pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17136 · v1 · pith:GLDTPAAKnew · submitted 2026-06-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · astro-ph.HE

The Lazuli Space Observatory: Opportunities for time-domain and multi-messenger astronomy

T. Wevers , T.J. Maccarone , A. Palmese , D.J. Sand , S. Gezari , L. Rivera Sandoval , J. DiPalma , G. Hosseinzadeh
show 9 more authors
T.J. Hoyt M. Karmen J. Kennea K. Kunnumkai S. Perlmutter M. Rigault A. Roy G. Stefansson F. Yang Yang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 02:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE
keywords time-domain astronomymulti-messenger astronomyspace observatoryrapid responsegravitational wave follow-upkilonovaetransient phenomenaintegral field spectroscopy
0
0 comments X

The pith

A proposed space observatory would respond to faint transients in under 90 minutes from space.

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

The paper argues that the Lazuli Space Observatory fills a key gap by combining large collecting area with a rapid-response design that meets a mission requirement of under 4 hours from trigger to first photon. A latency analysis supports best-case response times below 90 minutes under favorable conditions, enabling sensitive optical/NIR photometry and integral field spectroscopy on timescales of minutes to hours. This capability would open access to currently under-explored regions of parameter space for gravitational wave follow-up, kilonova characterization, supernova progenitor studies, and fast-evolving high-redshift events. The same high-frequency diffraction-limited imaging would also support new Galactic time-domain work on accreting systems and compact binaries. A sympathetic reader would care because existing large space facilities cannot deliver sensitive follow-up on these short timescales.

Core claim

The Lazuli Space Observatory addresses the inability to follow up faint, fast-evolving transients with sensitive wide-band imaging and spectroscopy from space on timescales of minutes to hours by providing a large collecting area, optical/NIR photometry, low-resolution integral field spectroscopy, and a rapid-response architecture with a requirement of less than 4 hours from trigger to first photon, with credible paths to best-case scenarios below 90 minutes.

What carries the argument

The rapid-response architecture, backed by a latency analysis that targets response times well below the 4-hour mission requirement.

If this is right

  • Gravitational wave events could receive sensitive space-based follow-up on hour timescales instead of days.
  • Kilonovae and other fast transients could be characterized with photometry and spectroscopy before they fade.
  • Supernova progenitor physics and high-redshift events become accessible in previously un(der)explored parameter space.
  • Galactic studies gain high-frequency variability measurements and precision astrometry of compact objects through diffraction-limited imaging.
  • Compact and ultracompact binaries could be detected via repeated high-frequency observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the response times are achieved, ground-based networks would gain a reliable space-based partner for rapid multi-wavelength coverage of the same events.
  • Future mission concepts might adopt similar latency targets as a baseline requirement rather than an aspirational goal.
  • The combination of speed and sensitivity could shift observational strategies away from waiting for optimal visibility windows toward triggered, near-real-time campaigns.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed rapid-response architecture can realistically deliver response times well below 4 hours under favorable conditions.

