Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Simulated supernova dust extinction rejects the standard exponential distribution

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 05:00 UTC pith:JBD4QH7M

load-bearing objection Core finding on two-parameter extinction PDFs is likely right, but the paper overclaims the morphology–dust-mass disentangling and should soften the observational color shift. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.23512 v2 pith:JBD4QH7M submitted 2026-05-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Examining extinction distributions for type Ia supernovae in simulated 3D galaxies

Jo\~ao Duarte , Santiago Gonz\'alez-Gait\'an , Ana M. Mour\~ao , Rita P. Santos , Radoslaw Wojtak This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO MSC 85A2562F15 PACS 98.62.-g98.80.-k
keywords type Ia supernovaedust extinctionextinction probability density functionradiative transferWeibull distributionexponentiated exponential distributionhost galaxy morphologyintrinsic color
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.

The paper tries to establish that the single-parameter exponential distribution, long used to describe how much dust extincts type Ia supernovae, is the wrong shape. Using radiative-transfer simulations of supernovae in three galactic environments, the authors show the exponential underestimates the abundance of lightly extincted events and overestimates heavily extincted ones. They propose that two-parameter generalizations—the Weibull and exponentiated exponential distributions—capture the simulated extinction much better, with one parameter tied to dust mass and the other to galaxy morphology. If correct, this changes not only how supernova extinction is modeled in simulations, but also how intrinsic supernova colors are inferred from observations, shifting the fitted mean intrinsic color of Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae redder by about 2 sigma.

Core claim

The central claim is that the standard exponential probability density function does not adequately describe type Ia supernova extinction, whether the events sit in a spiral disk, a spiral bulge, or an elliptical galaxy. In all simulated environments the extinction distribution is strongly peaked near zero extinction, with a heavy but smaller tail, and the exponential PDF smooths over this peak, under-representing low-extinction events and over-representing high-extinction ones. Two-parameter generalizations—the Weibull, exponentiated exponential, and exponential-logarithmic distributions—fit the simulated extinction well across environments. The scale parameter tau tracks the host dust mass

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the radiative-transfer code SKIRT, used to simulate photons from point sources (supernovae) traveling through analytic dust distributions in three host geometries: a double-exponential spiral disk, a Sérsic spiral bulge embedded in that disk, and a Plummer-profile elliptical galaxy. Each simulated supernova is observed along 30 random lines of sight, and the ratio of emitted to transmitted flux yields unambiguous AV and E(B−V) values with RV = 3.068. The paper then fits four candidate probability density functions—exponential, Weibull, exponentiated exponential, and exponential-logarithmic—to the simulated extinction distributions using MCMC, comparing fits with the Baye

Load-bearing premise

The simulated extinction PDFs rest on the assumption that real host galaxies are well represented by smooth analytic stellar and dust distributions (double-exponential disks, Sérsic bulges, Plummer ellipsoids) and that supernovae are distributed like the stellar light; if real dust is clumpy, spiral-structured, or warped, or if supernovae trace dust differently, the recovered distribution shapes—especially the strong peak at zero extinction—could change.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to measure the extinction distribution for a large, spectroscopically complete sample of type Ia supernovae with individually estimated E(B−V) values from light-curve fits, and compare the empirical histogram against the best-fit exponential and two-parameter PDFs, checking specifically whether the fraction of events with AV very close to zero exceeds the exponential prediction. A second check: if the morphology parameter truly tracks host geometry, the fitted shape parameters should correlate with independently measured host properties such as inclination, bulge-to-tota

