Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

SN 2018hna: 1987A-like supernova with a signature of shock breakout

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SN 2018hna is a 1987A-like Type II supernova whose early light curves carry the cooling signature of a shock breakout from a compact blue supergiant.

desk verdict A useful new 1987A-like SN with rare early data; the classification holds, but the explosion epoch and progenitor parameters carry model-dependent uncertainties that the paper understates. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07807 v1 pith:URLYEMWI submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Avinash Singh , D.K. Sahu , G.C. Anupama , Brajesh Kumar , Harsh Kumar , Masayuki Yamanaka , Petr V. Baklanov , Nozomu Tominaga
show 17 more authors
Sergei I. Blinnikov Keiichi Maeda Anirban Dutta Varun Bhalerao Ramya M. Anche Sudhanshu Barway Hiroshi Akitaya Tatsuya Nakaoka Miho Kawabata Koji S Kawabata Mahito Sasada Kengo Takagi Hiroyuki Maehara Keisuke Isogai Masaru Kino Kenta Taguchi Takashi Nagao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords TypeIIsupernovaSN1987A-likeshockbreakoutbluesupergiantprogenitorcoolingenvelopeemissionradiation-hydrodynamicsmodelinglightcurvesUGC07534
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 paper identifies SN 2018hna as a member of the rare 1987A-like class of Type II supernovae. Its ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared light curves decline for roughly the first 14 days, which the paper reads as adiabatic cooling of shock-heated ejecta following shock breakout, and then rise slowly to a V-band maximum at about 88 days, matching SN 1987A. Hydrodynamic modeling of the cooling phase with the STELLA code points to a compact blue supergiant progenitor with radius around 50 $R_\odot$, mass 14–20 $M_\odot$, and explosion energy 1.7–2.9 $\times 10^{51}$ erg. The paper also infers a $^{56}$Ni mass of about 0.087 $M_\odot$ and a sub-solar host metallicity (about 0.3 $Z_\odot$). If correct, SN 2018hna becomes only the second blue-supergiant explosion caught within a few days of shock breakout, showing that early multi-band photometry can directly probe the progenitor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the STELLA multigroup radiation-hydrodynamics code, which simulates the explosion of a compact blue supergiant and computes multicolor light curves by convolving the synthetic spectral energy distribution with filter transmission functions; the early Swift photometry is then matched to these models, fixing the explosion epoch and giving the progenitor radius, mass, and explosion energy. The observational counterpart is the cooling envelope emission itself: the early decline in the UV and optical bands followed by a rise in redder bands as the photosphere recombines around 6000–8000 K, whose luminosity and timescale depend on the progenitor radius and the ejecta energy-to-mass ratio. A secondary mechanism, the Arnett diffusion-time relation calibrated to SN 1987A, supplies the higher end of the inferred mass and energy.

