pith. machine review for the scientific record.
sign in

arxiv: 2512.03716 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

The broad-lined type Ic supernova 2020lao experienced an energetic explosion with no central-engine signatures

M. D. Stritzinger (Aarhus) , T. J. Moriya , S. Bose , P. A. Mazzali , P. Lundqvist , E. Karamehmetoglu , L. S. Arndt , C. Ashall
show 13 more authors
L. Galbany W. B. Hoogendam E. Baron J. M. DerKacy N. Elias-Rosa E. Y. Hsiao P. H\"oflich E. Pian E. A. M. Jensen S. Moran A. Pastorello M. Shahbandeh G. Valerin
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 02:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords supernova 2020laobroad-lined type Ickinetic energycentral enginerelativistic jetWolf-Rayet progenitorlight curve modelingmultiwavelength observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

SN 2020lao reached specific kinetic energy typical of engine-driven supernovae yet showed no central-engine signatures.

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

The paper reports detailed early observations of the broad-lined type Ic supernova SN 2020lao, including spectroscopy starting 48 hours after explosion. Light-curve modeling and velocity measurements yield a nickel mass of 0.2 solar masses, an ejecta mass of 3.2 solar masses, and a kinetic energy near 23 times 10 to the 51st erg, producing a specific kinetic energy of roughly 7 times 10 to the 51st erg per solar mass. Despite these values matching those seen in events powered by central engines, the light curve lacks any optical excess and there are no radio or X-ray detections. This combination leads to the inference that any relativistic jet either failed to emerge or was viewed far from the line of sight, or that the supernova represents an extreme non-relativistic case.

Core claim

SN 2020lao is a SN Ic-BL whose spectra and light curves imply a specific kinetic energy of 5 to 7 times 10 to the 51st erg per solar mass, comparable to engine-driven events, yet it exhibits no optical afterglow and no radio or X-ray emission. The progenitor radius is tightly limited to less than a few solar radii by the absence of shock-cooling emission. Given the high energetics, the non-detections indicate that any launched relativistic jet was either viewed far off axis or choked inside the star; if no jet formed, SN 2020lao is simply an extreme nonrelativistic Ic-BL.

What carries the argument

Arnett-type fits to the bolometric light curve combined with Fe II velocity measurements to derive nickel mass, ejecta mass, and kinetic energy, set against the absence of afterglow in optical, radio, and X-ray data.

If this is right

  • The progenitor was a compact Wolf-Rayet-like star with radius less than a few solar radii.
  • Any relativistic jet, if launched, produced no detectable afterglow, consistent with either an off-axis view or a choked jet.
  • SN 2020lao synthesized a similar nickel mass to SN 2006aj but reached five to ten times higher specific kinetic energy.
  • Limits are set on the presence of relativistic ejecta and dense circumstellar material around the explosion site.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • High specific kinetic energy in broad-lined type Ic supernovae does not by itself require a successful central engine or relativistic jet.
  • A larger sample of early-observed Ic-BL events could reveal how often jets form but fail to break out.
  • Refined three-dimensional explosion models might reduce uncertainties in the derived kinetic energies for events like this one.

Load-bearing premise

That Arnett-model fits to the light curve and Fe II velocities give accurate ejecta mass and kinetic energy without large systematic errors from asphericity or mixing.

