Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

The Red Supergiant Problem: As Seen from the Local Group's Red Supergiant Populations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that when Type II supernova progenitors are compared with a metallicity-weighted sample of M3-or-later red supergiants from the Local Group, the apparent shortage of high-luminosity progenitors disappears because the…

desk verdict A useful Local Group reassembly of the RSG problem, but the paper's own Fig. 4 reveals a luminosity-dependent bolometric-correction bias that threatens its central null result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04386 v1 pith:NXAQ3LU6 submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.SR

Sarah Healy , Shunsaku Horiuchi , Chris Ashall This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords redsupergiantproblemTypeIIsupernovaprogenitorsbolometriccorrectionscumulativeluminositydistributionspectralM3LocalGroupsupergiantsmetallicityweightingsingle-bandphotometry
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

The red supergiant problem is the apparent shortage of very luminous red supergiant stars among the progenitors detected in pre-explosion images of Type II supernovae, compared with the bright end of the observed red supergiant luminosity function. This paper reassesses that problem using large, nearly complete red supergiant samples from the Milky Way, M31, M33, the Large Magellanic Cloud, and the Small Magellanic Cloud, with luminosities derived from single-band near-infrared and optical photometry. The authors find that only red supergiants of spectral type M3 or later reproduce the steepness of the Type II pre-imaged progenitor luminosity distribution. When the comparison is made with a metallicity-weighted cumulative luminosity distribution of these M3 or later red supergiants, the pre-imaged progenitors agree within uncertainties, so there is no statistically significant evidence of missing high-luminosity progenitors. A sympathetic reading is that the classic red supergiant problem is largely an artifact of bolometric-correction and single-band luminosity uncertainties rather than a real deficit of massive progenitors.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the cumulative luminosity distribution (CLD) of red supergiant populations, split by spectral-type threshold and constructed separately for each Local Group galaxy, then combined into a metallicity-weighted average that matches the host-galaxy metallicity distribution of the supernova progenitors. Luminosities come from single-band photometry (2MASS Ks for the Milky Way, near-infrared for Local Group samples, and F814W optical for the progenitor comparison) converted with bolometric corrections from Davies and Beasor (2017), Neugent et al. (2020), and Beasor et al. (2024). The comparison is quantified by overlaying the Monte Carlo confidence regions of two corrected progenitor luminosity functions (Beasor et al. 2024 and Strotjohann et al. 2024) on the red supergiant CLDs, with agreement judged by how much of the CLD lies within the 1 sigma, 2 sigma, and 3 sigma bands.