What would settle it

An independent engineering review or end-to-end latency simulation that shows the minimum achievable response time remains above 4 hours would falsify the central feasibility claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17136 by A. Palmese, A. Roy, D.J. Sand, F. Yang Yang, G. Hosseinzadeh, G. Stefansson, J. DiPalma, J. Kennea, K. Kunnumkai, L. Rivera Sandoval, M. Karmen, M. Rigault, S. Gezari, S. Perlmutter, T.J. Hoyt, T.J. Maccarone, T. Wevers.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Simulated Lazuli/IFS BNS kilonova spectrum for a GW170817-like event at 520 Mpc, 7.4 days after merger, with an ejecta composition of Ye = 0.29 and photospheric ve￾locity vmin = 0.05c using the TARDIS simulations from J. H. Gillanders et al. (2022). Solid lines indicate spectral features confirmed in the observed spectra of AT2017gfo. Dashed lines indicate candidate features consistent with the ejecta comp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Light curve (left) and spectrum (right) of the fast blue optical transient (FBOT) AT 2018cow from D. A. Perley et al. (2019). Emission lines emerge in the spectra of AT 2018cow around 30 days after peak, which may provide clues about the transient’s power source. Lazuli’s IFS will be able to obtain spectra at these phases to a ∼5× greater distance than AT 2018cow, potentially increasing the rate of FBOT ne… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Apparent magnitude of tidal disruption events detected by Rubin in bins of redshift. High-redshift TDEs (z > 1) will be faint (m > 23 mag) and hostless, making Lazuli spectroscopy critical for classification. depth but much better in terms of the incidence of flar￾ing for nearby events. The IFS instrument will be able to provide full optical/NIR low-resolution, time-resolved spectroscopic coverage of these… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated Lazuli/IFS data of a NIR-strong red supergiant outburst using the model of B. Davies et al. (2022). Such outbursts may be a pre-cursor to a core col￾lapse supernova, depositing dense CSM around the progen￾itor star in the months prior to explosion. Lazuli/IFS can obtain spectroscopy of such outbursts out to ∼10 Mpc fol￾lowing detection by deep transient searches (e.g. Vera Rubin Observatory). pho… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Lazuli will enable early SN spectroscopy of moderately distant SNe in the coming time domain era, making observations that only occur once every several years at the present time more common place. Here we have taken two infant SNe spectra from the literature, and simulated Lazuli/IFS spectra at 200 Mpc with relatively short exposure times of 1500s. Left: An extremely early spectrum of SN2021aefx (orange; … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HST imaging of two spectrally typed SNe Ia strongly lensed by galaxies, SN Zwicky (top) and iPTF16geu (bottom). The left panels show the wide-field images; the middle panels show a zoom into the lensed images (white box); and the right panels overlay the Lazuli IFS narrow-field grid to illustrate the expected spatial sampling. Figure adapted from A. Goobar et al. (2025). Existing surveys are detecting comp… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: A schematic of the spectral energy distribution of black hole X-ray binaries, showing that the jet, accretion disk, and donor star all come together in the optical-to-near-IR bands (P. Casella 2015). Right: Plots of infrared lags behind the X-rays, showing past measurements of the time lags of about 0.1 seconds of the jet emission in the X-ray behind the disk emission in X-rays (from (P. Casella et a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Potential kick velocities versus black hole mass for the X-ray binaries for which both quantities are well-es￾timated. Figure from P. Atri et al. (2019). of combinations of these parameters can indicate which of these mechanisms function in nature. Note that spin estimates are only possible for the stellar mass black holes in X-ray binaries (C. S. Reynolds 2021). Exist￾ing samples strongly indicate that bl… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: A Hubble far-UV image of the globular cluster NGC 1851, illustrating that even in this very blue band, spatial resolution comparable to Hubble is needed to obtain good photometry of globular cluster objects. Right: The power density spectrum of an ultracompact X-ray binary in NGC 1851, with a 17-minute period. The aliasing illustrates the challenges of doing this work with a satellite in low Earth o… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A rapid light curve of PTF J191909.19+481506.2 from D. Levitan et al. (2014), illustrating superhumps that can be used to identify orbital periods in AM CVn systems in outburst. gardless of brightness. These observations, in turn, will allow the development of a real understanding of the orbital period distributions of AM CVn systems and a comparison of their properties with the predictions from purely gr… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectra of the AM CVn ASASSN-19rg detected with a quiescence magnitude of G=20.4 and an orbital period of 44 min. The Gemini spectra required 80 min of GMOS (J. K´ara et al. 2026), while Lazuli spectra required an exposure of 24 min. The characteristic He emission lines are well detected even when the exposure time is substantially shorter. the binary do not affect their orbital evolution. This thus place… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Advancing time-domain and multi-messenger astronomy requires a multi-wavelength network of observatories capable of rapidly discovering, classifying, and characterizing transient phenomena. A critical gap in current capabilities is the inability to follow up faint, fast-evolving transients with sensitive, wide-band imaging and spectroscopic observations from space on timescales of minutes to hours. We discuss how the Lazuli Space Observatory will address this gap through a large collecting area, optical/NIR photometry and low-resolution integral field spectroscopy, and a rapid-response architecture with a mission requirement of $<$4 hours from trigger to first photon. Based on a latency analysis, we find a credible path to realizing response times well below this requirement, with best-case scenarios below 90 minutes under favorable conditions. We highlight extragalactic science opportunities in currently un(der)explored parts of parameter space, including gravitational wave follow-up, kilonova characterization, supernova progenitor physics, and a wide variety of fast-evolving transients and high redshift events. We further outline new observational capabilities for Galactic time-domain science, including high frequency variability in accreting systems, precision astrometry of compact objects, and the detection of compact and ultracompact binaries, enabled by high-frequency, diffraction-limited imaging and astrometry. Together, its capabilities - combining flagship sensitivity with response times one to two orders of magnitude faster than existing large space observatories - position Lazuli to make transformative contributions across time-domain and multi-messenger astrophysics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Lazuli Space Observatory, a large-aperture space telescope providing optical/NIR photometry and low-resolution integral field spectroscopy with a rapid-response architecture. The central claim is that a latency analysis demonstrates a credible path to response times below the 4-hour mission requirement, with best-case scenarios under 90 minutes, enabling new observations of faint, fast-evolving transients in gravitational-wave follow-up, kilonovae, supernovae, high-redshift events, and Galactic time-domain phenomena such as accreting-system variability and compact binaries. The observatory is positioned as combining flagship sensitivity with response times one to two orders of magnitude faster than existing large space facilities.