What would settle it

Deeper radio or X-ray observations that detect emission above the current upper limits would indicate relativistic ejecta or dense circumstellar material and thereby challenge the conclusion that no central-engine signatures are present.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.03716 by A. Pastorello, C. Ashall, E. A. M. Jensen, E. Baron, E. Karamehmetoglu, E. Pian, E. Y. Hsiao, G. Valerin, J. M. DerKacy, L. Galbany, L. S. Arndt, M. D. Stritzinger (Aarhus), M. Shahbandeh, N. Elias-Rosa, P. A. Mazzali, P. H\"oflich, P. Lundqvist, S. Bose, S. Moran, T. J. Moriya, W. B. Hoogendam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An r-band image from the Nordic Optical Telescope showing the position of SN 2020lao within its host galaxy, CGCG 169-041. ΩΛ = 0.73 (Komatsu et al. 2009), and H0 = 73.30 ± 1.04 km s−1 Mpc−1 (Riess et al. 2022), this adjusted redshift corre￾sponds to the adopted luminosity distance of 132.7 ± 9.3 Mpc, or µ = 35.61 ± 0.15 mag. The Milky Way (MW) reddening in the direction of SN 2020lao is E(B−V)MW = 0.044 m… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The optical BgVri-band light curves of SN 2020lao, corrected for reddening and vertically offset by arbitrary constants for clarity. The previous ATLAS o-band non-detection limit (orange triangle) obtained −0.34 days prior to texp (vertical dashed line), is plotted alongside the r-band light curve. Additionally, ZTF non-detection limits are included. Segments at the top mark the phases when optical (black)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spectroscopic observations of SN 2020lao. Top: NIR +21.5 days spectrum of SN 2020lao. Left: Selected optical spectra of SN 2020lao, corrected for Milky Way reddening and overplotted with a smoothed version. Regions affected by three prevalent telluric features are indicated with vertical gray bands and labeled with Earth symbols. The locations of the absorption minima used to infer the expansion velocities… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: Binned TESS light curve adopting a bin size of two hours and plotted vs. phase relative to JD 2458900. Over-plotted is our best-fit power law. Bottom panel: The 2-D probability density of MCMC sample between the fit parameters – time of explosion, texp, and power-law index, α. The contours correspond to 68% and 95% confi￾dence intervals. The solid intersecting black lines indicate the mean of th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Milky Way reddening-corrected apparent colors of SN 2020lao (filled points) are derived from Gaussian Process (GP) interpolations of the observed light curves. Solid lines represent intrinsic SN Ic color￾curve templates (Stritzinger et al. 2018), while open points show the corrected color curves after adjusting for the average offset between the apparent colors and the templates. The colors of SN 2020lao i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Arnett (1982) model fit to the bolometric light curve of SN 2020lao constructed by integrating blackbody functions matched to the observed spectral energy distributions (SEDs). Explosion param￾eters derived from the fit, with EK inferred from the EK/Mej relation of Wheeler et al. (2015), are provided in the figure. 5. Discussion 5.1. Estimating explosion parameters of SN 2020lao 5.1.1. Bolometric light cur… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Synthetic spectra from a model with Me j = 3.5M⊙ and EK = 17×1051 erg compared to observed spectra of SN 2020lao at +8.1 (top), +11.8 (middle), and +13.4 days (bottom) past explosion. including the number of lines. A flatter density distribution (ρ(v)) leads to broader lines, and therefore a lower value of n. The value of n can also change with time as the line-forming region re￾cedes to inner layers of th… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observed upper limits at 5.2 GHz (+13 days, black) and at 5.5 GHz (+141 days, red), together with modeled light-curves for two mass-loss rates: M˙ = 6.1 × 10−7 M⊙ yr−1 (solid lines) and M˙ = 6.2 × 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 (dashed lines). t ≳ 7 − 8 days at 5 GHz (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The absolute r-band magnitude light curve of SN 2020lao is shown in comparison with several well-studied SNe Ic BL. These include the R/r-band light curves of GRB980425/SN 1998bw (A MW R = 0.12 mag, µ = 32.9 mag; Clocchiatti et al. 2011), XRF060218/SN 2006aj (A tot R = 0.04 mag, µ = 35.7 mag; Ferrero et al. 2006), and SN 2020bvc (A MW r = 0.08 mag, µ = 35.4 mag), which also exhibited prominent early exces… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present infant-phase observations of the SN Ic-BL 2020lao, including optical spectroscopy beginning 48 hrs after explosion. The explosion time was constrained by power-law fits to the rising TESS and ZTF light curves, with the first ZTF detection occurring 27 hrs after explosion. The optical light curves show a rapid rise lasting 8.8 days and a peak luminosity typical of SNe Ic-BL (Mr=-18.5 mag). Unlike some engine-driven SN Ic-BL events, the light curve of SN 2020lao shows no evidence of an optical afterglow or excess emission, and the absence of shock-cooling in the TESS and ZTF data constrains the progenitor to a Wolf-Rayet-like star with radius less than a few times the solar radius, ruling out any extended envelope. The spectra resemble those of the X-ray-flash-associated SN 2006aj but with higher expansion velocities. From Arnett-type fits to the bolometric light curve and measured FeII velocities, we infer a Ni mass of 0.2 solar masses, an ejecta mass of 3.2 solar masses, and a kinetic energy of about 23x10^51 erg, corresponding to a specific kinetic energy of 7x10^51 erg per solar mass. Spectral synthesis modeling broadly reproduces the photospheric spectra of SN 2020lao and suggests a specific kinetic energy of 5x10^51 erg per solar mass. SN 2020lao and SN 2006aj synthesized comparable amounts of Ni, yet SN 2020lao exhibits specific kinetic energy values 5-10 times larger. VLA and Swift/XRT non-detections reveal no afterglow emission, allowing limits on relativistic ejecta and dense circumstellar material. Given that SN 2020lao reaches a specific kinetic energy typical of engine-driven SNe Ic-BL, the lack of an optical excess with the non-detections in the radio and X-ray bands suggests that if a relativistic jet was launched, it was either viewed far off axis or choked before breakout. If there was no relativistic jet, SN 2020lao would be an extreme nonrelativistic SN Ic-BL.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents early-time observations of the broad-lined Type Ic supernova SN 2020lao using TESS, ZTF photometry, and spectroscopy starting ~48 hours after explosion. Explosion time is tightly constrained via power-law fits to the rising light curves. The event shows a rapid rise to a typical Ic-BL peak luminosity with no optical excess or afterglow, no shock-cooling signature (implying a compact Wolf-Rayet progenitor), and spectra similar to SN 2006aj but with higher velocities. Arnett-type modeling of the bolometric light curve combined with Fe II velocities yields M_Ni ≈ 0.2 M⊙, M_ej ≈ 3.2 M⊙, and E_kin ≈ 23 × 10^51 erg (specific KE ~7 × 10^51 erg M⊙^{-1}); spectral synthesis suggests ~5 × 10^51 erg M⊙^{-1}. Radio and X-ray non-detections are used to argue that any relativistic jet was viewed far off-axis or choked, or that the event is an extreme non-relativistic Ic-BL.