What would settle it

Compare a sample of M3-or-later Local Group red supergiants with both SED-derived luminosities and F814W single-band luminosities computed with the same bolometric correction prescriptions used here; if the F814W-based values show a luminosity-dependent offset exceeding about 0.3 dex at log(L/L_sun) > 5.3 relative to the SED values, then the cumulative luminosity distribution agreement between M3+ red supergiants and supernova progenitors shown in this paper would not survive, and the red supergiant problem would re-emerge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the red supergiant problem is not a significant population mismatch. Using complete samples of red supergiants in the Local Group plus a new Milky Way catalog, the paper constructs cumulative luminosity distributions for spectral-type cuts G0+, K0+, M0+, and M3+, and weights the galaxy samples by the metallicity distribution of the Type II supernova host galaxies. The pre-imaged progenitor luminosity functions, corrected either with the Beasor et al. (2024) bolometric-correction uncertainties or with the Strotjohann et al. (2024) sensitivity and measurement bias correction, fall within 3 sigma (and mostly within 1 sigma) of the M3+ distributions above log(L/L_sun) approximately 5.0, while the M0+ distributions disagree beyond 3 sigma over much of the range. The paper concludes that only M3-or-later red supergiants represent the immediate pre-supernova state, and that the large uncertainties in single-band F814W derived luminosities (systematic shifts of roughly 0.1 to 0.3 dex with dispersions of roughly 0.2 to 0.5 dex) prevent any meaningful claim of missing high-luminosity progenitors.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the bolometric corrections used to turn single-band pre-explosion magnitudes into luminosities being unbiased, with their quoted uncertainties realistic; if those corrections shift luminosities by a few tenths of a dex as a function of luminosity, the M3+ agreement could disappear and the missing high-luminosity progenitors would reappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future pre-imaged supernova progenitor analyses should adopt M3-or-later red supergiants as the reference population, because comparing against all red supergiants or M0+ stars creates an apparent deficit that is not statistically meaningful.
  • The typical spectral type of a Type II progenitor at core collapse is M3 or later, consistent with stars evolving redward as they approach explosion.
  • Single-band F814W luminosity estimates are not reliable enough to discriminate population differences; multi-band or near-infrared pre-imaging, or full SED fitting, is needed to test the red supergiant problem cleanly.
  • Metallicity weighting of comparison samples matters, because unweighted comparisons can produce apparent low-luminosity discrepancies that disappear when host-galaxy metallicities are matched.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these results hold, the persistence of the red supergiant problem in the literature owes as much to the choice of comparison population and the treatment of statistical errors as to any genuine astrophysics; re-analyses of older progenitor samples with an M3+ cut and full covariance propagation could remove the discrepancy without new data.
  • The paper stops short of claiming the high-luminosity end of the red supergiant luminosity function is metallicity independent, but its Table 1 shows similar maximum luminosities across M31, the Milky Way, M33, and the LMC; that pattern, if confirmed with completeness corrections, would strengthen the empirical case against strong metallicity dependence of the Humphreys-Davidson limit.
  • A testable extension is to collect pre-explosion multi-color or near-infrared photometry for a larger sample of Type II progenitors; the paper predicts confirmed M0 to M2 progenitors should be rare, so future detections of several early-M progenitors with well-measured luminosities would challenge the M3+ picture.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper re-assesses the red supergiant (RSG) problem by comparing the luminosity distributions of large RSG samples from the Milky Way, M31, M33, LMC, and SMC with the luminosity distributions of Type II supernova pre-imaged progenitors. The authors construct cumulative luminosity distributions (CLDs) for several spectral-type subpopulations (G0+, K0+, M0+, M3+), use metallicity-weighted averages of the Local Group RSGs to mimic the metallicity distribution of the SN progenitors, and compare these to two published bias-corrected progenitor luminosity functions (Davies & Beasor 2020a; Strotjohann et al. 2024). They find that the M3+ subsample matches the steepness of the pre-imaged progenitor distribution, and conclude that, once bolometric-correction and single-band uncertainties are accounted for, there is no statistically significant evidence of missing high-luminosity progenitors; the RSG problem is largely an artifact of these uncertainties.