pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.19783 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

SN 2025ogs: A Spectroscopically-Normal Type Ia Supernova at z = 2 as a Benchmark for Redshift Evolution

M. R. Siebert , J. D. R. Pierel , M. Engesser , D. A. Coulter , C. Decoursey , O. D. Fox , A. Rest , W. Chen
show 15 more authors
J. M. DerKacy E. Egami R. J. Foley D. O. Jones K. Kakiichi A. M. Koekemoer Z. G. Lane C. Larison D. C. Leonard T. J. Moriya E. Padilla Gonzalez R. M. Quimby K. Shukawa L. G. Strolger Y. Zenati
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 20:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE
keywords Type Ia supernovahigh-redshift cosmologyJWST spectroscopySN standardizationredshift evolutionluminosity distance
0
0 comments X

The pith

A normal Type Ia supernova at redshift 2 matches low-redshift light-curve and spectral standards, with distance consistent with flat Lambda-CDM.

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

The paper reports JWST observations of SN 2025ogs, a spectroscopically normal Type Ia supernova at z equals 2.05. Its light curve shows a blue color and moderate decline rate that fall within the usual ranges for cosmological samples. The measured luminosity distance agrees with a standard cosmological model and with existing constraints from DES and Pantheon plus. Spectral features are typical for a peak-brightness SN Ia, though some absorption lines appear at lower blueshifts than seen locally. These results indicate that the standardization procedures used for Type Ia supernovae continue to hold at z approximately 2.

Core claim

SN 2025ogs is a normal Type Ia supernova at z=2.05 plus or minus 0.01 whose NIRCam light curve gives B minus V equals minus 0.27 plus or minus 0.06 mag and Delta m15(B) equals 1.55 plus or minus 0.15 mag, both inside standard selection cuts. Its luminosity distance lies within 1.0 sigma of flat Lambda-CDM predictions and of current DES 5yr and Pantheon plus constraints. The NIRSpec spectrum exhibits the usual absorption features of a normal SN Ia at peak, with rest-frame optical colors, near-UV properties, and Si II strengths matching the light-curve decline rate. Multiple lines including Ca II H and K, O I 7774, and the Ca II NIR triplet appear at lower blueshift than in low-z comparison S

What carries the argument

JWST NIRCam light-curve photometry and NIRSpec spectrum of the single object SN 2025ogs, compared directly to low-redshift SN Ia samples for color, decline rate, and line velocities.

If this is right

  • Standardization procedures for Type Ia supernovae remain usable out to z approximately 2 without large evolutionary corrections.
  • Luminosity distances measured from future Roman Space Telescope samples at z up to 3 can be interpreted with the same calibration framework used at low redshift.
  • Subtle differences in absorption-line blueshifts may still exist and can be tested with additional JWST spectra.
  • Any evolutionary signal large enough to affect dark-energy constraints would need to be smaller than the scatter allowed by this object.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation with more objects would tighten the allowed range of any redshift-dependent bias in the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter.
  • If the lower blueshift trend persists, it may require a small velocity correction term when combining high-z and low-z samples.
  • The result sets a concrete benchmark against which Roman-era high-z discoveries can be compared to search for population shifts.

Load-bearing premise

That the measured properties of this one supernova at z=2 are representative of the broader high-redshift population and free of selection or calibration biases.

