Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Local stellar age, not host mass, drives residual Type Ia supernova brightness differences after standardization.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 04:44 UTC pith:FIOVUFGO

load-bearing objection Clean ZTF+MaNGA result: local LWA step of ~0.16 mag largely absorbs the mass step on N=56; the 50–60% absorption figure is real but sample-sensitive. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09199 v1 pith:FIOVUFGO submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.CO

Environmental dependence of Type Ia supernova standardization on the local luminosity-weighted age

Yuhui Zhang , Xiangcun Meng , Jingxiao Luo , Xiejin Li , Yunkun Han , Fenghui Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords Type Ia supernovaeluminosity standardizationhost galaxy environmentlocal luminosity-weighted agemass stepHubble residualsdark energy equation of stateprogenitor age
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Type Ia supernovae are standard candles only after light-curve corrections, yet leftover brightness differences still track host-galaxy properties and can bias dark-energy measurements. This paper argues that the familiar mass step is largely a stand-in for something more direct: the luminosity-weighted age of the stars within about a kiloparsec of the explosion. Using integral-field spectroscopy for 56 events, the authors show that supernovae in younger local environments are fainter by roughly 0.16 mag at high significance after ordinary standardization. When age and mass are fitted together, the mass steps shrink to statistical insignificance while the age step stays large, and residual scatter falls by about 10 percent. Because the cosmic mix of young and old environments evolves with redshift, leaving this age dependence uncorrected can tilt the Hubble diagram and shift the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter. The work therefore recommends that next-generation surveys replace or supplement global mass cuts with local age corrections.

Core claim

After SALT2 light-curve standardization, Type Ia supernovae exploding in younger local environments (local luminosity-weighted age split near log10(age/yr) = 9.084) are systematically fainter by 0.163 ± 0.031 mag (5.2σ). Joint fits reduce the global mass step from 0.071 mag (2.0σ) to 0.028 mag (0.9σ) and the local mass step from 0.087 mag (2.4σ) to 0.012 mag (0.3σ), while the age step remains ~0.156–0.157 mag at >4σ. Roughly half to three-fifths of the mass-step variance is therefore age-driven, and adding the age step lowers weighted residual scatter from 0.1550 to 0.1376 mag.

What carries the argument

Local luminosity-weighted age (LWA) measured inside a 1 kpc aperture from MaNGA Pipe3D stellar-population maps, then introduced as a free step term ΔA in a joint maximum-likelihood standardization that simultaneously solves for stretch, color, and mass steps against Hubble residuals.

Load-bearing premise

The luminosity-weighted stellar age averaged over a roughly two-kiloparsec resolution element around the explosion is assumed to be a faithful enough tracer of the true age of the white-dwarf progenitor system that exploded.

What would settle it

A larger sample with higher-spatial-resolution integral-field spectroscopy (or a volume-limited sample whose mass distribution matches the parent supernova population) in which a joint age-plus-mass fit leaves a statistically significant residual mass step while driving the age step below ~2σ would falsify the claim that age is the dominant driver.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper measures local luminosity-weighted stellar age (LWA) within a 1 kpc aperture from MaNGA Pipe3D for a final sample of 56 ZTF SNe Ia and tests whether the well-known host-mass step in standardized luminosity is a proxy for progenitor age. After SALT2 standardization, a dynamic-threshold split at log10(age/yr)≈9.084 yields an age step ΔA=0.163±0.031 mag (5.2σ); joint fits with global or local mass steps suppress the mass steps to 0.028 mag (0.9σ) and 0.012 mag (0.3σ) while the age step remains ~0.156–0.157 mag at >4σ, implying that ~50–60% of the mass-step variance is age-driven. Including the age step reduces wRMS from 0.1550 to 0.1376 mag. The authors further argue that neglecting age-dependent luminosity evolution can bias the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter w by up to ~0.3 in their low-z sample, and they present extensive robustness checks (subsample α/β fits, broken-α, color/stretch splits, zcmb vs zcor, and host-mass reweighting).