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

If this is right

  • Supernova bias-correction and rate simulations that assume an exponential extinction PDF will under-count low-extinction events and over-count high-extinction ones; switching to a two-parameter PDF would on average make simulated supernovae brighter, shrinking simulated selection biases and increasing expected detection rates.
  • Light-curve and cosmological Bayesian fits that use an extinction prior should shift from the exponential to a two-parameter form, which changes the split between intrinsic color and color excess and therefore the strength of the color-luminosity correction.
  • A single universal extinction PDF is inadequate: populations in different environments have measurably different extinction distributions, and two-parameter PDFs provide a way to encode that environmental variation, with tau set by dust mass and the shape parameter set by morphology.
  • Cosmological parameters inferred from supernova distances may shift because the intrinsic-color versus dust-reddening decomposition changes, and the two terms affect inferred magnitudes differently.
  • The recovered extinction distributions apply not only to supernovae but to any point source following the same spatial distribution, extending the result to other transient or stellar populations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: the morphology-sensitive shape parameters (alpha, gamma, theta) could be calibrated against observed host-galaxy properties such as bulge-to-total ratio, inclination, or dust scale height, turning the two-parameter prior into an environmentally conditioned prior for real supernova samples.
  • The order-of-magnitude redder intrinsic color shift at 2 sigma suggests that part of the 'mass step' or residual color-luminosity scatter in cosmological fits could be absorbed by a more realistic extinction prior, a consequence the paper does not fully develop.
  • The authors' finding that central-region supernovae produce a bump at positive AV rather than a peak at zero links their simulated distributions to the gamma-PDF extinction shapes recovered from cosmological fits, suggesting a unified interpretation where the extinction PDF shape is a function of location within the host.
  • Because the exponential PDF's tau conflates dust mass and geometry, observational samples that mix host types with a single exponential prior may propagate an environment-dependent systematic error into distance estimates; isolating tau and the shape parameter separately could be tested by comparing fitted extinction parameters across galaxy types in a real sample.