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper would reframe a long-standing controversy: the apparent deficit of luminous Type II progenitors would be attributed to bolometric-correction and single-band photometry uncertainties rather than to a genuine population mismatch. The analysis builds on a valuable new Milky Way RSG catalog (Healy et al. 2024), uses two independent Local Group RSG samples (Ren list and Massey list), and explicitly quantifies the discrepancies between NIR-derived, optical-derived, and SED-derived luminosities. The paper is also commendable for testing spectral-type subpopulations and for weighting the comparison by metallicity. However, the central statistical claim depends on several load-bearing modeling choices that need to be made more rigorous before the null result can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.5, Fig. 4, Table A.2] The luminosity-dependent deviation above the 1-to-1 line for M3+ RSGs in Fig. 4 is described as a widening dispersion and a 'slightly increased deviation' with luminosity, but it is not applied as a correction to the central values of the SN progenitor luminosities. The pre-imaged progenitors in Table A.2 are mostly F814W photometry with BC_I=0 from Davies & Beasor (2017), the same correction used for the M3+ points in Fig. 4. If this deviation is a systematic bias rather than pure scatter, the bright end of the progenitor CLD is overestimated, which would flatten the apparent distribution and make it appear closer to the steep M3+ RSG CLD in Fig. 7. The conclusion that there is no missing high-luminosity progenitor population therefore depends on treating a potentially systematic offset as an uncertainty. Please correct the central values for the documented trend, or provide a test demonstrating that the deviation is scatter, and propagate the resulting systematic uncertainty into the CLD comparison.
  2. [§3, §4.1, Fig. 7] The M3+ spectral-type cut is selected after observing that M3+ RSGs reproduce the steepness of the pre-imaged SN progenitor sample, and the same pre-imaged sample is then used to test agreement with the M3+ CLDs. This is a circular model-selection step: the agreement in Fig. 7 is partly guaranteed by the way the cut was chosen. The paper does offer independent evolutionary arguments for late spectral types (e.g., Davies & Beasor 2018; multi-color progenitors), but the quantitative significance of the 1-sigma agreement should be assessed without using the same data to both select and validate the M3+ cut. I recommend reporting significance levels for all spectral-type cuts (M0+, M1+, M2+, M3+) or performing an out-of-sample comparison, so the reader can see how much of the agreement is constructed by the cut choice.
  3. [§3, §3.3, Fig. 7] The text in Section 3 states 'For this, we do not consider the SMC' when determining which spectral-type subpopulation best replicates the progenitor luminosity distribution, citing the open issue of missing evolved stars in the SMC. However, the metallicity-weighted CLDs used in Fig. 7 are built using weighting factors derived from all four Local Group galaxies, including the SMC, as described in Section 3.3. This is inconsistent: if the SMC RSG population is considered unreliable for the spectral-type comparison, its inclusion in the weighted CLDs can bias the very comparison used to claim agreement. Please either justify the inclusion of the SMC with quantitative completeness and evolved-star checks, or exclude it from the weighted average and show the effect on the conclusions.
  4. [§3.3, §4.2, Fig. 7] The RSG CLDs are plotted as deterministic curves without uncertainty bands, whereas the progenitor corrections are shown with confidence intervals. The statement that the M3+ CLDs lie 'within the 1σ bounds' of the progenitor corrections is therefore not a complete statistical comparison: the uncertainty on the RSG side (due to sample completeness, distance, extinction, and NIR/I-band luminosity derivations) is not propagated into the CLDs. Without bootstrap or Monte Carlo uncertainties on the RSG CLDs, or a formal two-sample test that incorporates uncertainties on both distributions, the claim that there is 'no evidence of missing high-luminosity pre-imaged progenitors' is not fully quantified. Please provide uncertainty bands on the RSG CLDs or an equivalent statistical test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] Typographical error: 'agianst' should be 'against' in the caption of Fig. 7.
  2. [§4.3] In Section 4.3, 'then begin a contradiction' appears to be a typo; 'being' seems intended.
  3. [References] The reference list contains two entries for Davies & Beasor with identical journal, volume, and page numbers (MNRAS 474, 2116) but different years (2017 and 2018); one of these is likely mis-cited and should be corrected.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The phrase 'using the ordering method' is unclear; please define the ordering method explicitly or rephrase the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity (2/10): the core comparison is self-contained, using independent RSG catalogs and external bolometric corrections; the only mild self-referential loop is that the SN progenitor luminosities assume late-M spectral types before the M3+ population is 'confirmed' as representative.