Significance. If the high specific kinetic energy holds after accounting for modeling systematics, the result is significant for understanding the diversity of engine-driven versus non-engine Ic-BL events: it demonstrates that energetic explosions can occur without detectable central-engine signatures in optical or high-energy bands. Credit is due for the precise explosion-time constraint from TESS/ZTF data and the multi-wavelength limits on relativistic ejecta and CSM.

major comments (1)
  1. [physical parameters derivation and spectral synthesis sections] The central claim that SN 2020lao reaches specific kinetic energies typical of engine-driven Ic-BL events rests on the Arnett-type fits and Fe II λ5169 velocity measurements (described in the physical parameters and spectral synthesis sections). These assume spherical symmetry, constant opacity, central 56Ni deposition, and that the Fe II absorption minimum traces the photospheric velocity for E_kin = ½ M_ej v_ph^2. In aspherical or mixed Ic-BL ejecta, viewing-angle effects and decoupling of Fe II from the true photosphere can systematically inflate the inferred specific KE; if the true value falls below ~3–4 × 10^51 erg M⊙^{-1}, the premise for the off-axis/choked-jet interpretation is weakened. The manuscript should quantify these systematics or test with alternative (e.g., aspherical) models.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and results sections] In the abstract and main text, the kinetic energy is given as 'about 23x10^51 erg'; this should be formatted consistently as 23 × 10^51 erg for clarity and to avoid ambiguity with scientific notation.
  2. [light-curve analysis section] The bolometric light-curve construction method (filter integration or SED fitting) and any assumed opacity value should be stated explicitly with references, as these enter directly into the Arnett parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript on SN 2020lao. The feedback on the physical parameter estimates is particularly helpful, and we have revised the text to better address potential modeling systematics while preserving the core observational results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [physical parameters derivation and spectral synthesis sections] The central claim that SN 2020lao reaches specific kinetic energies typical of engine-driven Ic-BL events rests on the Arnett-type fits and Fe II λ5169 velocity measurements (described in the physical parameters and spectral synthesis sections). These assume spherical symmetry, constant opacity, central 56Ni deposition, and that the Fe II absorption minimum traces the photospheric velocity for E_kin = ½ M_ej v_ph^2. In aspherical or mixed Ic-BL ejecta, viewing-angle effects and decoupling of Fe II from the true photosphere can systematically inflate the inferred specific KE; if the true value falls below ~3–4 × 10^51 erg M⊙^{-1}, the premise for the off-axis/choked-jet interpretation is weakened. The manuscript should quantify these systematics or test with alternative (e.g., aspherical) models.

