Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Properties of high-redshift Type II supernovae discovered by the JADES transient survey

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Far-off Type II supernovae include a high-energy excess.

desk verdict First real look at Type II SNe at z>1, but the high-energy fraction claim leans on two photometric objects and needs a softer frame. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08969 v2 pith:PCWZJM4P submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Takashi J. Moriya , David A. Coulter , Christa DeCoursey , Justin D. R. Pierel , Kevin Hainline , Matthew R. Siebert , Armin Rest , Eiichi Egami
show 18 more authors
Sebastian Gomez Robert M. Quimby Ori D. Fox Michael Engesser Fengwu Sun Wenlei Chen Yossef Zenati Suvi Gezari Bhavin A. Joshi Melissa Shahbandeh Louis-Gregory Strolger Qinan Wang Stacey Alberts Rachana Bhatawdekar Andrew J. Bunker Pierluigi Rinaldi Brant E. Robertson Sandro Tacchella
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords TypeIIsupernovaehigh-redshiftsupernovalightcurvesexplosionenergycircumstellarmatterhostgalaxyextinctioncore-collapseinfraredtransientsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper estimates the explosion energies and progenitor masses of six Type II supernovae (exploding massive stars with hydrogen-rich envelopes) found at redshifts $0.66$ to $3.61$ in a deep infrared survey. It finds that two of the six blasted out about three times the energy of typical local Type II supernovae, while the other four match local energies. If true, the population of exploding massive stars in the early universe may be systematically more energetic, and at least some distant Type II supernovae are surrounded by dense gas shed by the star before death. These results give a first look at ordinary, not just superluminous, supernovae at these distances, and they show that infrared surveys can catch both clean and heavily dust-obscured explosions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the Type II plateau relation: during the hydrogen-recombination plateau, a supernova's luminosity is set mainly by the explosion energy and pre-explosion radius, while the plateau duration is set by the envelope mass. The authors build low-metallicity ($0.1\,Z_\odot$) red supergiant progenitors with masses $12{-}24\,M_\odot$, explode them with a radiation-hydrodynamics code that tracks the evolving spectrum, redshift the synthetic spectral energy distributions, and compare them directly to the observed multi-filter photometry. Explosion energy is treated as a free parameter, and a parameterized wind-density law $\rho\propto\dot{M}/r^2 v(r)$ is used to add confined dense circumstellar matter at $10^{15}$ cm when the early epochs are too bright to match a bare plateau model.

What would settle it

Uncontaminated spectroscopy of AT 2023adsv: if the supernova's own spectrum showed no hydrogen P Cygni lines but instead features of another transient class, the claim of a $\sim3\times10^{51}$ erg Type II event at $z=3.61$ would collapse. A larger sample at the same survey depth that recovered the local high-energy fraction would also falsify the proposed redshift trend.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the first six well-observed Type II supernovae beyond $z\approx0.7$ include a larger share of very energetic explosions than local samples: two events, including AT 2023adsv at $z=3.61$, require roughly $3\times10^{51}$ erg of kinetic energy, compared with the $(0.5{-}2)\times10^{51}$ erg typical at low redshift. The authors are careful that the sample is small and subject to selection, but they show that a standard Type II supernova would still be detectable above the survey depth at $z>4$, so the apparent excess is not simply a brightness bias. They also find that two of the six light curves are better matched when a confined, dense circumstellar shell of about $0.23\,M_\odot$ is added, indicating that the mass-loss behavior seen around local Type II supernovae also operates at high redshift. Progenitor masses could not be tightly constrained from the sparse light curves, and host extinctions range from zero up to $E(B-V)\approx1.3{-}1.5$ mag for two events.