Significance. If the joint-fit result holds, the paper supplies direct IFS-based evidence that local stellar-population age is a more fundamental driver of residual SN Ia luminosity than global or local stellar mass, with clear implications for next-generation surveys (LSST, Roman) where astrophysical systematics will dominate. Strengths include the use of full-spectrum Pipe3D LWA rather than LsSFR alone, a transparent joint-likelihood framework, and a broad suite of robustness tests (Tables 2–4, Sect. 4) that consistently leave the age step significant while suppressing the mass step. The quantitative claim that age absorbs ~50–60% of the mass step, and the associated w-bias estimate, would be important if shown to be stable against sample composition and threshold choice.

major comments (3)
  1. The central quantitative claim (Abstract; Sect. 3.3–3.4; Table 2) that age absorbs ~50–60% of the mass-step variance rests on a single data-driven split (log10(age/yr)=9.084) chosen by maximizing step significance under an N≥20 floor (Sect. 2.5.2) and on a final N=56 sample that is strongly skewed to high-mass MaNGA hosts (Sect. 4.3, Fig. 9). With only ~28 objects per bin, the residual joint mass step (0.028±0.033 mag) is consistent with zero only within large errors, and Tables 3–4 already show the mass-only step swinging from ~0.07 to ~0.14 mag under color cuts, redshift choice, and reweighting. The absorption percentage is therefore not yet a stable, sample-independent result. The authors should (i) report the age/mass steps and absorption fraction as a function of threshold over a continuous range (or with bootstrap/jackknife errors on the threshold itself), and (ii) state the 50–60%
  2. Sect. 5 and Fig. 11 report a Δw≈−0.3 shift when an age step is added post hoc to a fixed baseline calibration, while the joint-fit case yields only Δw~−0.04 to −0.07 (Table 5). The abstract and conclusions still highlight a possible systematic bias of order 0.1–0.3 without clearly distinguishing the two procedures or the limited leverage of a z<0.08 sample on w. The cosmological section should lead with the joint-fit result, present the larger post-hoc shift only as a sensitivity illustration, and avoid implying that a Δw~0.3 bias has been measured for this sample in a cosmologically robust way.
  3. Sect. 2.5.1 and 4.1 correctly note that MaNGA’s ~2.5″ PSF and Voronoi binning dilute the 1 kpc aperture to an effective ~2 kpc scale, so the measured LWA is a luminosity-weighted average of a larger region rather than a direct progenitor-age tracer. The paper treats this as a conservative dilution, but the interpretation that local LWA is a faithful proxy for the white-dwarf progenitor age (vs. unrelated nearby populations) remains an assumption. A short quantitative estimate of how much the step amplitude could be diluted, or a comparison with a larger aperture / native-resolution test, would strengthen the physical claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. Several typos and wording issues: “jiontly fitted” (Sect. 6), “develop to investigate” (Sect. 2), “strategy use to” (Sect. 2.5), and inconsistent spacing around ΔA/ΔM values. A careful copy-edit pass is needed.
  2. Table 1 is truncated; either provide the full table (or a machine-readable supplement) or state clearly that only a subset is shown and where the complete catalog can be obtained.
  3. Fig. 9 caption and text: the KS-test p-value between the final N=56 and parent N=166 samples is given as 0.950, which supports no additional bias from quality cuts, but the comparison to the unbiased ZTF DR2 mass distribution should be quantified with a single summary statistic in the main text for readability.
  4. Clarify in Sect. 2.6 whether the 3σ clipping and the subsequent exclusion of four objects with extreme c uncertainties were performed before or after the age/mass threshold scans, so that the effective sample used for threshold optimization is unambiguous.
  5. The notation for the symmetric step term Θ(X−Xth)−0.5 (Eq. 6) is standard but could be cross-referenced to earlier mass-step literature for readers less familiar with the convention.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Standard empirical step-fitting with a data-driven MLE threshold; amplitudes are measured on the same residuals they correct, but nothing reduces by construction to a hidden definition or self-citation chain.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 2.5.2 (dynamic threshold scanning) and subsequent use in Sect. 3.2–3.4 / Table 2]
    "we scanned all possible split points within the 10% to 90% quantile range of the local age distribution. ... For each potential threshold, we divided the sample and calculated the Hubble residual step and its statistical significance. We determine the optimal threshold by maximizing this significance; this approach effectively minimizes the residual sum of squares of the model, which is statistically equivalent to a likelihood ratio test for threshold models and yields the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) for the luminosity step (Hansen 2000)."