  1. self definitional [Sec 2.5 (BC_I=0 assignment), Table A.2 (F814W BCs), Sec 4.1 (M3+ conclusion)]
    "However, both of the weighted CLDs of M3+ stars match within 3 σ across the entire range, and greater than a half is within 1 σ, suggesting that M3+ stars have a similar luminosity distribution to those of the pre-imaged detected SN progenitors. We conclude that the M3+ subsamples are representative of the true luminosity function of Type II progenitors."

    Most F814W progenitor luminosities in Table A.2 are computed with BC_I = 0, and Sec 2.5 identifies this as 'the M5+ bolometric correction built to represent the late-type RSGs.' For the many progenitors whose spectral type is only 'assumed M-type' or 'assumed RSG' (Table A.1), the late-M assumption is an input to the very luminosity distribution that is then compared. The statement that M3+ stars have a similar luminosity distribution to detected progenitors therefore partly restates the assumed late-M input rather than deriving it from the data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is essentially self-contained. The RSG CLDs are built from independent published catalogs (Ren et al. 2021; Yang et al. 2021, 2023; Massey et al. 2023), the SN progenitor luminosities come from literature pre-image photometry with bolometric corrections from Davies & Beasor (2017), and the comparison distributions use corrections from Beasor et al. (2024) and Strotjohann et al. (2024); none of these are fitted to the SN sample in this paper. The metallicity weighting of the RSG CLDs is set by the SN sample's host metallicities, but that is a population-matching step, not a fit, and no free parameter is tuned to force the agreement in Fig. 7. The self-citation to Healy et al. (2024) (the Milky Way RSG catalog) is not load-bearing: the weighted CLDs that carry the main conclusion are built from M31, M33, LMC, and SMC, and the M3+ steepening appears in all galaxies' independent samples. The one mild self-referential element is that most F814W progenitor luminosities are computed with the late-M bolometric correction, so the conclusion that M3+ RSGs represent the progenitor population partly reflects the late-M spectral-type assumption already built into those luminosities. This is only partial circularity because the steepness comparison is photometrically driven and the late-M assumption has independent support. The skeptic's concern, that the luminosity-dependent overestimate seen in Fig. 4 is treated as added uncertainty rather than a correction to central values, is a correctness and robustness issue about the bolometric-correction scale, not a circular derivation: the correction and its scatter come from an external LMC sample, not from the SN data. Overall circularity is therefore minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis does not introduce new physics entities. It stands on adopted external catalogs, temperature scales, bolometric corrections, and completeness assumptions. The two effective selection choices are the M3+ temperature cutoff and the adopted bolometric corrections; both condition the null result.

free parameters (2)
  • M3+ spectral-type temperature cutoffs = 3625 K (MW), 3545 K (LMC), 3605 K (M33), 3325 K (SMC) from Table 1
    The M3+ boundary defines the RSG subpopulation compared to supernova progenitors. It is adopted from literature effective-temperature scales but is effectively a selection parameter: the paper notes that only M3+ reproduces the pre-imaged steepness, so the central null result is conditional on this cut.
  • Bolometric corrections for F814W/I-band progenitor luminosity = BC_I = 0.9 for M0-M2; BC_I = 0 for M3+; additional corrections from Davies & Beasor 2017 and Beasor et al. 2024
    These adopted corrections directly set progenitor luminosities in Table A.2; they are not fit in this paper but are externally calibrated. The paper argues their uncertainties are large enough to erase the RSG problem, so the conclusion depends on the quoted uncertainties being realistic.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The adopted bolometric corrections (Davies & Beasor 2017; Beasor et al. 2024) accurately convert single-band F814W/I-band photometry to bolometric luminosity for SN progenitors.
    Invoked in Section 2.5 and used for Table A.2; the central claim that the RSG problem disappears depends on these corrections and their uncertainty estimates.
  • domain assumption The Local Group RSG catalogs (Ren et al. 2021; Massey et al. 2023; Yang et al. 2021, 2023) are statistically complete above the relevant luminosity limits, and the MW catalog from Healy et al. (2024) is usable despite incompleteness below log(L/Lsun)=4.6.
    Stated in Sections 2.1-2.2; if incompleteness in the faint or red end is significant, the shape of the CLDs and the apparent agreement with progenitors could change.
  • domain assumption The effective temperature scales for each galaxy (built from Levesque et al. 2005, 2006; Massey et al. 2009) correctly map spectral type to temperature for the M3+ classification.
    Used in Table 1 and Section 2.1 to define subpopulations; uncertainties are quoted as ~100 K, but systematic scale errors would shift the sample cuts.
  • domain assumption Metallicity estimates of SN host galaxies from nearby HII regions or host galaxy measurements trace the metallicities of the progenitor environments accurately enough for the weighting scheme.
    Used in Section 2.4 and Section 3.3 to weight the CLDs; some entries in Table A.1 are rough estimates, including one labeled 'no reliable estimation'.
  • domain assumption Type II SN progenitors are red supergiants that appear as RSGs in pre-explosion images, and MIST single-star tracks are a reasonable reference for context.
    Used throughout, especially in Fig. 1; binary stripping and other channels are mentioned but not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Red Supergiant Problem: As Seen from the Local Group's Red Supergiant Populations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXAQ3LU6

