Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Measuring the expansion velocities of broad-line Ic supernovae: An investigation of neglected sources of error in two popular methods

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spline fitting inflates supernova iron velocities on red continua

desk verdict A solid, honest methods paper that quantifies neglected error sources and shows the spline/template discrepancy is not universal, though the new red-continuum mechanism rests on a two-event comparison with published template velocities. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12574 v1 pith:DGVFSQ2A submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.HE

Gabriel Finneran , Antonio Martin-Carrillo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovae:generalgamma-rayburst:methods:dataanalysisFeIIvelocitiessplinefittingtemplatelineblending
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

This paper tries to establish which of the two standard ways of measuring iron velocities in broad-line Ic supernovae is trustworthy, and why the two sometimes disagree. It quantifies previously ignored errors in both methods: template fitting suffers phase-choice and smoothing effects of roughly 500–2000 km/s, while spline fitting routinely underestimates its uncertainties by about 1000 km/s and can be shifted by fine-tuning of smoothing parameters. The central claim is that the velocity discrepancies seen for some supernovae are not a general superiority of template fitting over spline fitting. Instead, the paper argues spline fitting overestimates the Fe II velocity only when the iron feature sits on a red continuum, which biases the blended minimum toward the bluest line of the iron triplet; on a blue continuum both methods agree. If true, the bias can reach 10,000–15,000 km/s, and the choice of method matters only for a subset of objects.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fe II feature near 5000 Å, a blended triplet with lines at 4924 Å, 5018 Å, and 5169 Å, whose minimum wavelength is converted to an expansion velocity by the Doppler formula. The spline fitting method locates the minimum of the blended feature after smoothing with a Savitzky–Golay filter and spline interpolation, while the template fitting method blueshifts and broadens an average Ic spectrum's iron lines to match the input spectrum, combining the fitted blueshift with the template's known velocity. The load-bearing mechanism is the slope of the local continuum under the triplet: assuming roughly equal line strengths, a blue continuum makes the reddest line (5169 Å) closest to the feature minimum, while a red continuum pulls the minimum toward the bluest line (4924 Å), biasing spline fitting to higher velocities. This mechanism explains why the discrepancy appears for GRB980425-SN1998bw (cooler, red continuum) and is absent for GRB130702A-SN2013dx (hotter, blue continuum), and why template fitting, which flattens the spectrum before fitting, does not show the same bias.