Significance. If the rapid-response performance claims hold, the proposal would address a documented gap in sensitive space-based follow-up for faint transients on minute-to-hour timescales. The mapping of specific science opportunities in currently under-explored regions of parameter space for multi-messenger astrophysics is a clear strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that response times well below the 4-hour requirement (best-case below 90 minutes) follow from a latency analysis is load-bearing for the rapid-response architecture and overall positioning of the observatory. However, the analysis is presented only as a high-level finding without a tabulated breakdown of constituent delays (trigger uplink, attitude slew, instrument activation, downlink), their statistical distributions, or sensitivity to orbital geometry and ground-station availability. This prevents quantitative assessment against operational constraints such as slew rates for a large-aperture telescope.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from explicit comparison (e.g., a table) of Lazuli's projected response time, aperture, and wavelength coverage against HST, JWST, and other planned facilities to quantify the claimed one-to-two-order-of-magnitude improvement.
  2. Clarify in the abstract and introduction whether the latency analysis is based on end-to-end simulation or analytic estimates, and note any assumptions about ground-network availability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and positive assessment of the scientific significance of the Lazuli proposal. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that response times well below the 4-hour requirement (best-case below 90 minutes) follow from a latency analysis is load-bearing for the rapid-response architecture and overall positioning of the observatory. However, the analysis is presented only as a high-level finding without a tabulated breakdown of constituent delays (trigger uplink, attitude slew, instrument activation, downlink), their statistical distributions, or sensitivity to orbital geometry and ground-station availability. This prevents quantitative assessment against operational constraints such as slew rates for a large-aperture telescope.

    Authors: We agree that the latency analysis requires a more detailed presentation to enable quantitative evaluation. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated section (or appendix) that tabulates the principal delay components, provides order-of-magnitude estimates and ranges for each (including trigger uplink, attitude slew for the large aperture, instrument activation, and downlink), and discusses their statistical character and dependence on orbital geometry and ground-station visibility. This will directly address the operational constraints raised. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Mission concept paper exhibits no circularity

full rationale

The document is a forward-looking mission concept proposal. It states a mission requirement of <4 hours response time and reports a high-level latency analysis finding best-case times below 90 minutes, but presents no equations, fitted parameters, derivations, or quantitative predictions that reduce to their own inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The text contains no mathematical modeling steps that could exhibit self-definitional, fitted-input, or renaming circularity. The reader's assessment of score 0.0 is consistent with the absence of any derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on unverified assumptions about mission performance and standard domain knowledge of transient event properties; no free parameters or new entities with independent evidence are introduced beyond the proposed observatory itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions about transient event rates, luminosities, and multi-messenger signatures from prior observations
    Science cases rely on expected properties of kilonovae, supernovae, and accreting systems drawn from existing literature.
invented entities (1)
  • Lazuli Space Observatory no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide rapid space-based optical/NIR photometry and integral field spectroscopy for transients
    The observatory is a proposed concept without existing hardware or performance validation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5875 in / 1338 out tokens · 79617 ms · 2026-06-27T02:51:02.041767+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

197 extracted references · 188 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017

  4. [5]

    2023b, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023b, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

  5. [6]

    J., Palmese, A., Douglass, K., et al

    Amsellem, A. J., Palmese, A., Douglass, K., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4b37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4b37 2026

  6. [7]

    W., Almualla, M., et al

    Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Almualla, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3bae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3bae 2021

  7. [8]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04793, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04793

    Andreoni, I., Margutti, R., Banovetz, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04793, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04793

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.04793 2024

  8. [9]