What would settle it

A larger sample of z greater than or equal to 2 Type Ia supernovae whose average color or Si II velocity deviates systematically from low-z expectations by more than the 1-sigma uncertainty reported for SN 2025ogs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19783 by A. M. Koekemoer, A. Rest, C. Decoursey, C. Larison, D. A. Coulter, D. C. Leonard, D. O. Jones, E. Egami, E. Padilla Gonzalez, J. D. R. Pierel, J. M. DerKacy, K. Kakiichi, K. Shukawa, L. G. Strolger, M. Engesser, M. R. Siebert, O. D. Fox, R. J. Foley, R. M. Quimby, T. J. Moriya, W. Chen, Y. Zenati, Z. G. Lane.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: False color images of SN 2025ogs and its host galaxy using F150W (Blue), F200W (Green), and F356W (Red). The left panel is the template image obtained from the PRIMER program (PID: 1837, Dunlop et al. 2021) and the right panel is our discovery image from COSMOS-3D (PID: 5893). The SN is well-separated from its host galaxy at a projected distance of 8.1 kpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Best fit BayeSN model to each of the observed filters and epochs for SN 2025ogs. The measured photometry is shown as circles with error, and the shaded region represents the BayeSN model+ fitting uncertainty. The epoch of our NIRSpec observation is noted by the dashed-black vertical line. is presented by Ward et al. (2023), and is trained to cover rest-frame phases as late as 50 days after peak-brightness.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distributions of rest-frame B−V color at peak B-band brightness, ∆m15(B), and host galaxy properties measured for the cosmological sample of SNe Ia presented in Brout et al. (2022). The vertical lines with shaded 1σ uncertainties are SN 2025ogs (green solid) and the other spectroscopic SNe Ia, namely SN 2023adsy (blue dotted) and SN 2023aeax (red dashed) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Luminosity distance measurements from SNe Ia at z > 1 including data from Brout et al. (2022). Black points (with errors) are SNe Ia with spectroscopic classifications, while blue squares (with error) are SNe Ia with photometric classifications. The two strongly lensed SNe Ia with distance measurements are shown as purple triangles. SN 2025ogs is shown as a green star, and FlatΛCDM (H0 = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1 ) … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of SN 2025ogs (black) to maximum brightness (−3 < t < 3 days) composite spectra generated from kaepora (Siebert et al. 2019) for a variety of light curve shapes (colored curves). The shaded regions are the 1σ uncertainties estimated via bootstrap resampling. The mean ∆m15(B) of the composite spectra range from 0.91 to 1.87. Overall the continuum and features are most similar to the ∆m15(B) = 1.4… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: left: Comparison of R(Si II) (the ratio of the absorption depth of Si II λ5972 to Si IIλ6355; Nugent et al. 1995) of SN 2025ogs (black star) to the low-z sample (colored points) vs ∆m15(B). The color of the points reference the corresponding composite spectrum (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: left: Example measurement of a JWST prism-convolved Ca II H&K ejecta velocity that can be inferred from NIRSpec prism spectra at this redshift. The thin-blue colored curve is SN 2011fe at peak brightness in its original resolution. The thick-blue colored curve is the same spectrum, but convolved with the NIRSpec prism dispersion function. We measure the velocity from the minimum of the yellow curve (smooth… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope will provide a revolutionary measurement of the Universe's expansion kinematics, driven by dark matter and dark energy, out to $z \approx 3$. The accuracy of this measurement is predicated on the assumption that standardized Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) luminosities do not evolve with redshift. If present, SN Ia luminosity evolution is expected to be most detectable in the dark matter-dominated era of the Universe ($z \gtrsim 1.5$), with its effects becoming more easily distinguishable from dark energy variation at increasing redshift. We present JWST NIRCam and NIRSpec observations of SN 2025ogs, a normal SN Ia at $z=2.05\pm 0.01$. This SN offers a key point of comparison for interpreting future high-redshift SN Ia samples. The NIRCam light curve indicates a blue color ($B - V = -0.27 \pm 0.06$ mag) and a moderately fast decline ($\Delta m_{15}(B) = 1.55 \pm 0.15$ mag), both within standard criteria for inclusion in cosmological analyses. Its luminosity distance is in $1.0\sigma$ agreement with a standard flat $\Lambda$CDM model, as well as with current cosmological constraints from the Dark Energy Survey (DES 5yr) and Pantheon+. The NIRSpec spectrum displays all of the hallmark absorption features of a normal SN Ia observed at peak brightness. We find that the rest-frame optical color, rest-frame near-ultraviolet properties, and Si II line strengths are all consistent with the moderately fast decline inferred from the light curve. Multiple absorption features (Ca II H&K, O I $\lambda7774$, and the Ca II NIR triplet) all appear at a lower blueshift relative to a sample of low-$z$ SNe Ia. Together, these results suggest that SN Ia standardization remains robust at $z \approx 2$, and also highlight the importance of JWST spectroscopy for uncovering evolutionary effects that could impact Roman's high-precision cosmology.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports JWST NIRCam photometry and NIRSpec spectroscopy of SN 2025ogs, a Type Ia supernova at z = 2.05 ± 0.01. The light curve yields B − V = −0.27 ± 0.06 mag and Δm15(B) = 1.55 ± 0.15 mag, both within standard SN Ia selection criteria; the luminosity distance is consistent with flat ΛCDM at 1σ and with DES 5yr/Pantheon+ constraints; the spectrum shows all hallmark absorption features of a normal SN Ia at peak. The paper concludes that SN Ia standardization remains robust at z ≈ 2 and positions the event as a benchmark for future high-redshift samples from Roman.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work supplies the first spectroscopically confirmed normal SN Ia at z > 2, providing a critical anchor point for testing luminosity evolution in the matter-dominated regime relevant to Roman cosmology. The demonstration of JWST’s capability for such observations and the identification of possible subtle line-shift differences are valuable for planning larger high-z samples.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'SN Ia standardization remains robust at z ≈ 2' rests on the normality of a single object. Because the high-z population variance is unknown, this event is compatible with both zero evolution and with a non-negligible subpopulation (e.g., 15–30 %) exhibiting shifts in Si II velocity, UV flux, or intrinsic color that are simply unsampled here; no quantitative test distinguishing these interpretations is provided.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The lower blueshifts reported for Ca II H&K, O I λ7774, and the Ca II NIR triplet are described as consistent with low-z samples, yet the manuscript supplies no statistical assessment of whether the offset exceeds small-number or selection fluctuations.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 1σ agreement with DES 5yr and Pantheon+ but does not specify the exact cosmological parameters or the precise distance-modulus calculation used for the comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below by clarifying the limited scope of conclusions from a single object and adding explicit caveats on statistical limitations. Partial revisions have been incorporated into the abstract and discussion to better reflect these constraints while preserving the value of the benchmark observation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'SN Ia standardization remains robust at z ≈ 2' rests on the normality of a single object. Because the high-z population variance is unknown, this event is compatible with both zero evolution and with a non-negligible subpopulation (e.g., 15–30 %) exhibiting shifts in Si II velocity, UV flux, or intrinsic color that are simply unsampled here; no quantitative test distinguishing these interpretations is provided.

