pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.07080 · v3 · submitted 2025-09-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

The first radio view of a type Ibn supernova in SN 2023fyq: Understanding the mass-loss history in the last decade before the explosion

Raphael Baer-Way , A.J. Nayana , Wynn Jacobson-Galan , Poonam Chandra , Maryam Modjaz , Samantha C.Wu , Daichi Tsuna , Raffaella Margutti
show 8 more authors
Ryan Chornock Craig Pellegrino Yize Dong Maria R. Drout Charles D. Kilpatrick Dan Milisavljevic Daniel Patnaude Candice Stauffer
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 17:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords Type Ibn supernovaradio emissioncircumstellar materialmass lossSN 2023fyqsynchrotronfree-free absorptionstellar merger
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radio observations of SN 2023fyq detect dense circumstellar material ejected 0.7 to 3 years before explosion.

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

The paper presents the first radio detection of a Type Ibn supernova, SN 2023fyq. It models the emission between 58 and 185 days as synchrotron radiation from the forward shock, absorbed by free-free processes in a dense helium-rich circumstellar medium. This yields a mass-loss rate of roughly 4 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year at radii around 10 to the 16 cm. Late-time non-detections at 525 days imply a drop in density at larger radii, pointing to a finite shell rather than a steady wind. The timing and density match pre-explosion optical outbursts and favor a stellar merger origin for the material.

Core claim

The radio light curve of SN 2023fyq is produced by synchrotron emission from the supernova shock interacting with a circumstellar shell of density about 10 to the minus 18 grams per cubic centimeter at 10 to the 16 centimeters. This corresponds to a mass-loss rate of 4 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year for a 1700 km/s wind between 0.7 and 3 years before explosion. Non-detections at later times and in X-rays require lower density beyond 2 times 10 to the 16 centimeters, consistent with a shell-like structure whose properties align with merger-driven mass loss.

What carries the argument

Synchrotron radiation attenuated by free-free absorption in a wind or shell-like circumstellar medium whose density is fitted to the radio light curve.

If this is right

  • Mass loss at the inferred rate occurred in the same 0.7-to-3-year window as the pre-explosion optical outbursts.
  • The circumstellar material forms a shell extending from roughly 4 times 10 to the 15 to 2 times 10 to the 16 centimeters rather than extending indefinitely as a steady wind.
  • The shell density and extent are roughly consistent with numerical predictions for a binary merger progenitor.
  • Similar radio monitoring of additional Type Ibn events can map the radial extent and total mass of their helium-rich envelopes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the shell is merger ejecta, then the same progenitor channel may operate in other stripped-envelope supernovae that show brief pre-explosion activity.
  • Multi-frequency radio campaigns starting within weeks of explosion could resolve whether the inner boundary of the shell is sharply defined or smoothed by earlier winds.
  • X-ray and radio non-detections together already limit any ongoing wind beyond the shell; continued monitoring would tighten the upper bound on residual mass loss.

Load-bearing premise

The observed radio light curve arises from a spherically symmetric circumstellar medium whose density can be described by a steady wind or finite shell, with the wind speed measured in optical spectra applying at radio-emitting radii.