Load-bearing premise

All six flashes are Type II supernovae; the most energetic one is classified only by photometry because its spectrum is dominated by host-galaxy light, so one misclassification would lower the high-energy fraction from two of six to one of six.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the high-energy fraction is real, the earliest massive-star deaths in low-metallicity galaxies were more violent than today's, with consequences for early element production and feedback.
  • The presence of confined dense circumstellar matter at high redshift means the unknown mass-loss mechanism that creates these shells is not limited to solar-metallicity environments.
  • Because standard Type II supernovae would be detectable above this survey depth at $z>4$, continued monitoring of the same field should yield a statistically usable high-redshift sample rather than only the brightest explosions.
  • Two highly reddened events show that infrared surveys recover dust-obscured supernovae that optical surveys miss, keeping the inferred high-energy fraction from being purely a clean-line-of-sight bias.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The strongest near-term test is spectroscopic: an uncontaminated spectrum of AT 2023adsv that shows hydrogen lines would lock in the highest-energy event, while a spectrum showing another supernova class would reduce the claimed high-energy fraction from two of six to one of six.
  • If the excess survives larger samples, the authors' models could be turned into a forward model of survey detectability to separate a true redshift trend in explosion energies from residual selection effects.
  • Confined circumstellar matter around high-redshift supernovae would make those explosions sites of particle acceleration in the early universe, so future diffuse high-energy neutrino analyses could be compared against the CSM incidence estimated here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper models the rest-frame optical/near-IR light curves of six Type II SNe at 0.657 <= z <= 3.61 discovered by the JADES transient survey, using the radiation-hydrodynamics code STELLA and low-metallicity Z = 0.1 Zsun MESA progenitor models. The model parameters are varied by eye, with explosion epoch, explosion energy, host extinction, and in two cases confined dense CSM properties treated as free parameters. The authors report two SNe (AT 2023adsv and AT 2023adtw) with explosion energies of 3 x 10^51 erg, four with energies typical of local Type II SNe, evidence for confined dense CSM in two objects, and high host extinctions for two lower-redshift objects. They cautiously suggest that the fraction of high-energy Type II SNe may be higher at high redshift, while acknowledging the small sample and potential biases.

