pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00075 · v1 · pith:NVKFPPCGnew · submitted 2026-06-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.IM

Decoding the Early-Time Light Curves of Type Ia Supernovae. I. A Hierarchical Bayesian Framework for Demographic Inference

Chang Liu , Adam A. Miller This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 17:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM
keywords Type Ia supernovaelight curve modelinghierarchical Bayesian inferenceearly-time photometrypopulation demographicspower-law risedemographic inference
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hierarchical Bayesian framework that fits power-law models simultaneously to many Type Ia supernova light curves reduces bias in the inferred population parameters for rise time, scatter, and correlations.

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

The paper introduces a hierarchical Bayesian approach to model the early-time power-law rises of Type Ia supernovae across a large sample. By placing a multivariate Gaussian prior on the population distribution of rise parameters, the method automatically down-weights poor-quality data and avoids the need for selection cuts. Tests on simulated data show that this simultaneous fitting recovers the true population mean, variance, and correlations with far less bias than fitting each supernova individually and then combining the results. Even when the power-law form does not perfectly match more complex light-curve shapes, the population scatter is recovered reliably, while individual rise times may be mildly underestimated. The inferred distribution also serves as a prior that improves fits to single events and naturally identifies outliers with early flux excesses.

Core claim

The hierarchical Bayesian model with a multivariate Gaussian population prior on the power-law rise parameters (rise time, rise index, and amplitude) yields substantially less biased estimates of the population-level mean, scatter, and correlations than the standard two-step procedure of individual fits followed by aggregation. The population prior suppresses volume-projection bias from asymmetric likelihoods and down-weights sparse or noisy measurements without explicit cuts. When the power-law model is applied to light curves with more realistic morphologies, the recovered population scatter remains reliable despite mild underestimation of rise times due to model misspecification. Supernov

What carries the argument

The hierarchical Bayesian model with a multivariate Gaussian population prior on the power-law parameters of rise time, rise index, and amplitude.

If this is right

  • Population parameters of SN Ia early light curves can be constrained from heterogeneous datasets without introducing selection biases from quality cuts.
  • Individual supernova light-curve fits can be improved by using the population distribution as a prior that regularizes nuisance parameters.
  • Events with early-time flux excesses can be identified as statistical outliers in the rise-parameter space.
  • The method maintains reliable recovery of population scatter even when the power-law model is misspecified relative to actual light-curve shapes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If applied to real observational data, the framework could quantify whether the distribution of rise indices deviates from Gaussianity.
  • The outlier identification might correlate with other supernova properties to distinguish progenitor systems.
  • Extending the model to include additional parameters or different functional forms could test the robustness of the demographic inferences.
  • Using the population prior on real survey data might allow inclusion of more supernovae in cosmological analyses by reducing the impact of sparse sampling.

Load-bearing premise

The distribution of power-law rise parameters across the supernova population is well described by a multivariate Gaussian, and the power-law model itself is adequate for recovering demographic properties despite some mismatch with realistic light-curve shapes.

