Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Hubble Higher z Supernova Search: Supernovae to z≈ 1.6 and Constraints on Type Ia Progenitor Models

Open access
Strolger, Louis‐Gregory, Riess, Adam G., Dahlen, Tomas, Livio, Mario, Panagia, Nino, Challis, Peter, Tonry, John L., Filippenko, Alexei V., Chornock, Ryan, Ferguson, Henry, Koekemoer, Anton, Mobasher, Bahram, Dickinson, Mark, Giavalisco, Mauro, Casertano, Stefano, Hook, Richard, Bondin, Stephane, Leibundgut, Bruno, Nonino, Mario, Rosati, Piero, Spinrad, Hyron, Steidel, Charles C., Stern, Daniel, Garnavich, Peter M., Matheson, Thomas, Grogin, Norman, Hornschemeier, Ann, Kretchmer, Claudia, Laidler, Victoria G., Lee, Kyoungsoo, Lucas, Ray, de Mello, Duilia, Moustakas, Leonidas A., Ravindranath, Swara, Richardson, Marin, Taylor, Edward·2004·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1086/422901
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We present results from the Hubble Higher z Supernova Search, the first space-based open field survey for supernovae (SNe). In cooperation with the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey, we have used the Hubble Space Telescope with the Advanced Camera for Surveys to cover ~300 arcmin 2 in the area of the Chandra Deep Field South and the Hubble Deep Field North on five separate search epochs (separated by ~45 day intervals) to a limiting magnitude of F850LP ≈ 26. These deep observations have allowed us to discover 42 SNe in the redshift range 0.2 < z < 1.6. As these data span a large range in redshift, they are ideal for testing the validity of Type Ia supernova progenitor models with the distribution of expected "delay times," from progenitor star formation to Type Ia SN explosion, and the SN rates these models predict. Through a Bayesian maximum likelihood test, we determine which delay-time models best reproduce the redshift distribution of SNe Ia discovered in this survey. We find that models that require a large fraction of "prompt" (less than 2 Gyr) SNe Ia poorly reproduce the observed redshift distribution and are rejected at greater than 95% confidence. We find that Gaussian models best fit the observed data for mean delay times in the range of 2-4 Gyr.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/422901

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Strolger, L., Riess, A. G., Dahlen, T., Livio, M., Panagia, N., Challis, P., Tonry, J. L., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., Ferguson, H., Koekemoer, A., Mobasher, B., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Casertano, S., Hook, R., Bondin, S., Leibundgut, B., Nonino, M., Rosati, P., Spinrad, H., Steidel, C. C., Stern, D., Garnavich, P. M., Matheson, T., Grogin, N., Hornschemeier, A., Kretchmer, C., Laidler, V. G., Lee, K., Lucas, R., de Mello, D., Moustakas, L. A., Ravindranath, S., Richardson, M., & Taylor, E.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2004-09-20
Volume
613
Issue
1
Pages
200-223
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1086/422901
OpenAlex
W2094702580
Cited by
309
References
51
FWCI
16.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.