@misc{pith2026241204386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Red Supergiant Problem: As Seen from the Local Group's Red Supergiant Populations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXAQ3LU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04386}
}
read the original abstract

The red supergiant (RSG) problem, which describes the apparent lack of high-luminosity progenitors detected in Type II supernova (SN) pre-images, has been a contentious topic for two decades. We re-assess this problem using a new RSG population of the Milky Way supplemented with RSGs from other galaxies in the Local Group. In particular, we quantify the uncertainties inherent to assumptions made regarding the star's temperature or spectral type and the corresponding bolometric correction. We find that only M3 or later RSGs reproduce the steepness seen from the SN II pre-imaged sample. To assess the significance of the RSG problem, we build a metallicity-weighted cumulative luminosity distribution of M3 or later RSGs and directly compare it to the luminosity distribution of SN II pre-imaged progenitors. We find no evidence of missing high-luminosity pre-imaged progenitors since the uncertainties on the pre-imaged SN progenitors and single-band derived luminosity are too large to meaningfully infer population differences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hertzsprung-Russell diagram focused on the RSG branch region. Confirmed progenitors of Types II-L, II-P, and Ib SNe are shown in green, maroon, and blue, respectively. Plotted in the background as yellow diamonds and red stars are the location of Healy et al. (2024)’s Galactic RSG sample of spectral type K0 or later and M0 or later, respectively. Dash-dotted lines are MIST single star evolutionary tracks of Choi et … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Luminosity derived from NIR photometry using method from Neugent et al. (2020a) versus from observed SED from Wen et al. (2024). Additionally, Massey et al. (2023) (and references therein) used near-IR photometry to identify RSGs and best fits to MARCS stellar atmosphere models to de￾rive their effective temperatures and bolometric lumi￾nosities. As an update on previous work, a constant ex￾tinction based on spectra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative distribution functions for RSGs in the MW, M31, M33, LMC, and SMC, showing its progression as the sample restricted: groups G0+, K0+, and M3+ include all stars with spectral types later than ≥G0, ≥K0, and ≥M3, respectively. For each galaxy two independent samples are shown: Yang et al. (2021); Ren et al. (2021); Yang et al. (2023), (dotted) and Massey et al. (2023) (solid). duce varying maximum luminositi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Luminosity derived from optical I band photom￾etry versus from observed SED from Wen et al. (2024). The sample is broken into two groups based on the available bolo￾metric corrections denoted in the square boxes and colored to match the associated points. M3+ is shown …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative (top) and fractional (bottom) distributions of RSGs from MW, M31, M33, LMC, and SMC. The left shows all RSGs, while the right shows a sample limited to only objects with spectral type greater or equal to M3. The colormap shows the galaxy’s average metallicit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The luminosity functions of SNe progenitors from Table A.2 using the ordering method. Included are both de￾tections and upper limits, represented by black open circles and arrows, respectively. Strotjohann et al. (2024)’s RSG progenitor luminosity function (shades of g…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SN pre-imaged progenitors, with corrections applied, compared to the RSGs CLD averaged based on metallicity. Top panels show the Davies & Beasor (2020a) correction, while bottom panels show the Strotjohann et al. (2024) correction. Left panels show ≥M0 observed RSGs (d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Plasma Instabilities Dominate Radioactive Transients Magnetic Fields: The self-confinement of leptons in Type Ia and Core-Collapse Supernovae, and Kilonovae

    astro-ph.HE 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Streaming instabilities driven by decay leptons can self-generate magnetic fields in supernova and kilonova ejecta, offering a mechanism for confining positrons and electrons without strong pre-existing fields.

  2. Red Supergiant problem viewed from the nebular phase spectroscopy of type II supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Nebular [O I] spectroscopy of 50 Type II supernovae yields an upper progenitor luminosity cutoff around log L/Lsun = 5.2, supporting the red supergiant problem at the 2-3 sigma level.