    The split log10(age/yr)=9.084 is not fixed a priori; it is the value that maximizes the age-step significance that is then quoted as 5.2σ (and 4.9σ/4.4σ in joint fits). The reported amplitude and significance are therefore post-selection MLE quantities on the same residuals, not independent measurements. The effect is mild (disclosed, N-floor applied, robustness checks performed) but still constitutes a fitted input presented as the central empirical result.

full rationale

The paper is an observational standardization analysis, not a first-principles derivation. Local LWA is extracted from independent MaNGA Pipe3D maps; Hubble residuals are formed from SALT2 light-curve fits; age and mass steps are then free parameters in a joint MLE (Eqs. 4–6, Table 2). The only mild circularity is that the age (and mass) split points are chosen by scanning to maximize the very step significance later reported (Sect. 2.5.2, Hansen 2000 MLE). This is ordinary threshold-model practice, disclosed, constrained by N≥20, and subjected to extensive robustness tables (Tables 3–4) that leave the qualitative conclusion intact. The 50–60 % absorption figure is simply the ratio of joint-fit amplitudes and is not forced by definition. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggling appears; the w-shift demonstration re-uses the same low-z sample but is presented only as an illustration of possible bias, not as an independent prediction. Score 2 reflects the single optimized-threshold step and nothing stronger.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical standardization parameters (α, β, ΔA, thresholds) fitted to the data, on the assumption that MaNGA Pipe3D LWA is a valid progenitor-age proxy, and on a flat ΛCDM/wCDM background used only for residual definition. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual SN Ia nuisance terms plus the data-driven age/mass splits.