    Authors: We agree that a single normal SN Ia cannot demonstrate population-level robustness, as the high-z variance is unknown and the event is compatible with either zero evolution or an unsampled subpopulation. The manuscript presents SN 2025ogs as a benchmark anchor for future Roman samples rather than a definitive statement on standardization. We have revised the abstract to replace the phrase 'suggest that SN Ia standardization remains robust at z ≈ 2' with 'provides a key point of comparison for interpreting future high-redshift SN Ia samples' and added a sentence noting that larger samples will be needed to test for evolutionary effects. This change directly addresses the concern. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The lower blueshifts reported for Ca II H&K, O I λ7774, and the Ca II NIR triplet are described as consistent with low-z samples, yet the manuscript supplies no statistical assessment of whether the offset exceeds small-number or selection fluctuations.

    Authors: The reported lower blueshifts are based on direct measurement and comparison to the velocity range in low-z samples, where the values overlap with the observed scatter. No formal statistical test was included because a single high-z spectrum precludes meaningful assessment of significance or selection effects. We have added text in the results and discussion sections explicitly stating that the comparison is qualitative, that the offsets lie within low-z scatter, and that quantitative evaluation of possible evolutionary trends will require future larger samples. This acknowledges the referee's point without overstating the current data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely observational comparison with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports new JWST NIRCam/NIRSpec data for a single SN Ia at z=2.05, measures its decline rate, color, spectrum features, and luminosity distance, then compares these directly to existing low-z samples and flat LambdaCDM. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are used to derive or predict any quantity from within the paper itself; the central claim is a straightforward consistency check against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that Type Ia supernova properties can be standardized across redshift without evolution and that the observed object is representative; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Type Ia supernovae have standardized luminosities independent of redshift
    Invoked to classify the event as normal and to interpret its distance as consistent with LambdaCDM.
  • standard math Flat LambdaCDM model accurately describes luminosity distance at z=2
    Used as the reference for the 1-sigma agreement test.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5832 in / 1364 out tokens · 39538 ms · 2026-05-16T20:11:01.468009+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A new magnitude--redshift relation based on Type Ia supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A new two-parameter empirical magnitude-redshift relation for Type Ia supernovae fits observations comparably or better than LambdaCDM and indicates uniform cosmic acceleration.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Aguilar , J., Ahlen , S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collabora...

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  2. [2]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    M., Giardino, G., Sirianni, M., et al

    Birkmann, S. M., Giardino, G., Sirianni, M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022:

    Series, V ol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022:

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 121802P, doi: 10.1117/12.2629545

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629545

  6. [6]

    D., Malmgaard, A., et al

    Bose, S., Stritzinger, M. D., Malmgaard, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07529, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.07529

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07529 2025

  7. [7]

    L., Anderson, J., Gennaro, M., et al

    Boyer, M. L., Anderson, J., Gennaro, M., et al. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 191, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac923a

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac923a 2022

  8. [8]

    C., Hall, N., et al

    Branch, D., Dang, L. C., Hall, N., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 560, doi: 10.1086/502778

    work page doi:10.1086/502778 2006

  9. [10]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b

    Brout, D., & Scolnic, D. 2021, ApJ, 909, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b 2021