What would settle it

Catch the next 1987A-like event with a high-cadence UV survey that records the actual shock-breakout flash and compare that independently measured explosion date with the date obtained by fitting the post-breakout cooling model; a mismatch of more than a few days, or detection of narrow emission lines or radio/X-ray excess from circumstellar interaction within the first two weeks, would overturn the derived rise time and progenitor parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that SN 2018hna was caught close enough to its explosion to show the shock-breakout cooling: the Swift UVOT light curves decline for about 14 days from an explosion epoch of JD 2458411.3, while the optical bands initially rise and then settle, the behavior expected when a compact, shock-heated envelope expands and recombines. Fitting STELLA multigroup radiation-hydrodynamic models to those cooling light curves yields a pre-SN mass near 16 $M_\odot$ (ejecta mass near 14 $M_\odot$), a radius near 50 $R_\odot$, and an explosion energy near 1.7 $\times 10^{51}$ erg; scaling by the Arnett diffusion relation gives about 19.8 $M_\odot$ and 2.9 $\times 10^{51}$ erg, hence the quoted ranges 14–20 $M_\odot$ and 1.7–2.9 $\times 10^{51}$ erg. With a V-band rise time of about 87.5 days, a peak absolute magnitude of $-16.35 \pm 0.32$, and a $^{56}$Ni mass of $0.087 \pm 0.004\,M_\odot$, the event aligns with SN 1987A and the 1987A-like class, and no spectral feature indicates circumstellar interaction. Its host, UGC 07534, is a low-luminosity dwarf irregular with sub-solar metallicity of about 0.3 $Z_\odot$, consistent with the environments of other 1987A-like events.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumed explosion epoch, which is not directly observed but fixed by fitting the STELLA cooling model to the first photometric points; if that fit is off by a few days or if early circumstellar interaction contributed to the light, the rise time, inferred radius, mass, and energy would all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SN 2018hna becomes the second blue-supergiant supernova caught within a few days of shock breakout, so early Swift-like multi-band photometry can identify the 1987A-like class from cooling envelope emission alone.
  • The inferred compact progenitor and high explosion energy support the theoretical idea that blue supergiants can explode as Type II supernovae through fast rotation, low metallicity, or binary interaction.
  • The sub-solar host metallicity (about 0.3 $Z_\odot$) reinforces the pattern that 1987A-like events occur in late-type, low-metallicity galaxies.
  • The roughly 88-day V-band rise time and early Ba II features give practical photometric and spectroscopic discriminators between 1987A-like and normal Type II supernovae.
  • The similarity of the cooling emission's luminosity and timescale to SN 1987A implies a progenitor radius and an ejecta energy-to-mass ratio close to those of SN 1987A.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's interpretation is correct, current surveys without rapid UV response are likely missing the shock-breakout-cooling phase in most 1987A-like events, and a dedicated high-cadence UV survey should reveal that this phase is common among compact-progenitor Type II supernovae.
  • The high ratio of peak luminosity to radioactive-decay luminosity (about 2.5, versus about 1.5 in SN 1987A) hints at a different $^{56}$Ni distribution or mixing, which a systematic comparison across the class could test against mixing prescriptions.
  • The transient flux excesses ("kinks") in the H$\alpha$ and Na I D troughs, attributed to asymmetry in the ejecta, could be tested directly with spectropolarimetry of a future 1987A-like event.
  • The early CO emission at about 153 days, taken as evidence of dust formation, suggests that compact-progenitor explosions may form dust earlier than red supergiant explosions; a larger sample with near-infrared spectroscopy could test whether progenitor compactness controls the timing of dust onset.