Significance. If the inferred properties are correct, this is one of the first population-level looks at Type II SNe beyond z ~ 1, and it would suggest that energetic explosions and confined dense CSM exist at high redshift, with JWST able to uncover heavily obscured SNe. The paper is useful as a pilot study, and the independent cross-check of AT 2023adsv by Coulter et al. (2025) is a notable strength. However, the statistical reach is limited by the sample size, by the reliance on photometric classification for both high-energy objects, and by the lack of quantitative fit assessment.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 3.1, 3.6, Table 1] The headline claim of a high fraction of 3 x 10^51 erg Type II SNe rests entirely on two photometrically classified transients, AT 2023adsv and AT 2023adtw. Section 3.1 states that AT 2023adsv's spectrum is dominated by host-galaxy lines and that the SN spectral type is difficult to obtain, while AT 2023adtw has no spectroscopic SN classification. The two spectroscopically confirmed SNe in the sample, SN 2023adto and SN 2023adtu, have inferred energies of 1.2-2.3 B. If either high-energy object is not a genuine Type II SN, the central high-energy-fraction claim loses its support. The text should separate the spectroscopically confirmed and photometrically classified subsamples when stating conclusions, and should explicitly present the high-energy fraction as conditional on the photometric classifications being correct.
  2. [Sec. 2.3 and Figs. 2-10] The light-curve fits are selected by eye, with no quantitative goodness-of-fit metric or uncertainty estimate for the inferred parameters. With free explosion energy, host extinction, and explosion epoch, the reported values such as E = 3.0 B versus E = 2.0-2.5 B are not demonstrated to be distinct. The degeneracy is particularly relevant for AT 2023adtw, where high extinction E(B-V) = 1.3-1.5 mag is adopted simultaneously with the high explosion energy. Please provide a quantitative comparison of the model grid to the photometry, such as residual-based fit statistics or confidence regions, or at least show representative alternative models that are rejected by the data.
  3. [Sec. 3.6, Fig. 11] For AT 2023adtw, the observed SEDs show a significant flux excess in F090W and F115W at the first two epochs, and the text states that its origin is not clear. These are exactly the bands that would constrain a hot component or a different extinction law, and the adopted E = 3.0 B, E(B-V) = 1.5 model does not reproduce this excess. Without identifying this excess or showing that it cannot affect the inferred explosion energy, the high-energy and high-extinction conclusions for this object remain insecure.
  4. [Sec. 4, Fig. 12, Table 1] The discussion of observational bias (Fig. 12) demonstrates only that a standard Type II SN would be above the detection limit, but it does not account for the sample-selection criteria of 100% STARDUST2 photometric probability and at least three observed epochs, which favor brighter and better-sampled events. Moreover, one of the two high-energy objects, AT 2023adtw at z = 0.657, is at the low-redshift end of the sample; among the five objects at z > 1, only one is inferred to be high-energy. The claim of a high-redshift excess should therefore be softened to reflect that the statistical basis is at most one high-energy event at high redshift.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.5] The text refers to 'SN 2023dtu' in one place; this should be 'SN 2023adtu'.
  2. [Fig. 11 caption] The figure caption lists the same MJD values (60216.9, 60276.3, 60310.4) as Figure 5; please verify that these are the correct epochs for AT 2023adtw.
  3. [Sec. 2.1] The term 'photometrically confirmed' is used for objects with 100% STARDUST2 probability; 'photometrically classified' would be more precise, since classification is not confirmation.
  4. [Table 1] The ZAMS mass column gives ranges, but the text states that ZAMS masses are poorly constrained; consider reporting the full grid or marking the column as 'unconstrained' to avoid implying a meaningful constraint.
  5. [Fig. 12] Marking the redshifts of the six sample SNe on the magnitude-redshift plane would make the selection bias discussion more concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the explosion energies are model-fit inferences, not predictions, and the derivation is self-contained apart from minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central estimates (explosion energy, ZAMS mass, host extinction, CSM properties) are obtained by matching STELLA radiation-hydrodynamics models to JWST photometry. These are fitted inferences, not predictions: the paper never claims to predict an independent quantity from a fitted parameter, and it explicitly treats explosion epoch, extinction, and CSM parameters as free inputs to the comparison. The models themselves are external (MESA progenitors, STELLA, Cardelli extinction law, SN 1999em templates), and the photometric classifications from DeCoursey et al. (2025) are observational inputs rather than outputs of this paper's derivation. Self-citations appear only as methodological references (e.g., Moriya et al. 2017/2018 for the CSM density profile, Moriya et al. 2019a/2023 for prior light-curve modeling conventions) or as corroboration from the companion paper Coulter et al. (2025), whose independent low-metallicity modeling is not the basis of this paper's own fits. Removing these citations would not alter the fitted values or the reasoning. The main fragility flagged by the skeptic—that AT 2023adsv and AT 2023adtw are photometrically rather than spectroscopically classified as Type II SNe—is a classification and sample-selection risk, not circularity, because the Type II assignment is an input datum whose correctness is assumed, not derived from the claim being tested. Thus no circular step is present; the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derived quantities (E, extinction, CSM mass-loss rate) are fitted parameters in an by-eye comparison of synthetic and observed light curves; no code or uncertainty estimates are provided. The classification and metallicity assumptions are taken from prior literature and the JADES team's own classification pipeline.