  10. [11]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 black , 938, 110 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..110B

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, \apj, 938, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  11. [12]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02687, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.02687

    Burgaz, U., Maguire, K., Galbany, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02687, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.02687

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02687 2025

  12. [13]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafa2

    Burrow, A., Baron, E., Ashall, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafa2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abafa2 2020

  13. [14]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7325378 —

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7325378 —. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.14.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7038885

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7325378 2022

  14. [15]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, \apj, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  15. [16]

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

    Childress, M. J., Wolf, C., & Zahid, H. J. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1892

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1892 2014

  16. [17]

    L., Matheson, T., Filippenko, A

    Coil, A. L., Matheson, T., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2000, ApJL, 544, L111, doi: 10.1086/317311

    work page doi:10.1086/317311 2000

  17. [18]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/1

    Conley, A., Guy, J., Sullivan, M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/1 2011

  18. [19]

    A., Pierel, J

    Coulter, D. A., Pierel, J. D. R., DeCoursey, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05513

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05513 2025

  19. [20]

    DeCoursey, C., Egami, E., Pierel, J. D. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05060. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05060 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Acevedo, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02929, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02929

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02929 2024

  20. [21]

    G., Jha, S

    Dettman, K. G., Jha, S. W., Dai, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ee5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ee5 2021

  21. [22]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf266

    Dixon, M., Mould, J., Lidman, C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf266

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf266 2025

  22. [23]

    S., Abraham, R

    Dunlop, J. S., Abraham, R. G., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2021, PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research

    work page 2021

  23. [24]

    1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    Fitzpatrick, E. 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  24. [25]

    Foley, R. J. 2012, ApJ, 748, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/127 2012

  25. [26]

    J., & Kasen, D

    Foley, R. J., & Kasen, D. 2011, ApJ, 729, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/55

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/55 2011

  26. [27]

    J., Filippenko, A

    Foley, R. J., Filippenko, A. V ., Kessler, R., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/113 2012

  27. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05642, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05642

    Gall, C., Izzo, L., Wojtak, R., & Hjorth, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05642, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.05642

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.05642 2024

  28. [29]

    2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 191, 1

    Goldwasser, S., Yaron, O., Sass, A., et al. 2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 191, 1

    work page 2022

  29. [30]

    S., et al

    Grayling, M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08755, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08755

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.08755 2024

  30. [31]

    A., Sullivan, M., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts492 Höflich, P., Wheeler, J. C., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1998, ApJ, 495, 617, doi: 10.1086/305327

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts492 2013

  31. [32]

    Y ., Conley, A., Howell, D

    Hsiao, E. Y ., Conley, A., Howell, D. A., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 1187, doi: 10.1086/518232

    work page doi:10.1086/518232 2007

  32. [33]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 2022

  33. [34]

    O., Scolnic, D

    Jones, D. O., Scolnic, D. M., Riess, A. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab6b1 Jönsson, J., Sullivan, M., Hook, I., et al. 2010, \mnras, 405, 535, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16467.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab6b1 2018

  34. [35]

    L., Hicken, M., Burke, D

    Kelly, P. L., Hicken, M., Burke, D. L., Mandel, K. S., & Kirshner, R. P. 2010, ApJ, 715, 743, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/743

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/743 2010

  35. [36]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/56

    Kessler, R., & Scolnic, D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/56 2017

  36. [37]

    C., et al

    Lampeitl, H., Smith, M., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 566, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/566

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/566 2010

  37. [38]

    LSST Science Book, Version 2.0

    Lentz, E. J., Baron, E., Branch, D., Hauschildt, P. H., & Nugent, P. E. 2000, ApJ, 530, 966, doi: 10.1086/308400 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201 LSST Science Collaboration, Marshall, P., Anguita, T., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.04058, doi: 10.485...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/308400 2000

  38. [39]

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

    Mandel, K. S., Thorp, S., Narayan, G., Friedman, A. S., & Avelino, A. 2022, \mnras, 510, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3496

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3496 2022

  39. [40]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031 2014

  40. [41]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1996

    Martin, B., Lidman, C., Brout, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1996

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1996 2024

  41. [42]

    A., Sullivan, M., Hachinger, S., et al

    Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., Hachinger, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu077

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu077 2014

  42. [43]

    E., Mollá, M., López-Sánchez, Á

    Moreno-Raya, M. E., Mollá, M., López-Sánchez, Á. R., et al. 2016, ApJL, 818, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/l19 2016

  43. [44]

    E., Polin, A

    Nugent, A. E., Polin, A. E., & Nugent, P. E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.10601, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.10601