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 presents high-cadence UV, optical, and NIR photometry and low-resolution optical spectroscopy of SN 2018hna from shortly after discovery to ~256 days. The authors identify an early (<14 day) multi-band decline that they attribute to adiabatic cooling of shock-heated ejecta following shock breakout, and a V-band rise time of ~88 days, similar to SN 1987A. Hydrodynamic modeling with STELLA of the early light curves yields an explosion epoch JD 2458411.3, a pre-SN mass of ~16 M_sun, radius ~50 R_sun, and explosion energy ~1.7e51 erg; an Arnett-scaling estimate gives ejecta mass ~19.8 M_sun and energy ~2.9e51 erg. From the bolometric light curve they infer a 56Ni mass of ~0.087 +/- 0.004 M_sun. The paper concludes that SN 2018hna is a 1987A-like event, only the second BSG explosion caught within days of shock breakout, and that its host UGC 07534 has sub-solar metallicity.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this paper substantially enlarges the small sample of 1987A-like supernovae with early-time multi-band coverage, and the shock-cooling detection would provide a direct constraint on a blue supergiant progenitor. The classification as 1987A-like rests on several mutually independent later-phase observables: the slow ~88 day rise, early Ba II features, color evolution, line velocities, and nebular-phase line profiles. The dataset is rich (Swift UVOT plus ground-based optical/NIR and a long spectral sequence), and the STELLA modeling is a reasonable first step. However, the quantitative progenitor parameters and the shock-breakout timing depend on a single model fit whose uncertainty is not characterized, and the two parameter estimates quoted in the abstract are not mutually consistent. These issues must be addressed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 and §5.1] The explosion epoch JD 2458411.3 is derived solely from the STELLA fit to the early Swift light curves, and no uncertainty or independent estimate is given. Every phase-dependent quantity in the paper, including the ~88 day V-band rise time, the ~14 day cooling phase, and the velocity epochs in Fig. 3, is measured relative to this fitted epoch. Please report the epoch uncertainty and provide a robustness test that varies the epoch by at least ±2–3 days; if any pre-discovery nondetections exist, use them to bracket the epoch independently.
  2. [§5.1] The two quoted progenitor parameter estimates are not consistent with each other: the STELLA fit gives an ejecta mass of ~14 M_sun and an explosion energy of ~1.7e51 erg, while the Arnett scaling gives ~19.8 M_sun and ~2.9e51 erg. The abstract and §6 quote mass and energy ranges of 14–20 M_sun and 1.7–2.9e51 erg as though they were a single confidence interval, but these are two different estimates with different systematic assumptions. Please discuss the origin of the discrepancy, propagate uncertainties from distance, reddening, and nickel mass in a consistent way, and quote the parameters from either a single method or a properly constructed systematic error budget.
  3. [§5.1] The assumption of no circumstellar-medium interaction is justified only by the absence of spectral interaction features, but the first spectrum is at ~12 days after the fitted explosion epoch, which is after most of the claimed cooling emission (0–14 days) has passed. A moderate CSM component could affect the early light-curve shape and hence the fitted epoch, radius, and energy, without producing detectable narrow lines at +12 days. Please quantify this degeneracy, for example by running STELLA models with a small CSM mass or by using early-time luminosity/color limits to constrain any CSM contribution.
  4. [§5.2] The quoted 56Ni mass uncertainty of ±0.004 M_sun appears inconsistent with the stated distance modulus uncertainty of ±0.29 mag. A 0.29 mag uncertainty alone corresponds to roughly 15% in luminosity, which would translate to at least ±0.012 M_sun in the derived nickel mass before any other error sources are included. Please propagate the full error budget (distance, reddening, SED integration, flux calibration) and either revise the quoted uncertainty or explain why the nickel mass is insensitive to these terms.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] The phrase "Wein's part of the spectrum" should read "Wien part of the spectrum".
  2. [§6 and §1] The claim that SN 2018hna is "only the second BSG event caught within a few days from shock breakout" should be reconciled with the introduction, which lists SNLS-04D2dc and SN 2010aq as displaying cooling emission from shock breakout; please clarify whether these events are excluded because their progenitors were not confirmed as BSGs or for another reason.
  3. [Figure 1] The SN 1987A light curves are plotted as "1987A + Const.", but the constant shifts are not specified; adding the shifts in the caption or plotting the overlaid curves in a separate panel would make the comparison reproducible.
  4. [Figure 2D] The unidentified feature at ~8360 Å in the nebular spectrum is noted as warranting further investigation; adding a brief comparison to similar unidentified features in other Type II SNe would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mostly self-contained observational analysis; the 1987A-like classification rests on independent spectra and light curves, with only a minor self-cited calibration in the Arnett-scaling mass/energy range.