What would settle it

Apply both the hierarchical method and the classic two-step method to the same set of simulated light curves drawn from a known population distribution; if the hierarchical method recovers the input mean, scatter, and correlation values with significantly smaller error, that supports the claim of bias reduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00075 by Adam A. Miller, Chang Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Probabilistic graphical model of our hierarchical Bayesian framework for modeling early-time SN Ia light curves. Nodes (ellipses) represent variables: solid ellipses are random variables sampled from the priors listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Demonstration of how the highly asymmetric likelihood surface of the power-law model impacts the trise and α posteriors for two synthetic SNe (α = 2.6, red; α = 1.4, blue), alongside the effect of Bayesian shrinkage. Left: Joint posteriors sampled with uninformative uniform priors. The MAP (circles) and marginalized median (squares) estimates are compared to the true parameters (stars). The high-α SN shows… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Applying early-time coverage cuts to the full sample biases the distribution of rise times. Top: Kernel density estimates (KDEs) of trise in two mock SN Ia populations: one where light-curve parameters are drawn independently (left) and one where they follow empirical correlations (right). The complete simulated sample with minimal early coverage requirements (grey solid line) is compared against subsets s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inferred population-level mean and scatter for trise, αr, and ln Ar across three mock samples with varying early-time coverage requirements. The inferred parameter distributions are compared against the true input values (dashed lines). The results remain consistent across the three samples, except for the mean rise time, µtrise , which is biased toward longer durations when stricter early-time coverage re… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Aggregating the outcomes of individual fits (the unpooled method; colored profiles), either by naively stacking the individual posterior samples (top panels) or by reweighting each SN by the inverse variance of its parameters (bottom panels), generally yields biased inferences compared to the hierarchical Bayesian model (gray profiles). These biases are sensitive to both prior choices (blue and orange prof… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hierarchical Bayesian model recovers the population-level scatter in synthetic data. In contrast, naively stacking the population properties from individual fits (the unpooled method) generally overestimates the intrinsic scatter. The formatting matches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hierarchical Bayesian modeling recovers the true parameter correlations in synthetic data. The formatting matches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the posterior distributions of the population-level mean and scatter of trise as a function of the truncation threshold for both mock datasets. As expected, the model misspecification leads to a biased µtrise estimate: when the underlying model is the curved power-law (or broken power-law) and a 50% trunca￾tion threshold, the µtrise is underestimated by ∼0.7 days (∼0.5 days), specifically. By lowerin… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fitting a single power-law to SNe Ia with an early flux excess biases the inferred trise and α. Both panels display the inferred parameters for mock light curves gen￾erated with an underlying power-law and a Gaussian early flux excess. The mock SNe are color-coded by the excess duration (tex,fwhm; left) and amplitude (Aex; right). Dashed lines indicate the true values for the underlying power law. Potenti… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of different modeling approaches in recovering the true rise time of individual SNe Ia for the mock sample with uncorrelated parameters and Nearly ≥ 2. Upper: Inferred trise (posterior median) versus true values. Error bars are not displayed for clarity. Lower: Pulls of the inferred trise (deviations from the true values normalized by uncertainties). Dashed black lines indicate the one-to-one r… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Light curves of Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) in the days following explosion encode the diversity of progenitor systems and explosion physics. We present a hierarchical Bayesian framework to robustly constrain the population-level light-curve morphology of SNe Ia by fitting a large light-curve dataset simultaneously to power-law rises. Using a multivariate Gaussian population prior, this framework automatically down-weights sparsely sampled SNe and noisy measurements in the inference, obviating the need for restrictive quality cuts that introduce selection biases. Validation on simulated power-law light curves demonstrates that the population prior effectively suppresses the volume-projection bias from the asymmetric likelihood: compared to the classic two-step approach of fitting individual SNe and then aggregating the results, the hierarchical approach dramatically reduces the bias on the population-level parameters (mean, scatter, and correlation). When fitting the power-law model to light curves with more realistic morphologies, while the rise time can be mildly underestimated due to model misspecification, the recovered population scatter remains reliable. Furthermore, SNe with early flux excesses can emerge as outliers in the inferred parameter space, offering a potential diagnostic for identifying such events. Finally, we show that the inferred population distribution can also improve individual-event inference. Restricting the population prior to nuisance amplitudes, while preserving the complete correlation structure, regularizes fits to individual SNe without shrinking the physically meaningful rise time and rise index toward their population means.

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 paper presents a hierarchical Bayesian framework for inferring the demographic distribution of Type Ia supernova early light-curve parameters (rise time, rise index, amplitude) modeled as power laws. A multivariate Gaussian population prior is used to fit the full dataset simultaneously, automatically down-weighting sparse or noisy events and avoiding selection biases from quality cuts. Validation on simulated power-law data shows the hierarchical method reduces bias on population mean, scatter, and correlations relative to the two-step approach of individual fits followed by aggregation. The framework also identifies outliers (e.g., early flux excesses) and can regularize individual fits by restricting the prior to nuisance parameters while preserving correlations.