What would settle it

A radio detection at 525 days or later with flux above the reported upper limits would require either higher density at large radii or a different absorption mechanism, falsifying the finite shell interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07080 by A.J. Nayana, Candice Stauffer, Charles D. Kilpatrick, Craig Pellegrino, Daichi Tsuna, Daniel Patnaude, Dan Milisavljevic, Maria R. Drout, Maryam Modjaz, Poonam Chandra, Raffaella Margutti, Raphael Baer-Way, Ryan Chornock, Samantha C.Wu, Wynn Jacobson-Galan, Yize Dong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radio SEDs of SN 2023fyq at VLA frequencies (3–35 GHz) spanning 58–525 days post explosion. We show the best-fit extrapolated single-epoch FFA models for each epoch as described in section 3. Downward-facing triangles denote 3σ flux density upper limits. The parameters for these fits are in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The unabsorbed X-ray light curves of detected SNe Ibn, along with the non-detections of SN 2023fyq. Swift Data on SN 2006jc, SN 2010al and SN 2022ablq are from Immler et al. (2008); Ofek et al. (2013); Pellegrino et al. (2024). Downward triangles represent 3σ upper limits from Chandra and Swift for SN 2023fyq. Deeper, earlier observa￾tions would be vital to constrain the subclass better at X-ray wavelength… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radio SEDs of SN 2023fyq at ∆t ≈ 58 − 525 days. Downward triangles represent 3σ flux density upper limits. Solid black lines denote the overall SSA+ external FFA model we derive self-consistently (see section 3.1). Solid green lines denote the intrinsic SSA model using the calculated Fp/νp from equation 5. The values of the best-fit parameters are displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mass-loss picture of SN 2023fyq that we derive based on our radio modeling. Lef t : Derived effective mass-loss rate as a function of days after explosion, as well as years before explosion, assuming the observed CSM speed of 1700 km/s. We denote the period over which optical precursor emission (at S/N>3) was detected (Brennan et al. 2024) to illustrate how the precursor outbursts may have been creatin… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The peak spectral luminosity vs. peak time for SN 2023fyq (taken at 10 GHz) in context with a variety of other radio-detected SNe (Nayana et al. (2025) and refer￾ences therein). The speeds noted on diagonal lines are shock velocities for pure SSA. 2023fyq is distinct from most other stripped-envelope SNe, likely due to denser CSM, but does not reach the peak spectral luminosity of many SNe IIn. 5. CONCLUSI… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A view of all previous radio-observed type Ibn SNe and the upper limits on luminosities, including 10 GHz detections and non-detections for SN 2023fyq. Non￾detections are shown with downward-facing triangles, and are all 3σ limits. SNe 2006jc, 2019qav, 2019aajs and 2020bgq were observed quite early and thus their radio evolution could still be consistent with SN 2023fyq, but SN 2015G clearly shows upper li… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Supernovae that interact with hydrogen-poor, helium-rich circumstellar material (CSM), known as Type Ibn supernovae (SNe Ibn), present a unique opportunity to probe mass-loss processes in massive stars. In this work, we report the first radio detection of a SN Ibn, SN 2023fyq, and characterize the mass-loss history of its stellar progenitor using the radio and X-ray observations obtained over 18 months post-explosion. We find that the radio emission from 58--185 days is best modeled by synchrotron radiation attenuated by free-free absorption from a CSM of density $\sim$ $10^{-18}$ g/$\rm{cm^{3}}$ ($\sim 10^{6} \mathrm{\rho_{ISM}}$) at a radius of $10^{16}$ cm, corresponding to a mass-loss rate of $\sim$ $4 \times 10^{-3} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot} \ yr^{-1}}$ (for a wind velocity of 1700 km/s from optical spectroscopy) from 0.7 to 3 years before the explosion. This timescale is consistent with the time frame over which pre-explosion optical outbursts were observed. However, our late-time observations at 525 days post-explosion yield non-detections, and the 3$\sigma$ upper limits (along with an X-ray non-detection) allow us to infer lower-density CSM at $2\times 10^{16}$ cm with $\rm{\dot{M}}$ $< 2.5\times 10^{-3} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot} \ yr^{-1}}$. These results suggest a shell-like CSM from at most $4 \times 10^{15}$ to $2 \times 10^{16}$ cm ($\sim 10^{5} R_{\rm{\odot}}$) with an elevated CSM density (0.004 $\mathrm{M_{\odot} \ yr^{-1}}$) that is roughly consistent with predictions from a merger model for this object. Future radio observations of a larger sample of SNe Ibn will provide key details on the extent and density of their helium-rich CSM.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first radio detection of the Type Ibn supernova SN 2023fyq. Radio observations from 58 to 185 days post-explosion are modeled as synchrotron emission attenuated by free-free absorption in a CSM with density ~10^{-18} g cm^{-3} at a radius of 10^{16} cm. This yields a mass-loss rate of ~4 x 10^{-3} M_sun yr^{-1} (assuming v_wind = 1700 km/s from optical spectra) over 0.7-3 years pre-explosion. Late-time non-detections at 525 days, combined with an X-ray non-detection, imply lower CSM density at ~2 x 10^{16} cm with Mdot < 2.5 x 10^{-3} M_sun yr^{-1}, suggesting a shell-like structure consistent with a merger origin.