  3. The failed failed-supernova scenario of M31-2014-DS1

    astro-ph.HE 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The failed-supernova scenario for M31-2014-DS1 is argued to be fine-tuned and over-luminous, favoring a type II intermediate-luminosity optical transient explanation.

  4. 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.

  5. Progenitor Insights of Type IIP SN 2018pq: A Comprehensive Photometric and Spectroscopic Study

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SN 2018pq is a normal-luminosity Type IIP supernova with a 97-day plateau, a 56Ni mass of 0.029 solar masses, and a red supergiant progenitor mass estimated at about 11 solar masses analytically and 14 to 16 solar mas...

  6. Red Supergiant Mass Loss and Mass-Loss Rates

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A synthesis review concluding that red supergiant mass loss is gravity-driven, metallicity-independent in rate, and bimodal, with low-mass stars keeping their mantles to core collapse and massive stars shedding them t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Constraints on pre-SN outbursts from the progenitor of SN 2023ixf using the large binocular telescope

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    R., Smith , N., & Jencson , J

    Beasor , E. R., Smith , N., & Jencson , J. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14027, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14027

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14027 2024

  5. [5]

    M., Schlafly , E

    Bovy , J., Rix , H.-W., Green , G. M., Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2016, , 818, 130, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/130

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/130 2016

  6. [6]

    Burrows , A., Hayes , J., & Fryxell , B. A. 1995, , 450, 830, 10.1086/176188

    doi:10.1086/176188 1995

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  8. [8]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1317, 10.1093/mnras/stac072

    Chen, B.-Q., Guo, H.-L., Gao, J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1317, 10.1093/mnras/stac072

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac072 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    J., Goldberg, J

    Cheng, S. J., Goldberg, J. A., Cantiello, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 270, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad701e

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  3. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2116, 10.1093/mnras/stx2734

    ---. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2116, 10.1093/mnras/stx2734

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    2020a, MNRAS, 493, 468, 10.1093/mnras/staa174

    ---. 2020a, MNRAS, 493, 468, 10.1093/mnras/staa174

    doi

  5. [14]

    A., & Beasor, E

    Davies, B., Crowther, P. A., & Beasor, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3138, 10.1093/mnras/sty1302

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    , Bonanos, A.Z

    de Wit, S. , Bonanos, A.Z. , Tramper, F. , et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243394

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    J., Fraser , M., Smartt , S

    Eldridge , J. J., Fraser , M., Smartt , S. J., Maund , J. R., & Crockett , R. M. 2013, , 436, 774, 10.1093/mnras/stt1612

    2013 doi

  8. [17]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 1884, 10.1093/mnras/stab383

    Gilkis, A., Shenar, T., Ramachandran, V., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 1884, 10.1093/mnras/stab383

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 279, 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  10. [19]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 3630, 10.1093/mnras/stae738

    Healy, S., Horiuchi, S., Colomer Molla, M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 3630, 10.1093/mnras/stae738

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    L., Woosley , S

    Heger , A., Fryer , C. L., Woosley , S. E., Langer , N., & Hartmann , D. H. 2003, , 591, 288, 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  12. [21]

    , & Vink, Jorick S

    Higgins, Erin R. , & Vink, Jorick S. 2020, A&A, 635, A175, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937374

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    2014, Mon

    Horiuchi, S., Nakamura, K., Takiwaki, T., Kotake, K., & Tanaka, M. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 445, L99, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu146

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    M., & Davidson , K

    Humphreys , R. M., & Davidson , K. 1979, , 232, 409, 10.1086/157301

    1979 doi

  15. [24]

    Irwin, M. J. 2013, in Thirty Years of Astronomical Discovery with UKIRT, ed. A. Adamson, J. Davies, & I. Robson (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 229--234

    2013

  16. [25]

    S., Beacom, J

    Kochanek, C. S., Beacom, J. F., Kistler, M. D., et al. 2008, Astrophys. J., 684, 1336, 10.1086/590053

    2008 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Massey, P., Olsen, K

    Levesque, E. M., Massey, P., Olsen, K. A. G., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 628, 973, 10.1086/430901