free parameters (7)
  • age-step amplitude ΔA = 0.163 ± 0.031 mag
    Fitted free parameter in the joint MLE standardization (Eq. 6); reported value 0.163 ± 0.031 mag is the central result.
  • global mass-step amplitude ΔM = 0.071 (alone) → 0.028 (joint)
    Fitted free parameter; drops from 0.071 to 0.028 mag once age is included.
  • local mass-step amplitude ΔM_local = 0.087 → 0.012 mag
    Fitted free parameter; drops from 0.087 to 0.012 mag once age is included.
  • SALT2 stretch and color coefficients α, β = α ~ 0.15–0.19, β ~ 2.9–3.4 (subsample values)
    Global (or subsample-specific) free parameters in the Tripp standardization; re-fitted in every model.
  • optimal age threshold log10(age/yr) = ≈ 9.084
    Chosen by dynamic scan that maximizes step significance (Sect. 2.5.2); not fixed a priori.
  • optimal global mass threshold log(M*/M⊙) = ≈ 10.278
    Chosen by the same dynamic scan because the sample is mass-skewed; literature value 10.0 is unusable.
  • intrinsic scatter σ_int = 0.1218 → 0.1002 mag after age step
    Iteratively adjusted so reduced χ² ≈ 1; absorbs unmodeled variance.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Local luminosity-weighted age from MaNGA Pipe3D full-spectrum SSP fitting is a monotonic tracer of the true SN Ia progenitor age.
    Invoked throughout Sects. 2.5 and 3; the paper notes LWA is still luminosity-weighted and diluted, but treats it as the fundamental driver.
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM (Ωm=0.3, H0=70) or wCDM distance modulus is an adequate reference for defining Hubble residuals at z < 0.08.
    Used in Eqs. 3 and 11–12; low-z sample has little leverage on cosmology, so the assumption mainly sets the residual zero-point.
  • domain assumption SALT2-T21 light-curve model with |x1|<3, |c|<0.3 (or broader) adequately standardizes normal SNe Ia before environmental steps are applied.
    Standard practice (Betoule et al. 2014); adopted in Sect. 2.4.
  • domain assumption A single (or broken) linear stretch–luminosity relation plus color term leaves a residual that can be captured by a step function in age or mass.
    Tripp (1998) form plus Heaviside step (Eq. 6); tested with broken-α from Ginolin et al. (2025b).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 36558 in / 3806 out tokens · 36222 ms · 2026-07-13T04:44:33.156999+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Context. The dependence of Type Ia supernova (SNe Ia) standardized luminosity on host galaxy properties constitutes a significant systematic error in cosmology. However, the widely used empirical mass step, acting as an indirect global proxy, obscures the direct physical link to the progenitor environment, thereby limiting the precision of SNe Ia luminosity standardization. Aims. We investigate the fundamental origin of these dependencies by comparing local luminosity-weighted age (LWA) with global mass, testing whether the mass step is a proxy for progenitor age. Methods. Using SDSS-MaNGA Pipe3D, we measure local LWA within a 1 kpc aperture for 56 SNe Ia and perform a joint likelihood analysis to separate the effects of local age and mass on Hubble residuals. Results. SNe Ia in younger environments are significantly fainter than those in older environments, showing an age step of 0.163 mag (5.2-sigma) after standardization. Although global and local mass steps are initially detected (0.071 mag, 2.0-sigma and 0.087 mag, 2.4-sigma, respectively), both become insignificant after accounting for age. The global mass step decreases to 0.028 mag (0.9-sigma), while the age step remains 0.156 mag (4.9-sigma). Similarly, the local mass step decreases to 0.012 mag (0.3-sigma), whereas the age step remains 0.157 mag (4.4-sigma). Including the local LWA age step reduces the Hubble residual dispersion (wRMS) from 0.1550 to 0.1376 mag. Conclusions. Our results provide strong evidence that approximately 50%-60% of the variance from the stellar mass step is due to an environmental dependence on progenitor age. A systematic bias in the dark energy equation of state parameter could be introduced if the age-dependent luminosity evolution is neglected, highlighting the necessity of local age corrections for next-generation cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09199 by Fenghui Zhang, Jingxiao Luo, Xiangcun Meng, Xiejin Li, Yuhui Zhang, Yunkun Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of IFU observational field of view using SN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Validation of the host galaxy morphology distribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of SALT2 light curve fitting results for SN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Map of local properties for SN 2021bqv. The 2D data maps of local LWA and stellar mass surface density output after MaNGA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Baseline Hubble diagram after luminosity standardization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relationship between local LWA and SNe Ia standardization parameters stretch factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hubble residuals as a function of local LWA. The vertical black line indicates the optimal split threshold ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation between the local LWA and the global mass of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of global host galaxy mass distributions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the SALT2 x1 and c distributions between our sample and the volume-limited ZTF reference sample. The left panels show the normalized histograms, and the right panels show the corresponding empirical cumulative distribution functions. Vertical dashed and dotted lines mark the sample means and medians, respectively. 5.1. Cosmological Distance Model The theoretical distance modulus µmodel depen… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of age step added to a fixed calibration on the dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of Hubble residuals with redshift in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Physical mechanism of the w shift. Top: Theoretical distance modulus difference relative to ΛCDM. Bottom: The red arrows indicate the age step correction applied to individual SNe. Since high-z galaxies are predominantly young, they receive a systematic correction that tilts the Hubble diagram slope, thereby shifting the best-fit w value. 6. Conclusion This work utilize data obtain from the cross-matching… view at source ↗

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 · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2008, A&A, 492, 631

    Aubourg, É., Tojeiro, R., Jimenez, R., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 631

    2008

  2. [2]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  3. [3]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22

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

    2014

  4. [4]

    Bevington, P. R. & Robinson, D. K. 2003, Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences, 3rd edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill)