free parameters (12)
  • Explosion energy E (AT 2023adsv) = 3 x 10^51 erg
    Chosen from STELLA grid to match observed light curves without extinction (Section 3.1, Table 1).
  • Explosion energy E (AT 2023adte) = 1.3-1.5 x 10^51 erg
    Adjusted by eye to match plateau brightness and color (Section 3.2, Table 1).
  • Explosion energy E (AT 2023adtf) = 0.5-0.6 x 10^51 erg
    Chosen to match second and third epochs (Section 3.3, Table 1).
  • Explosion energy E (SN 2023adto) = 1.2-1.7 x 10^51 erg
    Chosen to match light curve without extinction (Section 3.4, Table 1).
  • Explosion energy E (SN 2023adtu) = 1.9-2.3 x 10^51 erg
    Chosen with assumed extinction E(B-V) = 0.25-0.3 mag (Section 3.5, Table 1).
  • Explosion energy E (AT 2023adtw) = 3 x 10^51 erg
    Chosen with assumed extinction E(B-V) = 1.3-1.5 mag (Section 3.6, Table 1).
  • Host galaxy extinction E(B-V) (SN 2023adtu) = 0.25-0.3 mag
    Introduced because observed light curves are redder than recombination-temperature models (Section 3.5).
  • Host galaxy extinction E(B-V) (AT 2023adtw) = 1.3-1.5 mag
    Needed to match the observed 3000 K SED; high extinction also supported by host SED fit (Section 3.6).
  • Explosion epoch offset = One offset per SN (e.g., MJD-60265 for AT 2023adsv)
    Treated as a free parameter because last non-detection is about one observer year before discovery (Section 2.3).
  • CSM mass-loss rate (AT 2023adsv) = 1e-3 Msun/yr, CSM mass 0.23 Msun
    Adopted to reproduce early blue/UV excess (Section 3.1, Figure 3).
  • CSM mass-loss rate (AT 2023adtf) = 1.3e-3 Msun/yr, CSM mass 0.23 Msun
    Adopted to reproduce first-epoch excess (Section 3.3, Figure 7).
  • ZAMS mass ranges = 12, 16, 20, 24 Msun grid; reported ranges e.g., 20-24 for adsv
    ZAMS mass is poorly constrained; the paper reports ranges or says 'not well constrained' (Table 1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption STELLA accurately models Type II SN light curves including CSM interaction.
    Used as forward model in Section 2.3; validated in prior literature (Blinnikov et al. 1998-2006).
  • domain assumption MESA r23.05.1 with Z = 0.1 Zsun and adopted mass-loss prescriptions produces realistic RSG progenitors for high-redshift SNe.
    Progenitor grid described in Section 2.2; metallicity based on average values at those redshifts (Curti et al. 2024).
  • domain assumption Explosion can be approximated by instant thermal energy deposition above a 1.4 Msun mass cut, independent of explosion mechanism.
    Section 2.3; standard practice but ignores asymmetries and mixing.
  • domain assumption The Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law with Rv = 3.1 describes host galaxy dust.
    Applied to synthetic SEDs in Section 2.3; may not hold for all hosts.
  • domain assumption Photometric classification by STARDUST2 (100% Type II probability) is correct for the four non-spectroscopic SNe.
    Selection in Section 2.1; the highest-z event lacks SN spectral confirmation (Section 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties of high-redshift Type II supernovae discovered by the JADES transient survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PCWZJM4P