Significance. If the central bias-reduction result generalizes beyond the tested conditions, the framework offers a principled way to extract population-level constraints on SN Ia progenitor diversity without introducing selection effects. The reported reliability of recovered scatter under realistic morphology misspecification is a useful practical feature. The approach builds on standard hierarchical modeling techniques but applies them specifically to early-time SN Ia demographics, with potential to improve both population and individual-event inferences.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract/validation description] Abstract (validation paragraph): The claim that the hierarchical approach 'dramatically reduces the bias' on population parameters is demonstrated exclusively on simulations drawn from the same multivariate Gaussian population model used for inference. This leaves untested the performance when the true demographic distribution deviates from multivariate Gaussian (e.g., heavy tails, skewness, or multimodality in rise time/index/amplitude), which is load-bearing for the comparison to the two-step method on real data.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'the recovered population scatter remains reliable' under realistic morphologies should be supported by a quantitative metric (e.g., fractional bias or coverage) rather than a qualitative description.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: Clarify the precise mechanism by which 'restricting the population prior to nuisance amplitudes, while preserving the complete correlation structure' avoids shrinking the physically meaningful rise time and index parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract (validation paragraph): The claim that the hierarchical approach 'dramatically reduces the bias' on population parameters is demonstrated exclusively on simulations drawn from the same multivariate Gaussian population model used for inference. This leaves untested the performance when the true demographic distribution deviates from multivariate Gaussian (e.g., heavy tails, skewness, or multimodality in rise time/index/amplitude), which is load-bearing for the comparison to the two-step method on real data.

    Authors: We agree that the primary validation in the abstract and main text demonstrates recovery when data are drawn from the assumed multivariate Gaussian population model. This is the standard first step to isolate the effect of the hierarchical prior in suppressing the volume-projection bias from the asymmetric likelihood, independent of population shape. We also already test under light-curve morphology misspecification (realistic shapes rather than pure power laws), where population scatter remains reliable. However, the referee correctly identifies that robustness to non-Gaussian demographic distributions is not yet shown. In revision we will add simulations drawn from heavy-tailed, skewed, and multimodal population distributions to directly compare bias reduction between the hierarchical and two-step approaches under these conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper presents a hierarchical Bayesian model with a multivariate Gaussian population prior on power-law rise parameters and validates bias reduction via simulations drawn from that same model. This is standard forward-model validation under stated assumptions rather than a derivation that reduces claimed results to inputs by construction. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling appear in the abstract or described framework; the central comparison to the two-step method rests on explicit simulation tests that remain falsifiable outside the fitted values.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on the multivariate Gaussian assumption for the population and the power-law model for individual light curves. Since only the abstract is available, specific fitted values are not known.

free parameters (2)
  • population mean vector
    The mean of the multivariate Gaussian for rise parameters is fitted from data.
  • population covariance matrix
    The scatter and correlations in the population prior are inferred from the data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The population distribution of light-curve parameters is multivariate Gaussian.
    Used as the prior for demographic inference.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5790 in / 1226 out tokens · 32585 ms · 2026-07-02T17:56:49.332895+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

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2000, AJ, 119, 2110, doi: 10.1086/301344

    Aldering, G., Knop, R., & Nugent, P. 2000, AJ, 119, 2110, doi: 10.1086/301344

    work page doi:10.1086/301344 2000

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Ashall, C., Lu, J., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7235

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7235 2022

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2018

  4. [4]

    P., Jankowiak, M., et al

    Bingham, E., Chen, J. P., Jankowiak, M., et al. 2019, JMLR, 20, 1

    2019

  5. [5]

    2018, JAX: Composable Transformations of Python+NumPy

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: Composable Transformations of Python+NumPy

    2018

  6. [6]

    A., Yao, Y., et al

    Bulla, M., Miller, A. A., Yao, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb13c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb13c 2020

  7. [7]

    A., Sarbadhicary, S

    Burke, J., Howell, D. A., Sarbadhicary, S. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac126b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac126b 2021

  8. [8]

    R., Howell, D

    Cao, Y., Kulkarni, S. R., Howell, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 521, 328, doi: 10.1038/nature14440

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14440 2015

  9. [9]

    A., Howes, A., et al

    Conley, A., Howell, D. A., Howes, A., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1707, doi: 10.1086/507788

    work page doi:10.1086/507788 2006

  10. [10]