Significance. If the modeling is robust, this provides the first radio-derived constraints on the mass-loss history of a SN Ibn progenitor in the years before explosion. The inferred dense, shell-like CSM and elevated mass-loss rate offer quantitative support for merger-driven scenarios and demonstrate the diagnostic power of radio observations for probing pre-explosion outbursts in helium-rich environments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Radio modeling and mass-loss derivation (abstract and associated sections)] The conversion of fitted CSM density to mass-loss rate uses Mdot = 4 pi r^2 rho v_wind with v_wind = 1700 km/s taken from optical spectroscopy. For the shell-like CSM structure proposed in the paper (from a merger or outburst), the ejection velocity at radio radii (~10^{16} cm) could be substantially lower, which would scale the inferred Mdot proportionally and weaken the claimed consistency with merger models. This assumption is load-bearing for the quantitative central claim and the interpretation of late-time upper limits.
  2. [Late-time observations and upper-limit analysis] The 3 sigma upper limits from the 525-day non-detection are used to infer a density drop and Mdot < 2.5 x 10^{-3} M_sun yr^{-1} at 2 x 10^{16} cm. The manuscript should explicitly detail the statistical procedure for these limits, including how uncertainties in synchrotron parameters, free-free absorption, and possible deviations from spherical symmetry are propagated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and text use slightly inconsistent notation for density units (g/cm^3 vs g cm^{-3}); standardize for clarity.
  2. [Observations section] Add a brief description of the radio data reduction, calibration, and any systematic checks performed, to support reproducibility of the light-curve points used in the fit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have prompted us to clarify key aspects of our analysis. Below we respond point by point to the major comments. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional discussion and methodological details where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Radio modeling and mass-loss derivation (abstract and associated sections)] The conversion of fitted CSM density to mass-loss rate uses Mdot = 4 pi r^2 rho v_wind with v_wind = 1700 km/s taken from optical spectroscopy. For the shell-like CSM structure proposed in the paper (from a merger or outburst), the ejection velocity at radio radii (~10^{16} cm) could be substantially lower, which would scale the inferred Mdot proportionally and weaken the claimed consistency with merger models. This assumption is load-bearing for the quantitative central claim and the interpretation of late-time upper limits.

    Authors: The 1700 km/s value is taken directly from the narrow-line velocities measured in the optical spectra, which trace the kinematics of the CSM at the radii where the supernova shock is interacting. For a discrete shell ejected during a pre-explosion outburst, this velocity corresponds to the shell's expansion speed, and the radio-emitting region at ~10^{16} cm is consistent with the time since ejection when this speed is adopted. We acknowledge that a lower ejection velocity would proportionally reduce the derived Mdot and shift the inferred ejection epoch earlier. In the revised manuscript we add an explicit paragraph discussing the velocity uncertainty, the range of plausible values consistent with both optical data and merger models, and the resulting factor-of-a-few uncertainty on Mdot. The central conclusion of a dense, shell-like CSM remains unchanged, but the quantitative comparison to merger predictions is now presented with this caveat. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Late-time observations and upper-limit analysis] The 3 sigma upper limits from the 525-day non-detection are used to infer a density drop and Mdot < 2.5 x 10^{-3} M_sun yr^{-1} at 2 x 10^{16} cm. The manuscript should explicitly detail the statistical procedure for these limits, including how uncertainties in synchrotron parameters, free-free absorption, and possible deviations from spherical symmetry are propagated.

    Authors: We agree that the statistical basis for the late-time upper limits should be stated more explicitly. In the revised manuscript we expand the relevant methods and results section to describe: (i) the 3σ flux upper-limit calculation from the non-detection, (ii) the forward-modeling approach used to convert this limit into a CSM density constraint while marginalizing over the synchrotron spectral index and normalization within their posterior ranges, and (iii) the treatment of free-free absorption optical depth. We also add a short paragraph noting that deviations from spherical symmetry would primarily affect the absolute normalization rather than the relative density drop between the early and late epochs. The combined radio and X-ray non-detections still robustly indicate a lower-density region beyond ~2×10^{16} cm. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: mass-loss rate uses independent optical velocity

full rationale

The paper fits CSM density from synchrotron plus free-free absorption modeling of the radio light curve at 58-185 days, then computes mass-loss rate via the standard relation Mdot = 4 pi r^2 rho v_wind using v_wind = 1700 km/s measured independently from optical spectra. This is a direct application of an external measurement rather than a self-definition, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. Late-time upper limits are interpreted as a density drop without reducing to the same inputs by construction. The central claim remains independent of its own fitted values and does not invoke author-specific uniqueness theorems or smuggled ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard radio-supernova emission models and a small number of fitted parameters; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • CSM density at 10^16 cm = ~10^{-18} g cm^{-3}
    Fitted to match the observed radio flux and absorption in the synchrotron model.
  • Mass-loss rate = ~4 x 10^{-3} M_sun yr^{-1}
    Derived from the fitted density using the adopted wind velocity.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Radio emission arises from synchrotron radiation produced by electrons accelerated at the supernova shock front.
    Standard assumption in radio studies of interacting supernovae.
  • domain assumption Free-free absorption is the dominant mechanism attenuating the radio emission at early times.
    Used to model the time-dependent radio light curve shape.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6027 in / 1791 out tokens · 68657 ms · 2026-05-18T17:37:48.383234+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.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    radio emission ... best modeled by synchrotron radiation attenuated by free-free absorption from a CSM of density ~10^{-18} g cm^{-3} ... mass-loss rate of ~4 x 10^{-3} M_sun yr^{-1} (for v_wind = 1700 km/s)