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.10601 2023

  44. [45]

    1995, ApJL, 455, L147, doi: 10.1086/309846 Observations Time Allocation Committee, R., & Community Survey Definition Committees, C

    Nugent, P., Phillips, M., Baron, E., Branch, D., & Hauschildt, P. 1995, ApJL, 455, L147, doi: 10.1086/309846 Observations Time Allocation Committee, R., & Community Survey Definition Committees, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10574

    work page doi:10.1086/309846 1995

  45. [46]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8e47

    Pan, Y .-C. 2020, ApJL, 895, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8e47

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8e47 2020

  46. [47]

    C., Jheng, Y

    Pan, Y . C., Jheng, Y . S., Jones, D. O., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1618

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1618 2024

  47. [48]

    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. [49]

    Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJL, 413, L105, doi: 10.1086/186970

    work page doi:10.1086/186970 1993

  49. [50]

    M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N

    Phillips, M. M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 1766, doi: 10.1086/301032

    work page doi:10.1086/301032 1999

  50. [51]

    2024, Space-Phot: Simple Python-Based Photometry for Space Telescopes, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12100100

    Pierel, J. 2024, Space-Phot: Simple Python-Based Photometry for Space Telescopes, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12100100

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12100100 2024

  51. [52]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Engesser, M., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05089. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05089

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [53]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Engesser, M., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, \apjl, 971, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6908

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6908 2024

  53. [54]

    Pierel, J. D. R., Coulter, D. A., Siebert, M. R., et al. 2025, \apjl, 981, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb1d9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb1d9 2025

  54. [55]

    2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 8200, doi: 10.21105/joss.08200

    Polzin, A. 2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 8200, doi: 10.21105/joss.08200

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.08200 2025

  55. [56]

    2023, arminrest/jhat: The JWST HST Alignment Tool (JHAT), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    Rest, A., Pierel, J., Correnti, M., et al. 2023, arminrest/jhat: The JWST HST Alignment Tool (JHAT), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7892935

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7892935 2023

  56. [57]

    C., et al

    Rest, A., Stubbs, C., Becker, A. C., et al. 2005, \apj, 634, 1103, doi: 10.1086/497060

    work page doi:10.1086/497060 2005

  57. [58]

    G., & Livio, M

    Riess, A. G., & Livio, M. 2006, ApJ, 648, 884, doi: 10.1086/504791

    work page doi:10.1086/504791 2006

  58. [59]

    G., Filippenko, A

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

    work page 1998

  59. [60]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05632

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05632. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05632

    work page arXiv 2022

  60. [61]

    F., Cole, S., et al

    Sauer, D. N., Mazzali, P. A., Blondin, S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1605, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14018.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14018.x 2008

  61. [62]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, \apj, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  62. [63]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a black , 938, 113 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..113S

    Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Carr, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a 2022

  63. [64]

    Silva, E., Sabogal, M.A., Scherer, M., Nunes, R.C., Di Valentino, E., Kumar, S.,

    Scolnic, D. M., Jones, D. O., Rest, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb 2018

  64. [65]

    B., Paquereau, L., et al

    Shuntov, M., Akins, H. B., Paquereau, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03243

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03243 2025

  65. [66]

    R., Foley, R

    Siebert, M. R., Foley, R. J., Jones, D. O., & Davis, K. W. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.09490. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09490

    work page arXiv 2020

  66. [67]

    R., Foley, R

    Siebert, M. R., Foley, R. J., Jones, D. O., & Davis, K. W. 2020, \mnras, 493, 5713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa577

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa577 2020

  67. [68]

    R., Foley, R

    Siebert, M. R., Foley, R. J., Jones, D. O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1209

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1209 2019

  68. [69]

    R., DeCoursey, C., Coulter, D

    Siebert, M. R., DeCoursey, C., Coulter, D. A., et al. 2024, \apjl, 972, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6c32

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6c32 2024

  69. [70]

    D., et al

    Sternberg, A., Gal-Yam, A., Simon, J. D., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 856, doi: 10.1126/science.1203836

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1203836 2011

  70. [71]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 411, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17920.x

    Sullivan, M., Conley, A., Howell, D. A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 782, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16731.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16731.x 2010

  71. [72]

    1998, A&A, 331, 815 Vinkó, J., & Reg˝os, E

    Tripp, R. 1998, A&A, 331, 815 Vinkó, J., & Reg˝os, E. 2025, A&A, 701, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554209

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554209 1998

  72. [73]

    M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K

    Ward, S. M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2023, \apj, 956, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bb 2023