    R., et al

    Deckers, M., Maguire, K., Magee, M. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac558 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac558 2022

  11. [11]

    J., Rest, A., et al

    Dimitriadis, G., Foley, R. J., Rest, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 870, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb0 2018

  12. [12]

    R., et al

    Dimitriadis, G., Maguire, K., Karambelkar, V. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad536

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad536 2023

  13. [13]

    M., Vallely, P

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Vallely, P. J., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceaef

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

  14. [14]

    E., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Firth, R. E., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2314

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2314 2015

  15. [15]

    W., & Morton, T

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., & Morton, T. D. 2014, ApJ, 795, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/1/64 2014

  16. [16]

    Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., & Filippenko, A. V. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2607, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19213.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19213.x 2011

  17. [17]

    E., Kim, A., et al

    Goldhaber, G., Groom, D. E., Kim, A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, 359, doi: 10.1086/322460 Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Conley, A., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 745, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/44

    work page doi:10.1086/322460 2001

  18. [18]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066930

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066930

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066930 2007

  19. [19]

    T., Garnavich, P

    Hayden, B. T., Garnavich, P. M., Kessler, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 350, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/350

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/350 2010

  20. [20]

    R., Davis, T

    Hinton, S. R., Davis, T. M., Kim, A. G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a3

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

  21. [21]

    D., & Gelman, A

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2014, doi: 10.5555/2627435.2638586

    work page doi:10.5555/2627435.2638586 2014

  22. [22]

    W., Myers, A

    Hogg, D. W., Myers, A. D., & Bovy, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2166

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/2166 2010

  23. [23]

    J., Valenti, S., et al

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

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

  24. [24]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb3a4

    Iskandar, A., Wang, X., Esamdin, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb3a4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb3a4 2025

  25. [25]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9a

    Jiang, J.-a., Doi, M., Maeda, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2018, ApJ, 865, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9a 2018

  26. [26]

    2021, ApJ, 923, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac375f

    Jiang, J.-a., Maeda, K., Kawabata, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac375f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac375f 2021

  27. [27]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 1025, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1025

    Kasen, D. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1025, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1025

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/2/1025 2010

  28. [28]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 4428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw962

    Kromer, M., Fremling, C., Pakmor, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw962

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw962 2016

  29. [29]

    J., & Bildsten, L

    Kumar, G., Prust, L. J., & Bildsten, L. 2025, ApJ, 992, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfdd7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfdd7 2025

  30. [30]

    2009, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 100, 1989, doi: 10.1016/j.jmva.2009.04.008

    Lewandowski, D., Kurowicka, D., & Joe, H. 2009, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 100, 1989, doi: 10.1016/j.jmva.2009.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmva.2009.04.008 2009

  31. [31]

    2018, ApJ, 870, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec74

    Li, W., Wang, X., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 870, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaec74 2018

  32. [32]

    A., Sarin, N., et al

    Liu, C., Miller, A. A., Sarin, N., et al. 2026, Submitted to ApJ

    2026

  33. [33]

    R., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., et al

    Magee, M. R., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936684

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936684 2020

  34. [34]

    R., Cuddy, C., Maguire, K., et al

    Magee, M. R., Cuddy, C., Maguire, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1045

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1045 2022

  35. [35]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1607

    Maguire, K., Sullivan, M., Pan, Y.-C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1607

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1607 2014

  36. [36]

    M., & Gair, J

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., & Gair, J. R. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz896

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz896 2019

  37. [37]

    S., Narayan, G., & Kirshner, R

    Mandel, K. S., Narayan, G., & Kirshner, R. P. 2011, ApJ, 731, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/120 2011

  38. [38]

    H., Brown, P

    Marion, G. H., Brown, P. J., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 92, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/92

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/92 2016

  39. [39]

    A., Abril-Pla, O., Deklerk, J., et al

    Martin, O. A., Abril-Pla, O., Deklerk, J., et al. 2026, J. Open Source Softw., 11, 9889, doi: 10.21105/joss.09889