    E., Shrestha, M., Bostroem, K

    Andrews, J. E., Shrestha, M., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada555

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada555 2025

  9. [10]

    R., Baldassare, V

    Angus, C. R., Baldassare, V. F., Mockler, B., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1452, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01811-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01811-y 2022

  10. [11]

    2018, ApJL, 855, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab267

    Arcavi, I. 2018, ApJL, 855, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab267

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab267 2018

  11. [12]

    Atri, P., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2335

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2335 2019

  12. [14]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4029

    Banerjee, S., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., & Gaigalas, G. 2024, Astrophys. J., 968, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4029

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4029 2024

  13. [15]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae61

    Gaigalas, G. 2020, Astrophys. J., 901, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae61

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abae61 2020

  14. [16]

    2021, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects V, Vol

    Belloni, D., & Rivera Sandoval, L. 2021, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects V, Vol. 2-7, 13, doi: 10.22323/1.368.0013

    work page doi:10.22323/1.368.0013 2021

  15. [17]

    F., Angel, J

    Bender, C. F., Angel, J. R., Berkson, J., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J

    2022

  16. [18]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121844J, doi: 10.1117/12.2628710

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2628710

  17. [19]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 3521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    Beniamini, P., Granot, J., & Gill, R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa538 2020

  18. [20]

    , keywords =

    Bianco, F. B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Jones, R. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72 2022

  19. [21]

    K., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al

    Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9055

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9055 2017

  20. [22]

    2021a, ApJ, 912, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3c

    Boone, K., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 912, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abec3c

  21. [23]

    2021b, ApJ, 912, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b

    Boone, K., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 912, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b

  22. [24]

    J., Townsley, D

    Boos, S. J., Townsley, D. M., & Shen, K. J. 2024, ApJ, 972, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2 2024

  23. [25]

    A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c 2023

  24. [26]

    J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449350 22T. Wevers et al

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449350 2024

  25. [27]

    , keywords =

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abef05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abef05 2021

  26. [28]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd8be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd8be 2023

  27. [29]

    B., Coughlin, M

    Burdge, K. B., Coughlin, M. W., Fuller, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 571, 528, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1403-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1403-0 2019

  28. [30]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd04

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2025, ApJ, 987, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd04 2025

  29. [31]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/80

    Casares, J. 2015, ApJ, 808, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/80

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/80 2015

  30. [32]

    2016, ApJ, 822, 99, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/99

    Casares, J. 2016, ApJ, 822, 99, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/99

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/2/99 2016

  31. [33]

    Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., Torres, M. A. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1881

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1881 2022

  32. [34]

    2015, The Multi-Wavelength emission of accreting Black Holes and their Jets, http://www.brera

    Casella, P. 2015, The Multi-Wavelength emission of accreting Black Holes and their Jets, http://www.brera. inaf.it/∼campana/cnoc9/CNOC9/pre/CNOC Casella.pdf

    2015

  33. [35]

    , keywords =

    Casella, P., Maccarone, T. J., O’Brien, K., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, L21, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00826.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00826.x 2010

  34. [36]

    Quillen, A. C. 2021, ApJL, 907, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd635

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd635 2021

  35. [37]

    J., Wright, J., et al

    Chakrabarti, S., Stevens, D. J., Wright, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 928, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c43

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c43 2022

  36. [38]

    2020, ApJL, 902, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb9b5

    Chakrabarti, S., Wright, J., Chang, P., et al. 2020, ApJL, 902, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb9b5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abb9b5 2020

  37. [39]

    A., O’Connor, B., Fryer, C

    Chase, E. A., O’Connor, B., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d25

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d25 2022

  38. [40]

    L., Frye, B

    Chen, W., Kelly, P. L., Frye, B. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad50a5 2024

  39. [41]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2012, ApJL, 752, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/l2 2012

  40. [42]

    Chou, Y., & Grindlay, J. E. 2001, ApJ, 563, 934, doi: 10.1086/324038

    work page doi:10.1086/324038 2001

  41. [43]

    Combi, L., & Siegel, D. M. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 231402, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.231402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.231402 2023

  42. [44]

    M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527130 2016

  43. [45]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2427

    Davies, B., Plez, B., & Petrault, M. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2427

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2427 2022

  44. [46]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8fab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8fab 2025

  45. [47]

    J., & Audit, E

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Audit, E. 2017, A&A, 605, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730942

