical Journal 707:1449–1465

    Neill JD, Sullivan M, Howell DA, et al (2009) The Local Hosts of Type Ia Supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal 707:1449–1465. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1449

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/1449 2009

  5. [5]

    The Astronomical Journal 140:804–816

    Brandt TD, Tojeiro R, Aubourg´E, et al (2010) The Ages of Type Ia Supernova Progenitors. The Astronomical Journal 140:804–816. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/140/3/804

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/3/804 2010

  6. [6]

    B., Brammer, G

    Lampeitl H, Smith M, Nichol RC, et al (2010) The Effect of Host Galaxies on Type Ia Supernovae in the SDSS-II Supernova Survey. The Astrophysical Journal 722:566–576. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/ 722/1/566

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2010

  7. [8]

    The Astrophysical Journal 770:108

    Childress M, Aldering G, Antilogus P, et al (2013) Host Galaxy Properties and Hubble Residuals of Type Ia Supernovae from the Nearby Supernova Factory. The Astrophysical Journal 770:108. https://doi.org/10. 1088/0004-637X/770/2/108

    work page 2013

  8. [9]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 435:1680–1700

    Johansson J, Thomas D, Pforr J, et al (2013) SN Ia host galaxy properties from Sloan Digital Sky Survey-II spectroscopy. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 435:1680–1700. https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stt1408

    work page 2013

  9. [10]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 517:2697–2708

    Lee YW, Chung C, Demarque P, et al (2022) Evidence for strong progenitor age dependence of type Ia supernova luminosity standardization process. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 517:2697–2708. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2840

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2840 2022

  10. [11]

    Mass Step

    Chung C, Yoon SJ, Park S, et al (2023) On the Root Cause of the Host “Mass Step” in the Hubble Residuals of Type Ia Supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal 959:94. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad0121 20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0121 2023

  11. [12]

    Chung C, Park S, Son J, et al (2024) Strong progenitor age bias in supernova cosmology. I. Robust and ubiquitous evidence from a larger sample of host galaxies in a broader redshift range. https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2411.05299, arXiv:2411.05299

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [13]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics 560:A66

    Rigault M, Copin Y, Aldering G, et al (2013) Evidence of environmental dependencies of Type Ia supernovae from the Nearby Supernova Factory indicated by local H 𝛼. Astronomy and Astrophysics 560:A66. https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201322104

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322104 2013

  13. [14]

    The Astrophysical Journal 802:20

    Rigault M, Aldering G, Kowalski M, et al (2015) Confirmation of a Star Formation Bias in Type Ia Supernova Distances and its Effect on the Measurement of the Hubble Constant. The Astrophysical Journal 802:20. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/20

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/1/20 2015

  14. [15]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics 644:A176

    Rigault M, Brinnel V, Aldering G, et al (2020) Strong dependence of Type Ia supernova standardization on the local specific star formation rate. Astronomy and Astrophysics 644:A176. https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201730404

    work page 2020

  15. [16]

    The Astrophysical Journal 812:31

    Jones DO, Riess AG, Scolnic DM (2015) Reconsidering the Effects of Local Star Formation on Type Ia Supernova Cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal 812:31. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/31 2015

  16. [17]

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b9

    Jones DO, Riess AG, Scolnic DM, et al (2018) Should Type Ia Supernova Distances Be Corrected for Their Local Environments? The Astrophysical Journal 867:108. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b9 2018

  17. [18]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 462:1281–1306

    Moreno-Raya ME, L ´opez-S´anchez ´AR, Moll´a M, et al (2016) Using the local gas-phase oxygen abundances to explore a metallicity dependence in SNe Ia luminosities. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 462:1281–1306. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1706

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1706 2016

  18. [19]

    The Astrophysical Journal 818:L19

    Moreno-Raya ME, Moll ´a M, L ´opez-S´anchez ´AR, et al (2016) On the Dependence of Type Ia SNe Luminosities on the Metallicity of Their Host Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 818:L19. https: //doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/l19 2016

  19. [20]