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 14 T able 2.The radio dataset obtained of SN 2023fyq. Telescope D...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  2. [2]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

    Baer-Way, R., Chandra, P., Modjaz, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a 2025

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9 2021

  4. [4]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv566

    Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Li, W., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv566

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv566 2015

  5. [5]

    J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449350

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449350 2024

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Brethauer, D., Margutti, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14 2022

  7. [7]

    2018, SSRv, 214, 27, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0461-6

    Chandra, P. 2018, SSRv, 214, 27, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0461-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0461-6 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Chugai, N., Milisavljevic, D., & Fransson, C

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Chugai, N., Milisavljevic, D., & Fransson, C. 2020, ApJ, 902, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb460

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb460 2020

  9. [9]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 302, doi: 10.1086/160167 —. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676

    work page doi:10.1086/160167 1982

  10. [11]

    1986, ARA&A, 24, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.24.090186.001553

    Chiosi, C., & Maeder, A. 1986, ARA&A, 24, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.24.090186.001553

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.24.090186.001553 1986

  11. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    Dong, Y., Tsuna, D., Valenti, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6 2024

  12. [13]

    Dwarkadas, V. V. 2025, Universe, 11, 161, doi: 10.3390/universe11050161

    work page doi:10.3390/universe11050161 2025

  13. [14]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2253

    Elias-Rosa, N., Pastorello, A., Benetti, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2253

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2253 2016

  14. [15]

    J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al

    Foley, R. J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 657, L105, doi: 10.1086/513145

    work page doi:10.1086/513145 2007

  15. [16]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  16. [17]

    Fransson, C., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 461, 993, doi: 10.1086/177119

    work page doi:10.1086/177119 1996

  17. [18]

    and Allen, Glenn E

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  18. [19]

    , keywords =

    Gagliano, A., Berger, E., Villar, V. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9748 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9748 2025

  19. [21]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hiramatsu, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328 2020

  20. [22]

    M., Zoghbi, A., et al

    Gediman, B., Miller, J. M., Zoghbi, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2fa3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2fa3 2024

  21. [23]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  22. [24]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4c

    Gupta, S., Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2024, ApJ, 976, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4c G¨ uver, T., &¨Ozel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4c 2024

  23. [25]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc533 2023

  24. [26]

    I., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Arcavi, I., Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158 2017

  25. [27]

    2008, ApJL, 674, L85, doi: 10.1086/529373 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W

    Immler, S., Modjaz, M., Landsman, W., et al. 2008, ApJL, 674, L85, doi: 10.1086/529373 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Jones, D. O., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f3a Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Davis, K. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a2a

    work page doi:10.1086/529373 2008

  26. [28]

    Kale, R., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 95, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6 2021

  27. [29]

    B., Modjaz, M., et al

    Khakpash, S., Bianco, F. B., Modjaz, M., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad7eaa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad7eaa 2024

  28. [30]

    C., Karamehmetoglu, E., Sollerman, J., et al

    Kool, E. C., Karamehmetoglu, E., Sollerman, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039137

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039137 2021

  29. [31]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534 2012

  30. [32]

    1991, ApJ, 380, 575, doi: 10.1086/170615

    Lundqvist, P., & Fransson, C. 1991, ApJ, 380, 575, doi: 10.1086/170615

    work page doi:10.1086/170615 1991

  31. [33]

    Maeda, K., & Moriya, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672 2022

  32. [34]

    K., et al

    Maeda, K., Nozawa, T., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/5

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/5 2013

  33. [35]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    Margutti, R., Kamble, A., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140 2017

  34. [36]

    V., Chornock, R., Leonard, D

    Matheson, T., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., Leonard, D. C., & Li, W. 2000, AJ, 119, 2303, doi: 10.1086/301352

    work page doi:10.1086/301352 2000

  35. [37]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    work page 2007

  36. [38]

    P., & Arcavi, I

    Modjaz, M., Guti´ errez, C. P., & Arcavi, I. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 717, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0856-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0856-2 2019

  37. [39]