@misc{pith2026250108969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties of high-redshift Type II supernovae discovered by the JADES transient survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PCWZJM4P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08969}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we estimate the explosion and progenitor properties of six Type II supernovae (SNe) at 0.675 <= z <= 3.61 discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES) transient survey by modeling their light curves. Two Type II SNe are found to have high explosion energies of 3e51 erg, while the other four Type II SNe are estimated to have typical explosion energies found in the local Universe [(0.5-2)e51 erg]. The fraction of Type II SNe with high explosion energies might be higher at high redshifts because of, e.g., lower metallicity, but it is still difficult to draw a firm conclusion because of the small sample size and potential observational biases. We found it difficult to constrain the progenitor masses for Type II SNe in our sample because of the sparse light-curve data. We found two Type II SN light curves can be better reproduced by introducing confined, dense circumstellar matter. Thus, the confined, dense circumstellar matter frequently observed in nearby Type II SNe is likely to exist in Type II SNe at high redshifts as well. Two Type II SNe are estimated to have high host galaxy extinctions, showing the ability of JWST to discover dust-obscured SNe at high redshifts. More high-redshift Type II SNe are required to investigate the differences in the properties of Type II SNe near and far, but here we show the first glimpse into the high-redshift population of Type II SNe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images of the Type II SNe discussed in this paper. They are 5"x5" images in the F277W filter. SNe are located at the center. North is up and east is left. Reference and difference images, as well as images in the other filters, are available in DeCoursey et al. (2025). Alt text: Images showing flux strength. Darker regions have more flux. color of the SNe significantly deviates from that expected from the hydrogen r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synthetic light curves with the confined dense CSM compared with AT 2023adsv. No host galaxy extinction is assumed. The CSM structure is from M˙ = 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 with the terminal wind velocity of 10 km s−1 . The radius of the confined CSM is 1015 cm. The CSM mass is 0.23 M⊙. Alt text: Model lines and observational points. Lower x axis shows time in the observer frame from 0 to 450 days and upper x axis shows time in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curves of AT 2023adsv at z = 3.61 compared to our synthetic light curves. No host galaxy extinction is assumed. Each panel shows synthetic light curves with different ZAMS masses. CSM is not included in the models presented in this figure. Alt text: Model lines and observational points. Lower x axis shows time in the observer frame from 0 to 450 days and upper x axis shows time in the rest-frame from 0 to 97.6… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SED evolution of AT 2023adte. The two dashed lines are the black￾body functions with 7000 K and 6500 K. Alt text: Model lines and obser￾vational points. x axis is from 2000 Å to 14000 Å and y axis is from 0 to 10. fitting (AV = 0.15+0.11 −0.07). As discussed in Coulter…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curves of AT 2023adte at z = 2.623 compared to synthetic light curves. No host galaxy extinction is assumed. Each panel shows synthetic light curves with different ZAMS masses. No CSM is attached to the progenitors in the models in this figure. Alt text: Model li…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Synthetic light curves of AT 2023adtf (z = 2.344) with the confined dense CSM. No host galaxy extinction is assumed. The CSM structure is from M˙ = 1.3 × 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 with the terminal velocity of 10 km s−1 . The radius of the confined CSM is 1015 cm. The CSM mass is 0…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Light curves of AT 2023adtf at z = 2.344 compared to synthetic light curves without CSM. No host galaxy extinction is assumed. Each panel shows synthetic light curves with different ZAMS masses. Alt text: Model lines and observational points. Lower x axis shows time in…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Light curves of SN 2023adtu at z = 1.01 and synthetic light curves. Each panel shows synthetic light curves with different ZAMS masses and the assumed host galaxy extinction is shown in each panel. No CSM is re￾quired to reproduce the light-curve properties during the …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SED evolution of AT 2023adtw. The dot-dashed line shows the blackbody function for 6000 K and the dashed line shows the blackbody function for 3000 K. The synthetic SED from the model of MZAMS = 16 M⊙ and E = 3.0 B with the host galaxy extinction of E(B − V ) = 1.5 ma…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Light curves of AT 2023adtw at z = 0.657 and synthetic light curves. Each panel shows synthetic light curves with different ZAMS masses and the assumed host galaxy extinction is shown in each panel. No CSM is attached in the models in this figure. The existence of the…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Apparent magnitudes of a standard Type II SN model at around the middle of the plateau phase (50 days after the explosion in the rest frame). The standard model is obtained from the explosion of MZAMS = 12 M⊙ with the explosion energy of 1 B. It has the absolute V ban…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. The First Photometric Evidence of a Transient/Variable Source at z>5 with JWST

    astro-ph.HE 2025-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A source in a z=5.274 galaxy dimmed by 0.19 magnitudes in JWST infrared images, making it the first photometric transient or variable candidate at z greater than 5.

  2. Surrogate models for type II supernovae: Probing low-energy explosions and interaction-free regimes

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Trained on STELLA grids, two autoencoder-plus-emulator surrogates reconstruct type II SN SEDs at ~1e-4 MSE and recover progenitor masses for SN 2005cs, SN 2012aw, and SN 1999em in minutes.