  1. other [Section 5.1, Arnett-scaling paragraph (abstract mass/energy range)]
    "Using E 87A = 1.1 × 10^51 erg s−1 and M 87A = 14 M⊙ (Blinnikov et al. 2000), diffusion time, t d ∼ 1.02 t1987A d and a similar mean opacity, an ejecta mass of ∼ 19.8 M⊙ and an Eexpl of ∼ 2.9 × 10^51 erg is inferred for SN 2018hna."

    The SN 1987A anchor values (M = 14 Msun, E = 1.1e51 erg) are taken from Blinnikov et al. (2000), whose first author is also a coauthor of the present paper and the developer of the STELLA code used for the cooling-phase fit. The Arnett estimate built on these anchors sets the upper end of the quoted progenitor mass (14-20 Msun) and energy (1.7-2.9e51 erg) ranges. This is a self-citation, but it is not load-bearing for the central 1987A-like classification, which is independently supported by Ba II features, the ~88 d rise, velocity curves, and nebular lines.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are that SN 2018hna is 1987A-like, that the early light curves show adiabatic cooling following shock breakout, and that the progenitor was a compact blue supergiant with the quoted mass and energy. The 1987A-like classification rests on direct photometric and spectroscopic comparisons to known 1987A-like events (Ba II features, slow V-band rise, color and velocity evolution, nebular lines), none of which are constructed from the STELLA fit. The shock-breakout interpretation is a physical reading of the early Swift decline; the STELLA model reproduces the multiband light curves and constrains the explosion epoch to JD 2458411.3, but the paper presents the fitted parameters as model-inferred rather than as independent predictions. The epoch uncertainty and the absence of early-time spectra are modeling limitations, not circular reductions. The progenitor radius, mass, and energy are indeed best-fit inputs to the same early light curves they are used to explain, so they are not an independent test of the model; however, this is standard parameter inference rather than equivalence by construction. The only noteworthy self-citation is the use of Blinnikov et al. (2000) for both STELLA and the SN 1987A anchor values in the Arnett scaling, which lightly influences the upper end of the quoted mass/energy range but does not drive the classification. Overall the analysis is largely self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims (radius, mass, energy, nickel mass) rest on fitted STELLA parameters, on Arnett-scaling anchored to the SN 1987A template, on the adopted distance and zero host-extinction assumption, and on the no-CSM interpretation of the early light curves. The 1987A-like classification itself rests more on observables (rise time, barium features, colors, velocities) than on the fitted parameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the unidentified 8360 A line is noted as observed, not postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Explosion epoch = JD 2458411.3, 3 days before discovery.
    Fixed by the STELLA cooling-phase fit (Section 5.1); all phase-dependent claims (rise time, cooling duration, velocities) are measured from this epoch.
  • Progenitor radius = About 50 R_sun.
    STELLA model parameter chosen to reproduce the early multi-color light curves (Section 5.1).
  • Pre-supernova mass = About 16 M_sun (ejecta about 14 M_sun).
    STELLA model parameter; the Arnett scaling gives 19.8 M_sun, so the paper quotes the 14-20 M_sun range (Section 5.1).
  • Explosion energy = About 1.7e51 erg (STELLA); about 2.9e51 erg (Arnett scaling).
    Fitted in the STELLA model and separately inferred from the SN 1987A template; the quoted 1.7-2.9e51 erg range spans the two methods.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The STELLA radiation-hydrodynamics code correctly models the adiabatic cooling phase of a compact (blue supergiant) explosion (Blinnikov et al. 2000).
    Invoked in Section 5.1; the progenitor radius, mass, and energy are read out of a STELLA fit to the early multi-color light curves.
  • domain assumption The Arnett (1979) diffusion relation maps the observed rise time to ejecta mass and explosion energy using SN 1987A as the anchor (M = 14 M_sun, E = 1.1e51 erg, t_d ~ 1.02 t_1987A, similar opacity).
    Used in Section 5.1 to infer a 19.8 M_sun ejecta mass and 2.9e51 erg; the anchor values come from Blinnikov et al. (2000), which shares authors with this paper.
  • domain assumption The early light curves are powered purely by adiabatic cooling of shock-heated ejecta, with no significant circumstellar-medium interaction delaying or modifying the breakout.
    Stated in Section 5.1; justified by the absence of spectral interaction features, an argument from absence.
  • domain assumption Zero host-galaxy extinction toward SN 2018hna; only the Galactic foreground E(B-V) = 0.009 mag is adopted.
    Section 3 adopts E(B-V) = 0.009 +/- 0.001 from Schlegel and Finkbeiner (2011), with no host extinction, which affects all absolute luminosities and colors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SN 2018hna: 1987A-like supernova with a signature of shock breakout." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/URLYEMWI