    2005 doi

  18. [27]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, 1102, 10.1086/504417

    ---. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, 1102, 10.1086/504417

    2006 doi

  19. [28]

    Massey, P., & Evans, K. A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 224, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/224

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    F., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., & Meynet, G

    Massey, P., Neugent, K. F., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., & Meynet, G. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca665

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    R., Levesque, E

    Massey, P., Silva, D. R., Levesque, E. M., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 420, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/420

    2009 doi

  22. [31]

    2000, , 119, 2214, 10.1086/301345

    Massey , P., Waterhouse , E., & DeGioia-Eastwood , K. 2000, , 119, 2214, 10.1086/301345

    2000 doi

  23. [32]

    R., Fraser, M., Reilly, E., Ergon, M., & Mattila, S

    Maund, J. R., Fraser, M., Reilly, E., Ergon, M., & Mattila, S. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3207, 10.1093/mnras/stu2658

    2015 doi

  24. [33]

    R., Smartt , S

    Maund , J. R., Smartt , S. J., Kudritzki , R. P., Podsiadlowski , P., & Gilmore , G. F. 2004, , 427, 129, 10.1038/nature02161

    2004 doi

  25. [34]

    McDonald, S. L. E., Davies, B., & Beasor, E. R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3132, 10.1093/mnras/stab3453

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    2013, EAS Publications Series, 60, 279–285, 10.1051/eas/1360032

    Negueruela, I., González-Fernández, C., Dorda, R., Marco, A., & Clark, J. 2013, EAS Publications Series, 60, 279–285, 10.1051/eas/1360032

    2013

  27. [36]

    F., Levesque, E

    Neugent, K. F., Levesque, E. M., Massey, P., Morrell, N. I., & Drout, M. R. 2020a, ApJ, 900, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ababaa

    doi

  28. [37]

    F., Massey, P., Georgy, C., et al

    Neugent, K. F., Massey, P., Georgy, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5ba0

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    Neustadt , J. M. M., Kochanek , C. S., & Smith , M. R. 2024, , 527, 5366, 10.1093/mnras/stad3073

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    C., & Hsu , J

    Podsiadlowski , P., Joss , P. C., & Hsu , J. J. L. 1992, , 391, 246, 10.1086/171341

    1992 doi

  31. [40]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcda5

    Ren, Y., Jiang, B., Yang, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcda5

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163, 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  33. [42]

    Smartt, S. J. 2015, PASA, 32, e016, 10.1017/pasa.2015.17

    2015 doi

  34. [43]

    J., Eldridge, J

    Smartt, S. J., Eldridge, J. J., Crockett, R. M., & Maund, J. R. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1409, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14506.x

    2009

  35. [44]

    2014, , 52, 487, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith , N. 2014, , 52, 487, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    H., & Ryde , N

    Smith , N., Hinkle , K. H., & Ryde , N. 2009, , 137, 3558, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/3/3558

    2009 doi

  37. [46]

    V., & Chornock , R

    Smith , N., Li , W., Filippenko , A. V., & Chornock , R. 2011, , 412, 1522, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x

    2011

  38. [47]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 964, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3064

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    D., Srinivasan , S., Andrews , J

    Van Dyk , S. D., Srinivasan , S., Andrews , J. E., et al. 2024, , 968, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad414b

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 51, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad12bf

    Wen, J., Gao, J., Yang, M., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 51, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad12bf

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219514, 10.1007/s11433-023-2267-0

    Xiang , D., Mo , J., Wang , L., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219514, 10.1007/s11433-023-2267-0

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    Z., Jiang , B., et al

    Yang , M., Bonanos , A. Z., Jiang , B., et al. 2021, , 646, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039475

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    2023, , 676, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244770

    ---. 2023, , 676, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244770

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    E., Dyk, S

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Dyk, S. D. V., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7467

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    B., & Grebel , E

    Zaritsky , D., Harris , J., Thompson , I. B., & Grebel , E. K. 2004, , 128, 1606, 10.1086/423910

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.