  3. Natal kick by early-asymmetrical pairs of jets to the neutron star of supernova remnant S147

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Two close-in-time episodes of unequal, opposite jets, not a single jet pair, can explain the bipolar ears and the ~570 km/s kick of the neutron star in remnant S147.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Anderson, J. P. 2019, A&A, 628, A7

    2019

  2. [2]

    P., Dessart, L., Gutiérrez, C

    Anderson, J. P., Dessart, L., Gutiérrez, C. P., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 574

    2018

  3. [3]

    P., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M

    Anderson, J. P., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A95

    2024

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481

    2009

  5. [5]

    L., Harris, C

    Barker, B. L., Harris, C. E., Warren, M. L., O’Connor, E. P., & Couch, S. M. 2022, ApJ, 934, 67

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    L., O’Connor, E

    Barker, B. L., O’Connor, E. P., & Couch, S. M. 2023, ApJL, 944, L2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Bennett, P. D. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 1132

    Blinnikov, S., Lundqvist, P., Bartunov, O., Nomoto, K., & Iwamoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1132

    work page 2000

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V . A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454

    1998

  2. [10]

    I., Röpke, F

    Blinnikov, S. I., Röpke, F. K., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 229

    2006

  3. [11]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 46

    2021

  4. [12]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A288

    2024

  5. [13]

    2021, Nature, 589, 29

    Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29

    2021

  6. [14]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989

  7. [15]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31

    2023

  8. [16]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718

    2000

  9. [17]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 833

    2010

  10. [18]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486

    2009

  11. [19]

    2012, Nature, 491, 228

    Cooke, J., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 491, 228

    2012

  12. [20]

    A., Pierel, J

    Coulter, D. A., Pierel, J. D. R., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05513

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75

    2024

  14. [22]

    J., et al

    Curtin, C., Cooke, J., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 17 de Jaeger, T., Galbany, L., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4233 de Jaeger, T., Anderson, J. P., Galbany, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4592 de Jaeger, T., Galbany, L., González-Gaitán, S., et al. 202...

    2019

  15. [23]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 250

    2025

  16. [24]

    P., Hamuy, M., et al

    Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1856 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 4

    2014

  17. [25]

    2023, JWST NIRSpec/NIRCam Follow-Up of the High-Redshift Transients Discovered in the GOODS-S JADES-Deep Field, JWST Proposal

    Egami, E., Bonaventura, N., Charlot, S., et al. 2023, JWST NIRSpec/NIRCam Follow-Up of the High-Redshift Transients Discovered in the GOODS-S JADES-Deep Field, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #6541

    2023

  18. [26]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., & Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., & Stanway, E. R. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 455

    2022

  20. [28]

    J., Chugai, N., et al

    Elmhamdi, A., Danziger, I. J., Chugai, N., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 939 Förster, F., Moriya, T. J., Maureira, J. C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 808

    2003

  21. [29]

    D., Khandrika, H., Rubin, D., et al

    Fox, O. D., Khandrika, H., Rubin, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4199

    2021

  22. [30]

    Gall, E. E. E., Kotak, R., Leibundgut, B., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A25

    2018

  23. [31]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93 12 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (2025), Vol. 00, No. 0

    2025

  24. [32]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403

    2017

  25. [33]

    P., Sullivan, M., et al

    Grayling, M., Gutiérrez, C. P., Sullivan, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 684 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Sullivan, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3232 Jacobson-Galán, W. V ., Dessart, L., Davis, K. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 189

    2023

  26. [34]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    2023

  27. [35]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22

    2021

  28. [36]

    Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2205

    2009

  29. [37]

    D., Sundqvist, J

    Kee, N. D., Sundqvist, J. O., Decin, L., de Koter, A., & Sana, H. 2021, A&A, 646, A180

    2021

  30. [38]

    S., & Moriya, T

    Kimura, S. S., & Moriya, T. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18935

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C., Ryder, S., Kankare, E., et al

    Kool, E. C., Ryder, S., Kankare, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5641

    2018

  32. [40]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 4173

    Kozyreva, A., Janka, H.-T., Kresse, D., Taubenberger, S., & Baklanov, P. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4173

    2022

  33. [41]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 4312

    Kozyreva, A., Shingles, L., Mironov, A., Baklanov, P., & Blinnikov, S. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4312

    2020

  34. [42]