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. This paper uses SKIRT Monte Carlo radiative transfer to compute AV and E(B−V) for simulated SNe Ia placed in analytic host-galaxy models (spiral disk, spiral bulge, elliptical galaxy) and fits the resulting extinction distributions with exponential, exponentiated exponential, exponential-logarithmic, and Weibull PDFs. The authors report that the exponential PDF systematically underestimates low-AV events and overestimates high-AV events, that the two-parameter PDFs describe the simulated distributions much more accurately, that the scale parameter tau tracks dust mass while the shape parameters alpha/theta/gamma track host morphology, and that applying a two-parameter extinction PDF to Pantheon+SH0ES colors shifts the fitted mean intrinsic color redder by about 2 sigma relative to the exponential assumption.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper has clear practical importance for SN Ia simulations, light-curve fitting, and cosmological bias corrections. The radiative-transfer setup is a strength: 10^6 photon packets per sight line, a 1 AU aperture to suppress scattering contamination, BIC-based model comparison, and several consistency checks across fixed and random dust masses and across AV != 0 subsamples. The authors also report degenerate EL fits honestly instead of hiding poor constraints. The main limitation is that the host models are smooth analytic profiles (double-exponential disk, Sersic bulge, Plummer ellipsoid), so the quantitative PDF shapes are model-dependent; nevertheless, the qualitative rejection of the exponential is credible within these models. The observational application to Pantheon+SH0ES is a useful falsifiable test, though, as noted below, the current BIC values do not actually favor the two-parameter forms.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2-3.3, Tables 2-3, Fig. 2] The abstract and conclusion (ii) claim that morphology and dust mass 'can effectively be disentangled' via separate PDF parameters, but the paper's own fits contradict this. For the spiral disk, switching from fixed MD=10^7 Msun to DustPedia-random MD changes alpha_EE from 0.484+/-0.005 to 0.282+/-0.001, gamma_W from 0.622+/-0.004 to 0.435+/-0.001, and theta_EL from 0.020+/-0.001 to 5.0e-4 (Tables 2 and 3), with the morphology unchanged. The text at the end of Sec. 3.2 explicitly concedes that mixing SNe from hosts of the same morphology but different dust masses can substantially impact alpha, theta, and gamma. The morphology test in Sec. 3.3 (changing h_z^D from 250 to 350 pc in Fig. 2) does not control for the dust-mass distribution, so it cannot isolate morphology from dust-mass mixing. This undermines conclusion (ii) as stated. The authors should either run controlled experiments in
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The likelihood used for every fit is never written down. The text says 'standard Gaussian likelihood, defined as a product over all simulated SNe,' but does not specify which observable is being compared, what the noise model is, or whether the data are binned counts or unbinned density evaluations. All BIC values and all model comparisons in Tables 2, 3, 5, and 6 depend on this likelihood. Without an explicit likelihood equation, the fit statistics cannot be inspected or reproduced. This is a load-bearing omission and should be fixed.
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Table 6] In the Pantheon+SH0ES application, the exponential model has the lowest BIC (-3264) compared with the EE, EL, and W models (-3261, -3262, and -3258, respectively). The observed-color data therefore do not prefer the two-parameter extinction PDFs; at best they are statistically indistinguishable. The reported ~2 sigma redder intrinsic color is obtained from non-preferred models, and some of these fits have extremely poorly constrained parameters (e.g., EE tau = 0.12 +0.6 -0.02). This section should be framed as an exploratory consistency check and a demonstration of model dependence, not as empirical support for replacing the exponential prior.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The text refers to '2D KS tests', but the tests described are ordinary two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests in one dimension. Please correct the terminology.
  2. [Sec. 3.4] The phrase 'morphological parameters alpha, beta and gamma' should read 'alpha, theta and gamma' to match the PDF definitions in Eqs. (8)-(10).
  3. [Conclusions, item (ii)] There is a typo: 'while and alpha, theta, and gamma' should be 'while alpha, theta, and gamma'.
  4. [Tables 2, 3, 5, 6] The BIC values are extremely large in magnitude and vary wildly in sign. Presenting relative BIC differences with respect to a reference model would be clearer and would avoid any impression that the absolute values carry meaning.
  5. [Appendix / Data availability] No statement of code or data availability is included. Given that the simulations and fits are the core of the paper, a reproducibility statement (even a short one) would strengthen the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central claims rest on SKIRT simulations and independent Pantheon+SH0ES fits; self-citations are background/input, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the levels that matter. The central rejection of the exponential PDF and the preference for two-parameter forms come from MCMC/BIC fits to SKIRT radiative-transfer simulations (Secs. 2.2, 3.1); the functional forms in Eqs. 7-10 are independent, well-known distributions, not results imported from prior work. The host-morphology parameters and R_V are taken from Duarte et al. (2025), but that citation supplies the simulation setup (dust mix, scale lengths, Sersic/Plummer profiles), not the conclusion, and those inputs are anchored to external papers (De Geyter et al. 2014; Beifiori et al. 2012). The environment-dependence motivation from Duarte et al. (2023) is background, not a load-bearing theorem. In Sec. 3.4, the extinction-PDF parameters are refitted to the Pantheon+SH0ES color distribution rather than transferred from the simulations, so the redder mu_cint is a model-comparison outcome, not a fitted quantity renamed a prediction. The paper itself flags the main robustness caveat: 'the parameter space for observed host galaxy morphologies is too large to completely probe,' and in Sec. 3.2 it concedes that mixing same-morphology hosts with different dust masses 'can substantially impact alpha, theta and gamma.' That tension weakens the disentangling interpretation, but it is an internal-consistency/correctness issue, not a circular reduction: no equation is defined in terms of its target, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is a fitting-and-simulation study; it introduces no new free parameters beyond the explicit fit parameters (τ, α, θ, γ, µ_cint, σ_cint) and no new physical entities — the EE, EL, and W PDFs are standard statistics imports. However, the simulation pipeline rests on several domain assumptions (galaxy geometry, SN-tracing-stellar-density, single dust mix, Gaussian intrinsic color) whose failure would change the conclusions.