@misc{pith2026190807807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SN 2018hna: 1987A-like supernova with a signature of shock breakout},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/URLYEMWI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07807}
}
abstract

High cadence ultraviolet, optical and near-infrared photometric and low-resolution spectroscopic observations of the peculiar Type II supernova (SN) 2018hna are presented. The early phase multiband light curves exhibit the adiabatic cooling envelope emission following the shock breakout up to ~14 days from the explosion. SN~2018hna has a rise time of $\sim$\,88 days in the V-band, similar to SN 1987A. A $\rm^{56}Ni$ mass of ~0.087$\pm$0.004 $\rm M_{\odot}$ is inferred for SN 2018hna from its bolometric light curve. Hydrodynamical modelling of the cooling phase suggests a progenitor with a radius ~50 $\rm R_{\odot}$, a mass of ~14-20 $\rm M_{\odot}$ and explosion energy of ~1.7-2.9$\rm \times$ $\rm 10^{51}\ erg$. The smaller inferred radius of the progenitor than a standard red supergiant is indicative of a blue supergiant progenitor of SN 2018hna. A sub-solar metallicity (~0.3 $\rm Z_{\odot}$) is inferred for the host galaxy UGC 07534, concurrent with the low-metallicity environments of 1987A-like events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Apparent light curves (LCs) of SN 2018hna. The LCs of SN 1987A were shifted to match the maximum of SN 2018hna. Offsets have been applied for clarity. of SN 2018hna was obtained from the dust-extinction map of Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011). This is consistent with the absence of interstellar Na I D absorption in the spectra of SN 2018hna. No trace of Na I D absorp￾tion is seen at the redshift of the host galaxy, conc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. P anel A: Spectroscopic sequence of SN 2018hna. The three different colors depict the cooling envelope (blue), photospheric (black) and nebular phase (red) of the SN. P anels B, C & D: Comparison of SN 2018hna with 1987A-like events. P anel E: Identification of lines in the spectrum of ∼ 73 d. km s−1 during the transition to the radioactive decay phase (> 100 d). The blue-shift has been seen in a ma￾jority of Type I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Line velocity evolution of SN 2018hna. Middle panel: Evolution of H β, H α and Na ID up until ∼ 120 d. Right panel: Evolution of O I, H α and Ca II during the nebular phase. the occurrence of 1987A-like SNe in late-type galaxies (Sc or later; Pastorello et al. 2012) having sub-solar metallicity. 5.1. Cooling envelope emission and explosion parameters The early LCs (< 14 d) of SN 2018hna distinctly show a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of early phase Swift LCs with the hydrodynamic model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: P anel A: Pseudo-bolometric light curve of SN 2018hna in comparison with 1987A-like events. P anels B & C: (U–V) and (B–V) color evolution of SN 2018hna in comparison with 1987A-like events and SN 1999em. and SN 2006V are bluer compared to SN 1987A. This agrees with th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, in Proc

    Akitaya, H., Moritani, Y., Ui, T., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, 91474O

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    P., Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C

    Anderson, J. P., Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 671

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Arnett, W. D. 1979, ApJL, 230, L37

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    2019

  5. [5]

    C., Benvenuto, O

    Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. G., Nomoto, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 31

    2012

  6. [6]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 1132

    Iwamoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1132

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2019, A&A, 622, A70

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    J., Chugai, N., et al

    Elmhamdi, A., Danziger, I. J., Chugai, N., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 939

    work page 2003

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    1992, ApJ, 393, 742

    Ensman, L., & Burrows, A. 1992, ApJ, 393, 742

    1992

  2. [10]

    W., & Arnett, W

    Falk, S. W., & Arnett, W. D. 1977, ApJS, 33, 515

    1977

  3. [11]

    2019, ApJL, 878, L5 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fremling, C., Ko, H., Dugas, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 878, L5 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

    2019

  4. [12]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    2004

  5. [13]

    E., et al

    Gezari, S., Rest, A., Huber, M. E., et al. 2010, ApJL, 720, L77

    2010

  6. [14]