    J., & Maeda, K

    Moriya, T. J., & Maeda, K. 2016, ApJ, 824, 100, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/100 16 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/100 2016

  38. [40]

    J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al

    Nayana, A. J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc2fb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc2fb 2025

  39. [41]

    O., Sullivan, M., Cenko, S

    Ofek, E. O., Sullivan, M., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2013, Nature, 494, 65, doi: 10.1038/nature11877

    work page doi:10.1038/nature11877 2013

  40. [42]

    O., Sullivan, M., Shaviv, N

    Ofek, E. O., Sullivan, M., Shaviv, N. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/104 2014

  41. [43]

    Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes in galactic and extragalactic sources

    work page 1970

  42. [44]

    2015, PhRvL, 114, 085003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    Park, J., Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 085003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.085003 2015

  43. [45]

    V., & Aharonian, F

    Pastorello, A., Mattila, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13602.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13602.x 2008

  44. [46]

    , keywords =

    Pastorello, A., Botticella, M. T., Trundle, C., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17142.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17142.x 2010

  45. [47]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/1

    Pastorello, A., Cappellaro, E., Inserra, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/1 2013

  46. [48]

    F., Ciabattari, F., et al

    Pastorello, A., Wang, X. F., Ciabattari, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2634

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2634 2016

  47. [49]

    A., Vink´ o, J., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63 2022

  48. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bc5

    Pellegrino, C., Modjaz, M., Takei, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bc5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bc5 2024

  49. [51]

    A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98 2020

  50. [52]

    S., & Najarro, F

    Puls, J., Vink, J. S., & Najarro, F. 2008, A&A Rv, 16, 209, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0015-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-008-0015-8 2008

  51. [53]

    2020, A&A, 640, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037710

    Renzo, M., Farmer, R., Justham, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037710

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037710 2020

  52. [54]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    work page 1979

  53. [55]

    E., Soderberg, A

    Sanders, N. E., Soderberg, A. M., Foley, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/39 2013

  54. [56]

    J., Fischer, T

    Sargent, A. J., Fischer, T. C., Johnson, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11d4 Schrøder, S. L., MacLeod, M., Loeb, A., Vigna-G´ omez, A., & Mandel, I. 2020, ApJ, 892, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7014

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad11d4 2024

  55. [57]

    2017, Handbook of Supernovae,

    Shivvers, I., Zheng, W., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1885

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1885 2017

  56. [58]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 2014

  57. [59]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith, N. 2017, Interacting Supernovae: Types IIn and Ibn (Springer International Publishing), 403–429, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 38

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 2017

  58. [60]

    J., & Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Foley, R. J., & Filippenko, A. V. 2008, ApJ, 680, 568, doi: 10.1086/587860

    work page doi:10.1086/587860 2008

  59. [61]

    M., Chornock, R., et al

    Smith, N., Silverman, J. M., Chornock, R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1334, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1334

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1334 2009

  60. [62]

    2006, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 917, 1

    Soderberg, A. 2006, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 917, 1

    work page 2006

  61. [63]

    Frail, D. A. 2006, ApJ, 651, 1005, doi: 10.1086/507571

    work page doi:10.1086/507571 2006

  62. [64]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd032

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd032 2021

  63. [65]

    2008, ApJ, 687, 1208, doi: 10.1086/591782

    Tominaga, N., Limongi, M., Suzuki, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1208, doi: 10.1086/591782

    work page doi:10.1086/591782 2008

  64. [66]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21116

    Tsuna, D., Fuller, J., & Lu, W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21116

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.21116 2025

  65. [67]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tsuna, D., Wu, S. C., Fuller, J., Dong, Y., & Piro, A. L. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 82, doi: 10.33232/001c.123897

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.123897 2024

  66. [68]

    , keywords =

    Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., Montes, M. J., & Sramek, R. A. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 387, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093744

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093744 2002

  67. [69]

    , keywords =

    Weiler, K. W., Sramek, R. A., Panagia, N., van der Hulst, J. M., & Salvati, M. 1986, ApJ, 301, 790, doi: 10.1086/163944

    work page doi:10.1086/163944 1986

  68. [70]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 2017

  69. [71]

    E., Langer, N., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Weaver, T. A. 1993, ApJ, 411, 823, doi: 10.1086/172886

    work page doi:10.1086/172886 1993

  70. [72]

    C., & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. C., & Fuller, J. 2022, ApJL, 940, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b3d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b3d 2022

  71. [73]

    C., & Tsuna, D

    Wu, S. C., & Tsuna, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.19613, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.19613

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19613 2025