    Authors: We agree that the Arnett model and Fe II velocity measurements rely on standard assumptions of spherical symmetry, constant opacity, and central nickel deposition, and that asphericity or viewing-angle effects in Ic-BL events could introduce systematic uncertainties in the derived specific kinetic energy. Our spectral synthesis modeling, however, provides an independent constraint yielding ~5 × 10^51 erg M⊙^{-1}, in good agreement with the Arnett-derived value of ~7 × 10^51 erg M⊙^{-1}. This consistency across methods supports the robustness of the result. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the revised Physical Parameters section discussing these limitations, including references to 3D explosion simulations that explore viewing-angle biases in Fe II velocities. Even allowing for a factor-of-two reduction due to such effects, the specific KE remains among the highest for non-relativistic Ic-BL events. Full aspherical radiative-transfer modeling lies beyond the scope of this primarily observational study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; kinetic energy derived from standard fits to observed data

full rationale

The paper's central derivation infers Ni mass, ejecta mass, and kinetic energy directly from Arnett-type modeling of the bolometric light curve combined with measured Fe II velocities, plus separate spectral synthesis modeling that reproduces the observed spectra. These steps apply established external formalisms to the new photometry and spectroscopy for SN 2020lao; the resulting specific KE value is then compared to literature values for other Ic-BL events. No step renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, invokes a self-citation as a uniqueness theorem, or reduces the conclusion to an input by construction. The off-axis/choked-jet interpretation follows from the derived KE being high while radio/X-ray limits show no afterglow, using independent observational constraints. The analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central inferences rest on the validity of Arnett modeling for bolometric light curves of SNe Ic-BL and on the interpretation of Fe II velocities as photospheric tracers; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Ni mass
    Fitted via Arnett model to match the observed bolometric luminosity peak and decline.
  • Ejecta mass
    Derived from Arnett fit combined with measured expansion velocity.
  • Kinetic energy
    Calculated from ejecta mass and velocity; specific KE is the ratio.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Arnett model assumptions hold for this event (homologous expansion, constant opacity, central energy deposition)
    Invoked when performing Arnett-type fits to the bolometric light curve.
  • domain assumption Fe II absorption minimum traces the photospheric velocity
    Used to convert velocity measurements into kinetic energy estimates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5849 in / 1626 out tokens · 86553 ms · 2026-05-17T02:37:34.418159+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 68

    Anand, S., Barnes, J., Yang, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 68

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    & King, I

    Anderson, J. & King, I. R. 2000, PASP, 112, 1360

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    & Mazzali, P

    Ashall, C. & Mazzali, P. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5956

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    A., Pian, E., et al

    Ashall, C., Mazzali, P. A., Pian, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5824 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    V ., et al

    Ben-Ami, S., Gal-Yam, A., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, L33

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 75

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.0

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2020, astropy/photutils: 1.0.0

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    2002, ApJ, 566, 1005

    Branch, D., Benetti, S., Kasen, D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 566, 1005

    work page 2002

  11. [11]

    A., et al

    Burke, J., Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., et al. 2020, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2020-1666, 1

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Calzavara, A. J. & Matzner, C. D. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 694

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    J., et al

    Campana, S., Mangano, V ., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1098

    Cano, Z. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1098

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 2006, ApJ, 651, 381

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 875

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Chugai, N. N. 2000, Astronomy Letters, 26, 797

    work page 2000

  19. [19]

    B., Covarrubias, R., & Candia, P

    Clocchiatti, A., Suntzeff, N. B., Covarrubias, R., & Candia, P. 2011, AJ, 141, 163

    work page 2011

  20. [20]

    Corsi, A., Ho, A. Y . Q., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 179

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362

    work page 2004

  22. [22]

    R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Soderberg, A. M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 97

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Dwarkadas, V . V . 2025, Universe, 11, 161

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    A., Zeh, A., et al

    Ferrero, P., Kann, D. A., Zeh, A., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 857

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    2025, A&A, 700, A200

    Finneran, G., Cotter, L., & Martin-Carrillo, A. 2025, A&A, 700, A200

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63

    work page 1999

  27. [27]

    E., Galbany, L., et al

    Forster, F., Bauer, F. E., Galbany, L., et al. 2020, Transient Name Server Discov- ery Report, 2020-1550, 1

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    E., et al

    Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748

    work page 1996

  29. [29]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670

    work page 1998

  30. [30]

    P., Piscarreta, L., et al

    Galbany, L., Gutiérrez, C. P., Piscarreta, L., et al. 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 053

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    I., et al

    Hamuy, M., Folatelli, G., Morrell, N. I., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 2

    work page 2006

  32. [32]

    E., Sarbadhicary, S

    Harris, C. E., Sarbadhicary, S. K., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 24