free parameters (4)
  • τ (exponential scale) per environment/sample = Tables 2,3,5: e.g., 0.241, 0.234, 0.124 (M_D=1e7); 0.744, 0.969, 0.047 (random M_D)
    Fitted via MCMC to simulated AV distributions; the paper interprets τ as primarily encoding host dust mass.
  • α (EE shape), θ (EL shape), γ (Weibull shape) = Tables 2,3,5: e.g., α=0.484, θ=0.020, γ=0.622 for spiral disk (M_D=1e7)
    Fitted shape parameters; the paper claims they encode host morphology rather than dust mass.
  • µ_cint, σ_cint (intrinsic-color Gaussian) = µ_cint from −0.071 (E) to −0.04 (EE/W); σ_cint 0.054–0.061 (Table 6)
    Fitted to the Pantheon+SH0ES color distribution in the convolution model; the ~2σ shift in µ_cint is the observational headline.
  • τ, α, θ, γ in observed-color fits = Table 6: τ=0.087 (E); τ poorly constrained for EE (0.12+0.6/−0.02) and W (0.09+0.8/−0.02)
    Fitted to observed colors; the large uncertainties show the convolution is largely insensitive to extinction scale, so the intrinsic-color shift is driven by assumed shape.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption SN Ia positions trace the stellar density distribution of the host galaxy
    Section 2.1: positions are sampled 'following the host stellar density distribution, which has been shown to trace SN Ia abundances (Anderson et al. 2015; Pritchet et al. 2024)'. If the SN-to-dust relative distribution differs, the extinction PDF shape changes.
  • domain assumption Analytic galaxy models with literature parameters are representative of real hosts
    Section 2.1 / Table 1: double-exponential disks, Sérsic bulges, and Plummer dust ellipsoids with parameters from De Geyter et al. (2014) and Beifiori et al. (2012); no clumpy dust or spiral-arm substructure.
  • domain assumption Single Zubko et al. (2004) dust composition with fixed R_V=3.068
    Section 2.1; invoked to equate AV and E(B−V) PDFs up to a constant. Real hosts have varying extinction laws, which would broaden the mapping.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic SN color is a single Gaussian in the observed-color analysis
    Section 3.4: 'We assume that c_int can be modeled by a Gaussian distribution'. The paper itself cites evidence for multiple intrinsic-color populations, which would bias µ_cint.
  • domain assumption SKIRT Monte Carlo RT with 10^6 photon packets and 1 AU aperture converges to the true extinction
    Section 2.1; no convergence test or error estimate is reported for the simulated AV values.
  • domain assumption DustPedia dust-mass distributions represent the host-mass distribution of SN Ia hosts
    Section 3.2; used to build the 'realistic' random-dust-mass samples, with no explicit SN-host sampling correction.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'standard Gaussian likelihood' used for PDF fitting is appropriate
    Section 2.2: the likelihood is described only as 'a product over all simulated SNe' but never defined as binned-Gaussian or unbinned-density; the choice matters near the AV=0 spike.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19631 in / 18158 out tokens · 184292 ms · 2026-08-04T05:00:51.833649+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dust extinction and reddening greatly contribute to type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) observed color and magnitude variations. The models used to describe the extinction probability density function (PDF) are often simplistic, which can negatively impact SN simulations and cosmology. We present an analysis of simulated SN Ia extinction in galaxies along realistic lines of sight and investigate the parameterization of its PDF, as well as its dependence on host properties. We employed SKIRT, a radiative transfer code, to simulate observations of SNe Ia in different environments and generate synthetic extinction distributions. To parameterize and fit these distributions, we used both the commonly assumed single-parameter exponential PDF and some of its two-parameter generalizations. We find that the standard exponential PDF does not adequately describe simulated SN extinction: It underestimates low-extinction events and overestimates high-extinction ones. 2D KS tests show significant differences between the simulated extinction distributions for SNe in different environments, which the exponential parameterization cannot properly distinguish. In contrast, the two-parameter PDFs parameterize SN extinction distributions more accurately across all simulated environments. Variations in host morphology or dust mass relate to variations in different PDF parameters, meaning that the two effects can effectively be disentangled. We conclude that the two-parameter Weibull or exponentiated exponential PDFs offer the best parameterizations of SN Ia extinction for a wide range of simulated environments. Analyzing observed SN colors from the literature and assuming a Gaussian distribution for the intrinsic component, we conclude that a two-parameter extinction PDF results in intrinsically redder SNe, with their mean intrinsic color shifted ~2$\sigma$ in relation to the standard exponential extinction PDF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23512 by Ana M. Mour\~ao, Jo\~ao Duarte, Radoslaw Wojtak, Rita P. Santos, Santiago Gonz\'alez-Gait\'an.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distributions of AV for three samples of simulated SNe Ia, occurring in the spiral disk (left), spiral bulge (center), and elliptical galaxy environments (right). The distributions were obtained from radiative transfer simulated observations along random lines of sight, for host galaxies with dust mass MD = 107M⊙. Best-fit curves for the exponentiated exponential (green), exponential-logarithmic (orange), … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Best-fit parameters for the EE (left), EL (center) and W (right) PDFs as a function of host dust mass MD, with error bars defined by a 68% credible region. Results for two samples of SNe in spiral disks are shown, corresponding to host galaxies with dust disks of thickness h D z = 250pc (lighter squares) and h D z = 350pc (darker diamonds). The dashed lines represent the median α, θ or γ values for each fi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Color distribution for Pantheon+SH0ES SNe Ia. Different best-fit curves to the color distribution are shown in black, assuming a Gaussian distribution for the intrinsic color cint (blue) and one of the following distributions for the color excess E(B − V): exponential PDF (red, top lef), exponentiated PDF (green, top right), exponential-logarithmic PDF (orange, bottom left), or Weibull PDF (purple, bottom … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For these reasons, we conclude that they o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. BayeSN $\times$ Dovekie: Joint Photometric Cross-calibration and SED Modelling of Type Ia Supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Joint photometric cross-calibration and SED modeling in BayeSN yields G26 model with 12% NMAD scatter reduction on DES-SN5YR supernovae at z<0.7.