    2013, ApJL, 775, L16

    Kriek, M., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJL, 775, L16

    2013

  35. [43]

    D., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P. G., & Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170

    2017

  36. [44]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

    Li, W., Leaman, J., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

    2011

  37. [45]

    C., Anderson, J

    Martinez, L., Bersten, M. C., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A41

    2022

  38. [46]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 111

    Mattila, S., Dahlen, T., Efstathiou, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 111

    2012

  39. [47]

    2011, A&A, 526, A156

    Mauron, N., & Josselin, E. 2011, A&A, 526, A156

    2011

  40. [48]

    G., Brammer, G

    Momcheva, I. G., Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 27

    2016

  41. [49]

    J., Förster, F., Yoon, S.-C., Gräfener, G., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Förster, F., Yoon, S.-C., Gräfener, G., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2840

    2018

  42. [50]

    J., Subrayan, B

    Moriya, T. J., Subrayan, B. M., Milisavljevic, D., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2023, PASJ, 75, 634

    2023

  43. [51]

    J., Yoon, S.-C., Gräfener, G., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Yoon, S.-C., Gräfener, G., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2017, MNRAS, 469, L108

    2017

  44. [52]

    L., & Valenti, S

    Morozova, V ., Piro, A. L., & Valenti, S. 2018, ApJ, 858, 15 Müller, B., Tauris, T. M., Heger, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3307

    2018

  45. [53]

    2024, Phys

    Murase, K. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 103020

    2024

  46. [54]

    2024, MNRAS, arXiv:2405.08367

    Nakamura, K., Takiwaki, T., Matsumoto, J., & Kotake, K. 2024, MNRAS, arXiv:2405.08367

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1793

    Noll, S., Burgarella, D., Giovannoli, E., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1793

    2009

  48. [56]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    2013

  49. [57]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864

    2023

  50. [58]

    C., Foley, R

    Pan, Y . C., Foley, R. J., Smith, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4241

    2017

  51. [59]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  52. [60]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  53. [61]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  54. [62]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  55. [63]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  56. [64]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Engesser, M., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L32

    2024

  57. [65]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Coulter, D. A., Siebert, M. R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L9

    2025

  58. [66]

    Popov, D. V . 1993, ApJ, 414, 712

    1993

  59. [67]

    L., Zampieri, L., Spiro, S., et al

    Pumo, M. L., Zampieri, L., Spiro, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3013

    2017

  60. [68]

    A., Pettini, M., Leitherer, C., et al

    Rix, S. A., Pettini, M., Leitherer, C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, 98

    2004

  61. [69]

    A., Riess, A

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

    2014

  62. [70]

    2019, ApJL, 870, L16

    Scott, S., Nicholl, M., Blanchard, P., Gomez, S., & Berger, E. 2019, ApJL, 870, L16

    2019

  63. [71]

    2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    2017

  64. [72]

    R., DeCoursey, C., Coulter, D

    Siebert, M. R., DeCoursey, C., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L13 Silva-Farfán, J., Förster, F., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 57

    2024

  65. [73]

    C., et al

    Smith, M., Sullivan, M., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 37

    2018

  66. [74]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132

    2020

  67. [75]

    A., et al

    Strolger, L.-G., Dahlen, T., Rodney, S. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 93

    2015

  68. [76]

    M., Milisavljevic, D., Moriya, T

    Subrayan, B. M., Milisavljevic, D., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 46

    2023

  69. [77]

    2016, A&A, 587, L7

    Taddia, F., Moquist, P., Sollerman, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, L7

    2016

  70. [78]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 124

    Tolstov, A., Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 124

    2016

  71. [79]

    A., Hinkle, J., Angus, C

    Tucker, M. A., Hinkle, J., Angus, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 178

    2024

  72. [80]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574

    2001

  73. [81]

    C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M

    Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M. V ., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 64

    2023

  74. [82]

    Z., Jiang, B., et al

    Yang, M., Bonanos, A. Z., Jiang, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A84

    2023

  75. [83]

    A., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Yaron, O., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.