    The Astrophysical Journal 854:24

    Kim YL, Smith M, Sullivan M, et al (2018) Environmental Dependence of Type Ia Supernova Luminosities from a Sample without a Local-Global Difference in Host Star Formation. The Astrophysical Journal 854:24. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa127

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa127 2018

  20. [21]

    Journal of Korean Astronomical Society 52:181–205

    Kim YL, Kang Y, Lee YW (2019) Environmental Dependence of Type Ia Supernova Luminosities from the YONSEI Supernova Catalog. Journal of Korean Astronomical Society 52:181–205. https://doi.org/10. 5303/JKAS.2019.52.5.181

    work page 2019

  21. [22]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics 615:A68

    Roman M, Hardin D, Betoule M, et al (2018) Dependence of Type Ia supernova luminosities on their local environment. Astronomy and Astrophysics 615:A68. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731425

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731425 2018

  22. [23]

    The Astrophysical Journal 874:32

    Rose BM, Garnavich PM, Berg MA (2019) Think Global, Act Local: The Influence of Environment Age and Host Mass on Type Ia Supernova Light Curves. The Astrophysical Journal 874:32. https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/ab0704

    work page 2019

  23. [24]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 501:4861–4876

    Kelsey L, Sullivan M, Smith M, et al (2021) The effect of environment on Type Ia supernovae in the Dark Energy Survey three-year cosmological sample. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 501:4861–4876. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3924

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3924 2021

  24. [25]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 519:3046–

    Kelsey L, Sullivan M, Wiseman P, et al (2023) Concerning colour: The effect of environment on type Ia supernova colour in the dark energy survey. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 519:3046–

    work page 2023

  25. [26]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3711

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3711

  26. [27]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.02072, arXiv:2406.02072

    Ginolin M, Rigault M, Copin Y, et al (2024) ZTF SN Ia DR2: Colour standardisation of Type Ia Supernovae and its dependence on environment. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.02072, arXiv:2406.02072

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.02072 2024

  27. [28]

    URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20965, 21 arXiv:2405.20965

    Ginolin M, Rigault M, Smith M, et al (2024) ZTF SN Ia DR2: Environmental dependencies of stretch and luminosity of a volume limited sample of 1,000 Type Ia Supernovae. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20965, 21 arXiv:2405.20965

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [29]

    The Astrophysical Journal 938:110

    Brout D, Scolnic D, Popovic B, et al (2022) The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints. The Astrophysical Journal 938:110. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  29. [30]

    R., Bolton, A

    Rubin D, Aldering G, Betoule M, et al (2025) Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework. The Astrophysical Journal 986:231. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ adc0a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2025

  30. [31]

    The Astrophysical Journal 975:86

    Vincenzi M, Brout D, Armstrong P, et al (2024) The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Cosmo- logical Analysis and Systematic Uncertainties. The Astrophysical Journal 975:86. https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ad5e6c

    work page 2024

  31. [32]

    Multi-Agent Systems Execute Arbitrary Malicious Code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12188, September 2025

    Duarte J, Gonz ´alez-Gait´an S, Mour ˜ao A, et al (2025) Assessing differences between local galaxy dust attenuation and point source extinction within the same environments. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503. 04906, arXiv:2503.04906

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503 2025

  32. [33]

    The Astrophysical Journal 842:93

    Mandel KS, Scolnic DM, Shariff H, et al (2017) The Type Ia Supernova Color-Magnitude Relation and Host Galaxy Dust: A Simple Hierarchical Bayesian Model. The Astrophysical Journal 842:93. https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/aa6038

    work page 2017

  33. [34]

    Main Sequence

    Speagle JS, Steinhardt CL, Capak PL, et al (2014) A Highly Consistent Framework for the Evolution of the Star-Forming “Main Sequence” from z ˜ 0-6. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 214:15. https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 2014

  34. [35]

    The Astrophysical Journal 909:26

    Brout D, Scolnic D (2021) It’s Dust: Solving the Mysteries of the Intrinsic Scatter and Host-galaxy Dependence of Standardized Type Ia Supernova Brightnesses. The Astrophysical Journal 909:26. https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b 2021