  2. Two-population model of type Ia supernovae and their associations with host galaxies in ZTF DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A two-population Bayesian model of Type Ia supernovae and hosts fitted to ZTF DR2 data yields a luminosity gap, different stretch slopes, and host-dependent extinctions while rendering separate host-galaxy step correc...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., James, P

    Anderson, J. P., James, P. A., Förster, F., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 732

    2015

  2. [2]

    2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 318, 798

    Baes, M., Dejonghe, H., & de Rijcke, S. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 318, 798

    2000

  3. [3]

    M., & Zhu, Y

    Beifiori, A., Courteau, S., Corsini, E. M., & Zhu, Y . 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2497

    2012

  4. [4]

    & Scolnic, D

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

    2021

  5. [5]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  6. [6]

    & Baes, M

    Camps, P. & Baes, M. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20

    2015

  7. [7]

    & Baes, M

    Camps, P. & Baes, M. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100381

    2020

  8. [8]

    P., Bianchi, S., et al

    Casasola, V ., Cassarà, L. P., Bianchi, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A18

    2017

  9. [9]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  10. [10]

    Commins, E. D. 2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 567, proceedings of the Workshop on Supernovae and Dust De Geyter, G., Baes, M., Camps, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 869

    2004

  11. [11]

    2023, A&A, 680, A56

    Duarte, J., González-Gaitán, S., Mourão, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A56

    2023

  12. [12]

    2025, A&A, 700, A169

    Duarte, J., González-Gaitán, S., Mourão, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A169

    2025

  13. [13]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 González-Gaitán, S., de Jaeger, T., Galbany, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4656

    2013

  14. [14]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11

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

    2007

  15. [15]

    2010, A&A, 523, A7

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

    2010

  16. [16]

    Hallgren, L., Wojtak, R., Hjorth, J., & Steinhardt, C. L. 2026, A&A, 706, A129

    2026

  17. [17]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 502, 177

    Hatano, K., Branch, D., & Deaton, J. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 502, 177

    1998

  18. [18]

    W., Reynolds, A., Smith, M., & Kraan-Korteweg, R

    Holwerda, B. W., Reynolds, A., Smith, M., & Kraan-Korteweg, R. C. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 3768

    2014

  19. [19]

    G., & Kirshner, R

    Jha, S., Riess, A. G., & Kirshner, R. P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 122

    2007

  20. [20]

    L., Hicken, M., Burke, D

    Kelly, P. L., Hicken, M., Burke, D. L., Mandel, K. S., & Kirshner, R. P. 2010, ApJ, 715, 743–756