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730942 2017

  46. [48]

    Setzer, C. N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5799

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5799 2020

  47. [49]

    J., Valenti, S., et al

    Dong, Y., Sand, D. J., Valenti, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef18 2023

  48. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    Dong, Y., Tsuna, D., Valenti, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6 2024

  49. [51]

    M., et al

    Donlon, T., Chakrabarti, S., Widrow, L. M., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 023026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023026

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.023026 2024

  50. [52]

    Magnetic braking in ultracompact binaries

    Farmer, A., & Roelofs, G. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1006.4112, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1006.4112

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1006.4112 2010

  51. [53]

    M., Peiris, H

    Feeney, S. M., Peiris, H. V., Williamson, A. R., et al. 2019, PhRvL, 122, 061105, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061105

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.061105 2019

  52. [54]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 2010

  53. [55]

    D., & Smith, N

    Fox, O. D., & Smith, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1925

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1925 2019

  54. [56]

    Expanding the High-z Supernova Frontier: "Wide-Area" JWST Discoveries from the First Two Years of COSMOS-Web

    Fox, O. D., Rest, A., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.08931, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08931

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08931 2026

  55. [57]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.13650

    Freeburn, J., Dobie, D., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.13650. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13650

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [58]

    Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes.Astrophys

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hoyt, T. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce78 2025

  57. [59]

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

    Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1034

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1034 2024

  58. [60]

    Fryer, C. L. 1999, ApJ, 522, 413, doi: 10.1086/307647

    work page doi:10.1086/307647 1999

  59. [61]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/91 2012

  60. [62]

    L., Olejak, A., & Belczynski, K

    Fryer, C. L., Olejak, A., & Belczynski, K. 2022, ApJ, 931, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ac9 2022

  61. [63]

    ZTF-SEDm Type Ia supernova sample for Twins Embedding spectrophotometric standardisation

    Ganot, C., Copin, Y., Rigault, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07696, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.07696

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.07696 2025

  62. [64]

    2024, Mon

    Bauswein, A. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 529, 2918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3688 2024

  63. [65]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 631, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1258

    Goriely, S. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 631, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1258

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1258 2022

  64. [66]

    A., Nugent, P

    Goldstein, D. A., Nugent, P. E., & Goobar, A. 2019, ApJS, 243, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1fe0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab1fe0 2019

  65. [67]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefbc

    Gomez, S., & Gezari, S. 2023, ApJ, 955, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefbc

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

  66. [68]

    2025, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 383, 20240123, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0123

    Goobar, A., Johansson, J., & Sagu´ es Carracedo, A. 2025, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 383, 20240123, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0123

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2024.0123 2025

  67. [69]

    R., et al

    Goobar, A., Amanullah, R., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2017, Science, 356, 291, doi: 10.1126/science.aal2729

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aal2729 2017

  68. [70]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1098, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01981-3 TDAMM opportunities with the Lazuli space observatory23

    Goobar, A., Johansson, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1098, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01981-3 TDAMM opportunities with the Lazuli space observatory23

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01981-3 2023

  69. [71]

    , keywords =

    Gottlieb, O., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Margutti, R. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3810, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac910 2022

  70. [72]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 851, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa009

    Guidorzi, C., Margutti, R., Brout, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 851, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa009

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa009 2017

  71. [73]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26774, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.26774

    Guolo, M., Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26774, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.26774

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26774 2025

  72. [74]

    The DSA-2000 -- A Radio Survey Camera

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07648 2019

  73. [75]

    C., Pinto, P

    Hamuy, M., Trager, S. C., Pinto, P. A., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1479, doi: 10.1086/301527

    work page doi:10.1086/301527 2000

  74. [76]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    work page doi:10.1086/375341 2003

  75. [77]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Phinney, E. S., Ravi, V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473 2019

  76. [78]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

  77. [79]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Chen, P., et al. 2023b, Nature, 623, 927, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06673-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06673-6

  78. [80]

    M., & Wheeler, J

    Hoeflich, P., Khokhlov, A. M., & Wheeler, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 444, 831, doi: 10.1086/175656

    work page doi:10.1086/175656 1995

  79. [81]

    J., Valenti, S., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Sand, D. J., Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 845, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8402

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8402 2017

  80. [82]

    J., Lundqvist, P., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Sand, D. J., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7cef

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7cef 2022

Showing first 80 references.