  35. [36]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 517:2360–2382

    Thorp S, Mandel KS (2022) Constraining the SN Ia host galaxy dust law distribution and mass step: Hierarchical BAYESN analysis of optical and near-infrared light curves. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 517:2360–2382. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2714

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2714 2022

  36. [37]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.15650, arXiv:2311.15650

    Karchev K, Trotta R, Weniger C (2023) SimSIMS: Simulation-based Supernova Ia Model Selection with thousands of latent variables. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.15650, arXiv:2311.15650

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.15650 2023

  37. [38]

    The Astrophysical Journal 813:137

    Rubin D, Aldering G, Barbary K, et al (2015) UNITY: Confronting Supernova Cosmology’s Statistical and Systematic Uncertainties in a Unified Bayesian Framework. The Astrophysical Journal 813:137. https: //doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/137

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/137 2015

  38. [39]

    The Astrophysical Journal 876:15

    Hinton SR, Davis TM, Kim AG, et al (2019) Steve: A Hierarchical Bayesian Model for Supernova Cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal 876:15. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a3 2019

  39. [40]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 508:4310–

    Thorp S, Mandel KS, Jones DO, et al (2021) Testing the consistency of dust laws in SN Ia host galaxies: A BAYESN examination of Foundation DR1. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 508:4310–

    work page 2021

  40. [41]

    https://doi.org/10/gm9wv5

    work page

  41. [42]

    The Astrophysical Journal 836:56

    Kessler R, Scolnic D (2017) Correcting Type Ia Supernova Distances for Selection Biases and Contam- ination in Photometrically Identified Samples. The Astrophysical Journal 836:56. https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/836/1/56

    work page 2017

  42. [43]

    E., et al

    Shariff H, Jiao X, Trotta R, et al (2016) BAHAMAS: New Analysis of Type Ia Supernovae Reveals Incon- sistencies with Standard Cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal 827:1. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/ 827/1/1

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/ 2016

  43. [44]

    1913", month =

    Eddington AS (1913) On a formula for correcting statistics for the effects of a known error of observation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 73:359–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 22

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 1913

  44. [45]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.03837, arXiv:2409.03837

    Karchev K, Trotta R (2024) STAR NRE: Solving supernova selection effects with set-based truncated auto-regressive neural ratio estimation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.03837, arXiv:2409.03837

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.03837 2024

  45. [46]

    The Astrophysical Journal 903:22

    Lee YW, Chung C, Kang Y, et al (2020) Further Evidence for Significant Luminosity Evolution in Supernova Cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal 903:22. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c6 2020

  46. [47]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics 649:A74

    Nicolas N, Rigault M, Copin Y, et al (2021) Redshift evolution of the underlying type Ia supernova stretch distribution. Astronomy and Astrophysics 649:A74. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038447

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038447 2021

  47. [48]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.06215, arXiv:2406.06215

    Popovic B, Rigault M, Smith M, et al (2024) ZTF SN Ia DR2: Evidence of Changing Dust Distributions With Redshift Using Type Ia Supernovae. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.06215, arXiv:2406.06215

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.06215 2024

  48. [49]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 530:4016–4031

    Thorp S, Mandel KS, Jones DO, et al (2024) Using rest-frame optical and NIR data from the RAISIN survey to explore the redshift evolution of dust laws in SN Ia host galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 530:4016–4031. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1111

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1111 2024

  49. [50]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Science , keywords =

    Cranmer K, Brehmer J, Louppe G (2020) The frontier of simulation-based inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(48):30055–30062. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1912789117 2020

  50. [51]

    In: Banerjee A, Fukumizu K (eds) Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics

    Lueckmann JM, Boelts J, Greenberg D, et al (2021) Benchmarking Simulation-Based Inference. In: Banerjee A, Fukumizu K (eds) Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, pp 343–351, URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v130/lueckmann21a.html

    work page 2021

  51. [52]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 530:3881–3896

    Karchev K, Grayling M, Boyd BM, et al (2024) SIDE-real: Supernova Ia Dust Extinction with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation applied to real data. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 530:3881–3896. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae995 2024