    K., Imshennik, V

    Grassberg, E. K., Imshennik, V. S., & Nadyozhin, D. K. 1971, Ap&SS, 10, 28

    1971

  7. [15]

    Hamuy, M., & Suntzeff, N. B. 1990, AJ, 99, 1146

    1990

  8. [16]

    W., Thimm, G., & Dachs, J

    Hanuschik, R. W., Thimm, G., & Dachs, J. 1988, MNRAS, 234, 41P

    1988

  9. [17]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288

    2003

  10. [18]

    D., Makarov, D

    Karachentsev, I. D., Makarov, D. I., & Kaisina, E. I. 2013, AJ, 145, 101

    2013

  11. [19]

    S., Nagae, O., Chiyonobu, S., et al

    Kawabata, K. S., Nagae, O., Chiyonobu, S., et al. 2008, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, 70144L

    2008

  12. [20]

    L., Rodney, S

    Kelly, P. L., Rodney, S. A., Treu, T., et al. 2016, ApJL, 819, L8

    2016

  13. [21]

    Kleiser, I. K. W., Poznanski, D., Kasen, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 372

    2011

  14. [22]

    Anupama, G. C. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3776

    2018

  15. [23]

    B., Sahu, D

    Kumar, B., Pandey, S. B., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 308

    2013

  16. [24]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.05430

    Matsubayashi, K., Ohta, K., Iwamuro, F., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.05430

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A., & Chugai, N

    Mazzali, P. A., & Chugai, N. N. 1995, A&A, 303, 118

    1995

  18. [26]

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

    2014

  19. [27]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 904

    Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2010, ApJ, 725, 904

    2010

  20. [28]

    O., Fox, D., Cenko, S

    Ofek, E. O., Fox, D., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 42

    2013

  21. [29]

    2005, MNRAS, 360, 950

    Pastorello, A., Baron, E., Branch, D., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 950

    2005

  22. [30]

    2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266

    Pastorello, A., Valenti, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266

    2009

  23. [31]

    L., Navasardyan, H., et al

    Pastorello, A., Pumo, M. L., Navasardyan, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A141

    2012

  24. [32]

    M., & Heathcote, S

    Phillips, M. M., & Heathcote, S. R. 1989, PASP, 101, 137

    1989

  25. [33]

    1992, PASP, 104, 717

    Podsiadlowski, P. 1992, PASP, 104, 717

    1992

  26. [34]

    Pun, C. S. J., Kirshner, R. P., Sonneborn, G., et al. 1995, ApJS, 99, 223

    1995

  27. [35]

    2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12897, 1

    Rho, J., Shahbandeh, M., Hsiao, E., Davis, & S. 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12897, 1

    2019

  28. [36]

    W., Treffers, R

    Richmond, M. W., Treffers, R. R., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 1994, AJ, 107, 1022

    1994

  29. [37]

    A., Strolger, L

    Rodney, S. A., Strolger, L. G., Kelly, P. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 50

    2016

  30. [38]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 95

    2005

  31. [39]

    Sarangi, A., Matsuura, M., & Micelotta, E. R. 2018, SSRv, 214, 63 Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2018

  32. [40]

    Sahu, D. K. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2475

    2018

  33. [41]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63

    2009

  34. [42]

    W., Williams, R

    Smith, K. W., Williams, R. D., Young, D. R., et al. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 26

    2019

  35. [43]

    D., Sollerman, J., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Sollerman, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A140

    2012

  36. [44]

    2016, A&A, 588, A5 Tak´ ats, K., Pignata, G., Bersten, M., et al

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A5 Tak´ ats, K., Pignata, G., Bersten, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3447

    2016

  37. [45]

    2009, ApJL, 705, L10

    Tominaga, N., Blinnikov, S., Baklanov, P., et al. 2009, ApJL, 705, L10

    2009

  38. [46]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    2004

  39. [47]

    2012, PASP, 124, 668

    Yaron, O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.