    2003

  5. [5]

    R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., et al

    Blanton, M. R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., et al. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 31

    2011

  6. [6]

    Blanton, M. R. et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    2017

  7. [7]

    1993, The Astronomical Journal, 106, 2383

    Branch, D., Fisher, A., & Nugent, P. 1993, The Astronomical Journal, 106, 2383

    1993

  8. [8]

    2001, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:astro-ph/0109070]

    Branch, D., Perlmutter, S., Baron, E., et al. 2001, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:astro-ph/0109070]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    2022, A&A, 657, A22

    Briday, M., Rigault, M., Copin, Y ., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A22

    2022

  10. [10]

    & Scolnic, D

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

    2021

  11. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 150

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Kessler, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 150

    2019

  12. [12]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 110

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

    2022

  13. [13]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 70

    Brout, D., Taylor, G., Scolnic, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 70

    2021

  14. [14]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    2015

  15. [15]

    2025, A&A, 694, A13

    Burgaz, U., Maguire, K., Dimitriadis, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A13

    2025

  16. [16]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 3470

    Campbell, H., Fraser, M., & Gilmore, G. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3470

    2016

  17. [17]

    & Copin, Y

    Cappellari, M. & Copin, Y . 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345

    2003

  18. [18]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  19. [19]

    J., Lavaux, G., et al

    Carrick, J., Turnbull, S. J., Lavaux, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 317

    2015

  20. [20]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 108

    Childress, M., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 108

    2013

  21. [21]

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

    Childress, M. J., Wolf, C., & Zahid, H. J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 1898

    2014

  22. [22]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series, 192, 1

    Conley, A., Guy, J., Sullivan, M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series, 192, 1

    2011

  23. [23]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393

    2013

  24. [24]

    L., Songaila, A., Hu, E

    Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., Hu, E. M., & Cohen, J. G. 1996, The Astronomical Journal, 112, 839 D’Andrea, C. B., Gupta, R. R., Sako, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 172 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, Class. Quant. Grav., 38, 153001 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Huertas-Company, M., Bernardi, M., Tucci, M., &

    1996

  25. [25]

    Fischer, J. L. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3661

    2018

  26. [26]

    Drory, N. et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 77

    2015

  27. [27]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., Röpke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 514, A53

    2010

  28. [28]

    Freedman, W. L. 2021, ApJ, 919, 16

    2021

  29. [29]

    M., et al

    Galbany, L., Stanishev, V ., Mourão, A. M., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A38

    2014

  30. [30]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 362, 41

    2005

  31. [31]

    M., Jha, S., Challis, P., et al

    Garnavich, P. M., Jha, S., Challis, P., et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, 74

    1998

  32. [32]

    2025b, A&A, 695, A140 González-Gaitán, S., de Jaeger, T., Galbany, L., et al

    Ginolin, M., Rigault, M., Smith, M., et al. 2025b, A&A, 695, A140 González-Gaitán, S., de Jaeger, T., Galbany, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1078

    2021

  33. [33]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001

    2019

  34. [34]

    R., D’Andrea, C

    Gupta, R. R., D’Andrea, C. B., Sako, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 92

    2011

  35. [35]

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

    Gupta, R. R., Kuhlmann, S., Kovacs, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 453

    2016

  36. [36]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11

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

    2007

  37. [37]

    M., Maza, J., et al

    Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Maza, J., et al. 1995, AJ, 109, 1

    1995

  38. [38]

    M., Suntzeff, N

    Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 2408

    1996

  39. [39]

    C., Pinto, P

    Hamuy, M., Trager, S. C., Pinto, P. A., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1479

    2000

  40. [40]

    Hansen, B. E. 2000, Econometrica, 68, 575

    2000

  41. [41]

    T., Gupta, R

    Hayden, B. T., Gupta, R. R., Garnavich, P. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 191

    2013

  42. [42]