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Ho, A. Y . Q., Kulkarni, S. R., Perley, D. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 86

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Y ., Phillips, M

    Hsiao, E. Y ., Phillips, M. M., Marion, G. H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 014002

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    M., Nakar, E., & Piran, T

    Irwin, C. M., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2844

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    2020, A&A, 639, L11

    Izzo, L., Auchettl, K., Hjorth, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, L11

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    2019, Nature, 565, 324

    Izzo, L., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Maeda, K., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 324

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

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

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

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    O., McGill, P., Manning, T

    Jones, D. O., McGill, P., Manning, T. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17322

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al

    Kann, D. A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 96

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    R., et al

    Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 330

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    R., Frail, D

    Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., Wieringa, M. H., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 663

    work page 1998

  43. [43]

    J., Blackwell, C

    Lazzati, D., Morsony, B. J., Blackwell, C. H., & Begelman, M. C. 2012, Astro- physical Journal, 750, 68

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    C., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Lucy, L. B. 1999, A&A, 345, 211

    work page 1999

  46. [46]

    & Fransson, C

    Lundqvist, P. & Fransson, C. 1988, A&A, 192, 221

    work page 1988

  47. [47]

    D., Bersier, D., James, P

    Lyman, J. D., Bersier, D., James, P. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 328

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    MacFadyen, A. I. & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262

    work page 1999

  49. [49]

    I., Woosley, S

    MacFadyen, A. I., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 410

    work page 2001

  50. [50]

    M., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Margutti, R., Soderberg, A. M., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 134

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    O., Huchra, J

    Marzke, R. O., Huchra, J. P., & Geller, M. J. 1996, AJ, 112, 1803

    work page 1996

  52. [52]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    R., Wheeler, J

    Maund, J. R., Wheeler, J. C., Patat, F., et al. 2007, A&A, 475, L1

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    Mazzali, P. A. 2000, A&A, 363, 705

    work page 2000

  55. [55]

    A., Deng, J., Nomoto, K., et al

    Mazzali, P. A., Deng, J., Nomoto, K., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1018

    work page 2006

  56. [56]

    A., Kawabata, K

    Mazzali, P. A., Kawabata, K. S., Maeda, K., et al. 2005, Science, 308, 1284

    work page 2005

  57. [57]

    Mazzali, P. A. & Lucy, L. B. 1993, A&A, 279, 447

    work page 1993

  58. [58]

    A., McFadyen, A

    Mazzali, P. A., McFadyen, A. I., Woosley, S. E., Pian, E., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 67

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    A., Sauer, D

    Mazzali, P. A., Sauer, D. N., Pian, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2498

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3311

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    P., & Arcavi, I

    Modjaz, M., Gutiérrez, C. P., & Arcavi, I. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 717

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Q., Bianco, F

    Modjaz, M., Liu, Y . Q., Bianco, F. B., & Graur, O. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 108

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    R., Huchra, J

    Mould, J. R., Huchra, J. P., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2000, ApJ, 529, 786

    work page 2000

  64. [64]

    & Piro, A

    Nakar, E. & Piro, A. L. 2014, ApJ, 788, 193

    work page 2014

  65. [65]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230

    Nicholl, M. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    2001, ApJ, 555, 900

    Patat, F., Cappellaro, E., Danziger, J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 900

    work page 2001

  67. [67]

    A., Masetti, N., et al

    Pian, E., Mazzali, P. A., Masetti, N., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1011

    work page 2006

  68. [68]

    2019, ApJ, 871, L25

    Piran, T., Nakar, E., Mazzali, P., & Pian, E. 2019, ApJ, 871, L25

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    Piro, A. L. & Morozova, V . S. 2019, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 871, L25

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    Piro, A. L. & Nakar, E. 2013, ApJ, 769, 67

    work page 2013

  71. [71]

    Prentice, S. J. & Mazzali, P. A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2672

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    J., Mazzali, P

    Prentice, S. J., Mazzali, P. A., Pian, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2973

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    & Waxman, E

    Rabinak, I. & Waxman, E. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 728, 63

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Celotti, A., & Rees, M. J. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 337, 1349

    work page 2002

  75. [75]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 362

    work page 2003

  76. [76]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, L7

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    work page 2011

  78. [78]

    Y ., Ashall, C., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Hsiao, E. Y ., Ashall, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 175

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    work page 2006

Showing first 80 references.