  52. [53]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 520:1056–1072

    Karchev K, Trotta R, Weniger C (2023) SICRET: Supernova Ia Cosmology with truncated marginal neural Ratio EsTimation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 520:1056–1072. https://doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/stac3785, arXiv:2209.06733 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [54]

    The Astrophysical Journal 837:170

    Leja J, Johnson BD, Conroy C, et al (2017) Deriving Physical Properties from Broadband Photometry with Prospector: Description of the Model and a Demonstration of its Accuracy Using 129 Galaxies in the Local Universe. The Astrophysical Journal 837:170. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  54. [55]

    The Astrophysical Journal 944:L58

    Wang B, Leja J, Bezanson R, et al (2023) Inferring More from Less: Prospector as a Photometric Redshift Engine in the Era of JWST. The Astrophysical Journal 944:L58. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/acba99

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acba99 2023

  55. [56]

    Greggio L (2005) The rates of type Ia supernovae. I. Analytical formulations. Astronomy and Astrophysics 441:1055–1078. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20052926

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052926 2005

  56. [57]

    H., et al

    Palicio PA, Matteucci F, Della Valle M, et al (2024) Cosmic Type Ia supernova rate and constraints on supernova Ia progenitors. Astronomy and Astrophysics 689:A203. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202449740

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2024

  57. [58]

    J., Seitenzahl I

    Ruiter AJ, Seitenzahl IR (2025) Type Ia supernova progenitors: A contemporary view of a long-standing puzzle. Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 33:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9 2025

  58. [59]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.16311, arXiv:2501.16311

    Frohmaier C, Vincenzi M, Sullivan M, et al (2025) TiDES: The 4MOST Time Domain Extragalactic Survey. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.16311, arXiv:2501.16311

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.16311 2025

  59. [60]

    The Astrophysical Journal 975:5

    S ´anchez BO, Brout D, Vincenzi M, et al (2024) The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Light Curves and 5 Yr Data Release. The Astrophysical Journal 975:5. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad739a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad739a 2024

  60. [61]

    K.\ 2005, , 359, 171

    Gallazzi A, Charlot S, Brinchmann J, et al (2005) The ages and metallicities of galaxies in the local universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 362:41–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005. 09321.x 23

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005 2005

  61. [62]

    The Astrophysical Journal 882:52

    Heringer E, Pritchet C, van Kerkwijk MH (2019) The Delay Times of Type Ia Supernova. The Astrophysical Journal 882:52. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab32dd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab32dd 2019

  62. [63]

    The Astrophysical Journal 682:262–282

    Dilday B, Kessler R, Frieman JA, et al (2008) A Measurement of the Rate of Type Ia Supernovae at Redshift z ≈ 0.1 from the First Season of the SDSS-II Supernova Survey. The Astrophysical Journal 682:262–282. https://doi.org/10.1086/587733

    work page doi:10.1086/587733 2008

  63. [64]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 131:094501

    Kessler R, Narayan G, Avelino A, et al (2019) Models and Simulations for the Photometric LSST Astro- nomical Time Series Classification Challenge (PLAsTiCC). Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 131:094501. https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/ab26f1

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab26f1 2019

  64. [65]

    Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I 100:1–52

    Malmquist KG (1922) On some relations in stellar statistics. Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I 100:1–52. URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922MeLuF.100....1M

    work page 1922

  65. [66]

    Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I 106:1–12

    Malmquist KG (1925) A contribution to the problem of determining the distribution in space of the stars. Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I 106:1–12. URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard. edu/abs/1925MeLuF.106....1M

    work page 1925

  66. [67]

    In: Ranzato M, Beygelz- imer A, Dauphin Y, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Neural Information Processing Systems, vol 34