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.09889 2026

  40. [40]

    A., Cao, Y., Piro, A

    Miller, A. A., Cao, Y., Piro, A. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa01f 19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa01f 2018

  41. [41]

    A., Yao, Y., Bulla, M., et al

    Miller, A. A., Yao, Y., Bulla, M., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 902, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb13b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb13b

  42. [42]

    A., Magee, M

    Miller, A. A., Magee, M. R., Polin, A., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 898, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e05

  43. [43]

    Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M

    Ni, Y. Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbb7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbbb7 2025

  44. [44]

    M., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al

    Noebauer, U. M., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2093

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2093 2017

  45. [45]

    M., Taubenberger, S., Blinnikov, S., Sorokina, E., & Hillebrandt, W

    Noebauer, U. M., Taubenberger, S., Blinnikov, S., Sorokina, E., & Hillebrandt, W. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2197

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2197 2016

  46. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 5045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3301

    Papadogiannakis, S., Goobar, A., Amanullah, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3301

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3301 2019

  47. [47]

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565, doi: 10.1086/307221

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/307221 1999

  48. [48]

    Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Programming in NumPyro

    Phan, D., Pradhan, N., & Jankowiak, M. 2019, Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Programming in NumPyro, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.11554

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.11554 2019

  49. [49]

    Piro, A. L. 2015, ApJ, 808, L51, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L51

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/l51 2015

  50. [50]

    L., & Morozova, V

    Piro, A. L., & Morozova, V. S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/96

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/96 2016

  51. [51]

    L., & Nakar, E

    Piro, A. L., & Nakar, E. 2013, ApJ, 769, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/67 2013

  52. [52]

    L., & Nakar, E

    Piro, A. L., & Nakar, E. 2014, ApJ, 784, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/85

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/85 2014

  53. [53]

    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009, doi: 10.1086/300499

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  54. [54]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Li, W., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 2675, doi: 10.1086/301143

    work page doi:10.1086/301143 1999

  55. [55]

    2025, A&A, 694, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450388

    Rigault, M., Smith, M., Goobar, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450388

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450388 2025

  56. [56]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 3541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1525

    Sai, H., Wang, X., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1525

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1525 2022

  57. [57]

    Sarin, N., H¨ ubner, M., Omand, C. M. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1238

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1238 2024

  58. [58]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/48 2014

  59. [59]

    R., Kwok, L

    Siebert, M. R., Kwok, L. A., Johansson, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 960, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0975

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0975 2023

  60. [60]

    J., Huber, M

    Srivastav, S., Smartt, S. J., Huber, M. E., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 943, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb2ce

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb2ce 2041

  61. [61]

    2023b, ApJ, 956, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acffaf

    Srivastav, S., Moore, T., Nicholl, M., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 956, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acffaf

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acffaf 2041

  62. [62]

    D., Shappee, B

    Stritzinger, M. D., Shappee, B. J., Piro, A. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd46 The Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadd46 2018

  63. [63]

    2019, Publ

    Thrane, E., & Talbot, C. 2019, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust., 36, e010, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019

  64. [64]

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , keywords =

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf 2018

  65. [65]

    J., Kochanek, C

    Vallely, P. J., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., Fausnaugh, M., & Shappee, B. J. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3675 2021

  66. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0edb

    Wang, Q., Rest, A., Dimitriadis, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0edb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0edb 2024

  67. [67]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf05a

    Wu, W., Jiang, J.-a., Meng, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf05a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf05a 2025

  68. [68]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 9957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3691

    Xi, G., Wang, X., Li, G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3691

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3691 2024

  69. [69]

    Zheng, W., & Filippenko, A. V. 2017, ApJ, 838, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6442

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6442 2017

  70. [70]

    L., & Filippenko, A

    Zheng, W., Kelly, P. L., & Filippenko, A. V. 2017, ApJ, 848, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b19 2017

  71. [71]

    L., & Filippenko, A

    Zheng, W., Kelly, P. L., & Filippenko, A. V. 2018, ApJ, 858, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabaeb

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

  72. [72]

    M., Filippenko, A

    Zheng, W., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l15 2013