    2010

  21. [21]

    & Scolnic, D

    Kessler, R. & Scolnic, D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 56

    2017

  22. [22]

    C., et al

    Lampeitl, H., Smith, M., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 566–576 Le´sniewska, A., Michałowski, M. J., Gall, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 27

    2010

  23. [23]

    S., Scolnic, D

    Mandel, K. S., Scolnic, D. M., Shariff, H., Foley, R. J., & Kirshner, R. P. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 93

    2017

  24. [24]

    S., Thorp, S., Narayan, G., Friedman, A

    Mandel, K. S., Thorp, S., Narayan, G., Friedman, A. S., & Avelino, A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3939

    2022

  25. [25]

    P., Kessler, R., et al

    Marriner, J., Bernstein, J. P., Kessler, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 72

    2011

  26. [26]

    Martins, G., González-Gaitán, S., Duarte, J., & Mourão, A. M. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2511.14332 Michałowski, M. J., Hjorth, J., Gall, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A43

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    D., Sullivan, M., Balam, D., et al

    Neill, J. D., Sullivan, M., Balam, D., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 132, 1126

    2006

  28. [28]

    1999, ApJS, 517, 565

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJS, 517, 565

    1999

  29. [29]

    2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 59

    Perrett, K., Sullivan, M., Conley, A., et al. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 59

    2012

  30. [30]

    Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L105

    1993

  31. [31]

    S., Zinchenko, I

    Pilyugin, L. S., Zinchenko, I. A., Lara-López, M. A., Nefedyev, Y . A., & Vílchez, J. M. 2021, A&A, 646, A54

    2021

  32. [32]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 71, 460

    1911

  33. [33]

    2023, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 945, 84

    Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., & Scolnic, D. 2023, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 945, 84

    2023

  34. [34]

    2021, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 913, 49

    Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., Scolnic, D., & Lu, L. 2021, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 913, 49

    2021

  35. [35]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 2263

    Popovic, B., Wiseman, P., Sullivan, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2263

    2024

  36. [36]

    2024, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 167, 131

    Pritchet, C., Thanjavur, K., Bottrell, C., & Gao, Y . 2024, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 167, 131

    2024

  37. [37]

    & Patat, F

    Riello, M. & Patat, F. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 362, 671

    2005

  38. [38]

    G., Filippenko, A

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

    1998

  39. [39]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

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

    2022

  40. [40]

    A., Riess, A

    Rodney, S. A., Riess, A. G., Strolger, L.-G., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 13

    2014

  41. [41]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 2545

    Rowlands, K., Dunne, L., Maddox, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2545

    2012

  42. [42]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 113 Sérsic, J

    Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Carr, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 113 Sérsic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    2022

  43. [43]

    Smith, M. W. L., Gomez, H. L., Eales, S. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 123

    2012

  44. [44]

    A., et al

    Sullivan, M., Conley, A., Howell, D. A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 782

    2010

  45. [45]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2819

    Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., Graur, O., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2819

    2021

  46. [46]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  47. [47]

    M., Dhawan, S., Mandel, K

    Ward, S. M., Dhawan, S., Mandel, K. S., Grayling, M., & Thorp, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 5715

    2023

  48. [48]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 3330

    Wiseman, P., Sullivan, M., Smith, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3330

    2021

  49. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 4587

    Wiseman, P., Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4587

    2022

  50. [50]

    & Hjorth, J

    Wojtak, R. & Hjorth, J. 2025, A&A, 702, A176

    2025

  51. [51]

    Wojtak, R., Hjorth, J., & Hjortlund, J. O. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 5187

    2023

  52. [52]

    Zubko, V ., Dwek, E., & Arendt, R. G. 2004, ApJS, 152, 211 Article number, page 12 of 13 J. Duarte: Examining extinction distributions for type Ia supernovae in simulated 3D galaxies Appendix A: Mass distributions for Dustpedia galaxies The dust mass distributions for both spiral and elliptical galaxies from the Dustpedia dataset are plotted in Fig. A. Fo...

    2004