    Miller BK, Cole A, Forr´e P, et al (2021) Truncated marginal neural ratio estimation. In: Ranzato M, Beygelz- imer A, Dauphin Y, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Neural Information Processing Systems, vol 34. Curran Associates, Inc., pp 129–143, URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/ 2021/hash/01632f7b7a127233fa1188bd6c2e4...

    work page 2021

  67. [68]

    In: III HD, Singh A (eds) Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol 119

    Hermans J, Begy V, Louppe G (2020-07-13/2020-07-18) Likelihood-free MCMC with amortized approx- imate ratio estimators. In: III HD, Singh A (eds) Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol 119. PMLR, pp 4239–4248, URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/hermans20a.html

    work page 2020

  68. [69]

    In: Chaudhuri K, Jegelka S, Song L, et al (eds) Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol 162

    Zhang L, Tozzo V, Higgins J, et al (2022-07-17/2022-07-23) Set norm and equivariant skip connections: Putting the deep in deep sets. In: Chaudhuri K, Jegelka S, Song L, et al (eds) Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol 162. PMLR, pp 26559–26574, URL https://proceedings.mlr.press...

    work page 2022

  69. [70]

    In: Guyon I, Von Luxburg U, Bengio S, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, vol 30

    Zaheer M, Kottur S, Ravanbakhsh S, et al (2017) Deep Sets. In: Guyon I, Von Luxburg U, Bengio S, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, vol 30. Curran Associates, Inc., URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/ f22e4747da1aa27e363d86d40ff442fe-Abstract.html

    work page 2017

  70. [71]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506:3330–3348

    Wiseman P, Sullivan M, Smith M, et al (2021) Rates and delay times of Type Ia supernovae in the Dark Energy Survey. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506:3330–3348. https://doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/stab1943

    work page 2021

  71. [72]

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 264:23

    Leistedt B, Alsing J, Peiris H, et al (2023) Hierarchical Bayesian Inference of Photometric Redshifts with Stellar Population Synthesis Models. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 264:23. https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ac9d99

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9d99 2023

  72. [73]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.18769, arXiv:2411.18769

    Merz G, Liu X, Schmidt S, et al (2024) DeepDISC-photoz: Deep Learning-Based Photometric Redshift Estimation for Rubin LSST. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.18769, arXiv:2411.18769

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.18769 2024

  73. [74]

    URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2407.16744, arXiv:2407.16744

    Chen R, Scolnic D, Vincenzi M, et al (2024) Evaluating Cosmological Biases using Photometric Redshifts for Type Ia Supernova Cosmology with the Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2407.16744, arXiv:2407.16744

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [75]

    , keywords =

    Panter B, Heavens AF, Jimenez R (2003) Star formation and metallicity history of the SDSS galaxy survey: Unlocking the fossil record. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 343:1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06722.x 24

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06722.x 2003

  75. [76]

    Nature 428:625–627

    Heavens A, Panter B, Jimenez R, et al (2004) The star-formation history of the Universe from the stellar populations of nearby galaxies. Nature 428:625–627. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02474

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02474 2004

  76. [77]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Panter B, Jimenez R, Heavens AF, et al (2007) The star formation histories of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 378:1550–1564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2007.11909.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j 2007

  77. [78]

    Cambridge University Press

    Mo H, van den Bosch F, White S (2010) Galaxy Formation and Evolution. Cambridge University Press

    work page 2010

  78. [79]

    and Leja, Joel and Conroy, Charlie and Speagle, Joshua S

    Johnson BD, Leja J, Conroy C, et al (2021) Stellar Population Inference with Prospector. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 254:22. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  79. [80]

    T., & Kozasa, T.\ 2008, , 384, 1725

    Tojeiro R, Heavens AF, Jimenez R, et al (2007) Recovering galaxy star formation and metallicity histories from spectra using VESPA. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 381:1252–1266. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12323.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12323.x 2007

  80. [81]

    , author Padovani, P

    Bravo E, Badenes C (2011) Is the metallicity of their host galaxies a good measure of the metallicity of Type Ia supernovae? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 414:1592–1606. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18498.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18498.x 2011

Showing first 80 references.