    K., & Ruiter, A

    Hillebrandt, W., Kromer, M., Röpke, F. K., & Ruiter, A. J. 2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 116 Höflich, P. & Khokhlov, A. M. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 457, 500

    2013

  43. [43]

    Howell, D. A. 2001, ApJL, 554, L193

    2001

  44. [44]

    A., Sullivan, M., Brown, E

    Howell, D. A., Sullivan, M., Brown, E. F., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 661 Ivezi´c, Ž., Connolly, A. J., VanderPlas, J. T., & Gray, A. 2014, Statistics, data mining, and machine learning in astronomy: a practical Python guide for the analysis of survey data (Princeton University Press) Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2009

  45. [45]

    K., Kim, Y .-L., Chung, C., & Ree, C

    Kang, Y ., Yi, S. K., Kim, Y .-L., Chung, C., & Ree, C. H. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 261

    2016

  46. [46]

    Kang, Y . et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 8

    2020

  47. [47]

    L., Hicken, M., Burke, D

    Kelly, P. L., Hicken, M., Burke, D. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 743

    2010

  48. [48]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4861

    Kelsey, L., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4861

    2021

  49. [49]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  50. [50]

    Khokhlov, A. M. 1991, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 245, 114

    1991

  51. [51]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 79

    Kim, Y .-L., Smith, M., Sullivan, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 79

    2019

  52. [52]

    C., et al

    Lampeitl, H., Smith, M., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 566

    2010

  53. [53]

    R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al

    Law, D. R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 83

    2016

  54. [54]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 122

    Lee, Y .-W., Cho, H., Park, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 122

    2021

  55. [55]

    2005, A&A, 433, 807

    Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., Panagia, N., et al. 2005, A&A, 433, 807

    2005

  56. [56]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 107

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 107

    2014

  57. [57]

    Masci, F. J. et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

    2019

  58. [58]

    Masci, F. J. et al. 2023, ZTF Forced Photometry Service User Guide

    2023

  59. [59]

    F., Sánchez, S

    Mast, D., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A129

    2014

  60. [60]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1985

    Meldorf, C., Palmese, A., Brout, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1985

    2023

  61. [61]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 58

    Meng, X.-C. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 58

    2019

  62. [62]

    D., Sullivan, M., Howell, D

    Neill, J. D., Sullivan, M., Howell, D. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1449

    2009

  63. [63]

    2021, A&A, 649, A74

    Nicolas, N., Rigault, M., Copin, Y ., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A74

    2021

  64. [64]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 747, L10

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 747, L10

    2012

  65. [65]

    Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJL, 413, L105 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    1993

  66. [66]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 84

    Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., & Scolnic, D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 84

    2023

  67. [67]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 49

    Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 49

    2021

  68. [68]

    2025, A&A, 694, A5

    Popovic, B., Rigault, M., Smith, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A5

    2025

  69. [69]

    V ., Novikova, A

    Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., Novikova, A. P., Paeltz, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5121

    2020

  70. [70]

    Pskovskii, I. P. 1977, Soviet Ast., 21, 675

    1977

  71. [71]

    G., Filippenko, A

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

    1998

  72. [72]

    G., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Macri, L. M., Hoffmann, S. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 56

    2016

  73. [73]

    G., Press, W

    Riess, A. G., Press, W. H., & Kirshner, R. P. 1996, ApJ, 473, 88

    1996

  74. [74]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

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

    2022

  75. [75]

    2020, A&A, 644, A176

    Rigault, M., Briday, M., Rocher, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A176

    2020

  76. [76]

    2013, A&A, 560, A66

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

    2013

  77. [77]

    2025, A&A, 694, A2

    Rigault, M., Smith, M., Regnault, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A2

    2025

  78. [78]

    2018, A&A, 615, A68

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

    2018

  79. [79]

    M., Rubin, D., Strolger, L., & Garnavich, P

    Rose, B. M., Rubin, D., Strolger, L., & Garnavich, P. M. 2021, ApJ, 909, 28

    2021

  80. [80]

    Ruiter, A. J. & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 33

    2025

Showing first 80 references.