What would settle it

Measure the local continuum slope at the Fe II feature for a sample of Ic-BL supernovae and compare it with the difference between spline and template fitting velocities: the red-continuum mechanism predicts a strong correlation, with spline velocities exceeding template velocities by roughly 10,000–15,000 km/s when the continuum is red, and near-zero differences on blue continua. Alternatively, apply both methods to synthetic Ic-BL spectra with a known injected velocity and a controlled continuum slope; if the spline method fails to show the predicted bias on red continua, the proposed mechanism is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the two popular velocity-measurement methods for the Fe II feature near 5000 Å do not always disagree, and the template fitting method is not always better at handling blended lines. Using direct comparisons of the well-sampled supernovae GRB980425-SN1998bw and GRB130702A-SN2013dx, the authors show that spline fitting produced velocities more than 12,000 km/s higher than template fitting for the first object, while the two methods agreed within errors for the second, despite similar apparent blending. They attribute this to the slope of the local continuum: when a red continuum underlies the iron triplet, the minimum of the blended feature shifts toward the 4924 Å line, yielding an artificially high velocity from spline fitting; when the continuum is blue, the 5169 Å line sits closest to the minimum and both methods trace the same feature. The paper further quantifies additional errors of roughly 500–2000 km/s from template phase choice and smoothing in both methods, and shows that spline fitting underestimates its uncertainties by about 1000 km/s. The conclusion is that no single method is always optimal, but the velocity evolution shape appears identical regardless of method.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the velocities from the previously published template fitting results of Modjaz et al. (2016) are directly comparable to the spline fitting velocities computed in this paper, even though the two sets were produced with different data reductions, smoothing choices, and template implementations; if the published values are offset for unrelated reasons, the red-continuum mechanism and its 10,000–15,000 km/s magnitude would not be established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Ic-BL supernovae with a blue continuum at the iron feature, spline and template fitting give consistent velocities, so large published samples using either method can be compared for those objects.
  • For objects with a red continuum, spline fitting velocities can be inflated by 10,000–15,000 km/s, so absolute velocity comparisons (e.g., between Ic-BLs and ordinary Ic supernovae) could be systematically biased if such objects are common.
  • Velocity evolution studies for the iron feature are robust to method choice, because the same line is traced throughout if one avoids switching lines after de-blending.
  • The template fitting method's additional errors from phase shifts (~1000 km/s) and smoothing (~500–1000 km/s) should be added in quadrature to its quoted uncertainties, especially at late times.
  • Spline fitting uncertainties should be increased by about 1000 km/s to account for unmodelled scatter, and smoothing parameters should be chosen per spectrum, with optimum filter widths near 2.5% of the spectrum length for high-quality data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to compute the continuum slope locally at the Fe II feature for a larger sample and check whether the spline-minus-template velocity offset correlates with that slope as the mechanism predicts.
  • The mechanism implies that population-level velocity comparisons between GRB-associated and non-GRB Ic-BLs are unlikely to be distorted by this bias, since the paper argues the red-continuum configuration is relatively rare based on typical temperature evolution; a broader sample could confirm this directly.
  • If the red-continuum bias is common in low-temperature or dusty objects, multi-feature analyses that rely on spline fitting for Si II and Ca II may need the same continuum-slope check, since the same minimum-shift argument could apply to other blended features.
  • The paper's suggestion to flatten spectra before spline fitting, or to trace the 5169 Å line backward from late times, could be validated with synthetic spectra where the true velocity is known.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 compares two widely used methods for measuring Fe II expansion velocities in broad-line Ic supernovae: the template-fitting method of Modjaz et al. (2016) and a spline-fitting method. It quantifies the sensitivity of both methods to pre-smoothing choices, identifies an additional epoch/phase-shift error for template fitting (~500-2000 km/s), and an additional scatter-type error for spline fitting (~1000 km/s). Using two GRB-SNe (SN1998bw and SN2013dx), the paper argues that the two methods agree when the Fe II feature sits on a blue continuum but disagree by ~12000 km/s when the feature sits on a red continuum, because the blended minimum is biased toward the bluest triplet line at 4924 Å. The paper also provides best-practice recommendations and concludes that the velocity-evolution morphology is the same for both methods.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper is a useful methodological contribution: it quantifies several previously neglected error terms, gives concrete heuristics for smoothing parameters, presents a falsifiable explanation for method discrepancies, and provides the first publicly available Python implementation of the Fourier smoothing algorithm used in the template-fitting literature. The empirical demonstration that the two methods can agree (SN2013dx) and disagree (SN1998bw) in a way that tracks the local continuum is a conceptually simple and testable idea. The paper is also honest about the limits of its evidence, explicitly, for example, stating that the red-continuum conclusion assumes the template-fitting velocities are correct.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Figs. 10 and 14] The central claim that the spline method overestimates Fe II velocities on a red continuum rests entirely on comparing new spline fits to template-fitting velocities taken from Modjaz et al. (2016) without re-fitting the same spectra with the same pipeline. The two velocity sets differ in data reduction, smoothing (Fourier k vs. Savitzky-Golay), phase assignment, binning, and possibly template implementation. A systematic offset in the published template velocities for SN1998bw, unrelated to the methods themselves, could produce or erase the claimed 12000 km/s difference. To make the red-continuum mechanism load-bearing, the authors should recompute template-fitting velocities for the same reduced spectra used for the spline fits, or otherwise demonstrate that the published values are directly comparable.
  2. [§5 and §6.1] The proposed red-continuum mechanism is inferred from visual inspection of two events and a single literature temperature for SN2013dx (16000 K at 9.3 days), with no quantitative measurement of the continuum slope under the Fe II feature for either event. The predicted 10000-15000 km/s offset, taken from the separation of the 4924, 5018, and 5169 Å lines, is said to 'match very well' the 12000 km/s difference, but with two events this is a two-point coincidence unless the continuum slope is actually measured. The authors should quantify the local continuum slope at the compared epochs (e.g., by fitting a pseudo-continuum or blackbody to the same spectra) or perform a simple simulation of the blended triplet on red and blue continua to demonstrate that the mechanism produces the claimed magnitude of bias.
  3. [§4, Fig. 9] The claim that spline fitting underestimates uncertainties by around 1000 km/s is derived by fitting power-law and broken power-law functions to the velocity evolution and measuring the residual scatter. This procedure assumes that the fitted model is the true velocity evolution; any model misspecification is automatically absorbed as an 'additional error' of the method. The paper does not report the residuals separately from the fit uncertainty, nor does it test whether the 1000 km/s scatter is consistent with the reported Monte-Carlo errors. At minimum, the authors should report the RMS of residuals and the typical Monte-Carlo error per epoch, so that the reader can see how much of the scatter is genuinely unexplained.
  4. [§2.2 and Appendix A] The recommendation of ~10% spline density and ~2.5% filter width as optimum parameters is based mainly on one high-resolution, high-S/N spectrum (SN1998bw, Fig. 5). The appendix shows that the optimum varies by event and spectral quality: for SN2020bvc (low-resolution, high-S/N) the suggested optimum is 5% filter width and 5% knots, while for SN2016P (low-resolution, low-S/N) there is 'no optimal smoothing level'. The stated 'optimum parameters' therefore appear to be case-dependent. The paper does note that parameters should be determined case by case, but the abstract and Section 7 present the 10%/2.5% combination as a general recommendation, which overstates the evidence from four test spectra.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 2, 7, and 14] The axis label in Fig. 2 reads 'vFe vFe(k=100)' with a missing subscript, and the left panel of Fig. 7 is labeled 'GRB980424-SN1998bw' while the text and table use 'GRB980425-SN1998bw'. Fig. 14's caption says 'GRB130207A-SN2013dx' but the paper consistently refers to 'GRB130702A-SN2013dx'. These typos should be corrected.
  2. [§2.2] The description of the spline-fitting method, including the definition of 'spline density' and the Monte-Carlo error estimation, references Finneran et al. (2024b) but does not describe the method in this paper. For a self-contained methodological comparison, the essential algorithmic steps (how the minimum is located, how errors are propagated) should be summarized here or in an appendix.
  3. [§6.3] The paragraph on 'Unquantifiable errors' correctly notes that template construction and poor χ² fits may contribute to the large template-fitting errors, but it does not cite a specific figure or analysis showing how large these effects may be. A brief quantitative statement, even an order-of-magnitude estimate, would make this section more useful.
  4. [Throughout] There are many instances of the typographical spacing 'di fferent' and 'o ffers' (e.g., in the abstract, Section 2, and elsewhere). A thorough proofread would eliminate these artifacts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central velocity-method comparison rests on external published template velocities and its own spline fits, not on a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons. Spline velocities are computed here, while template velocities are taken from Modjaz et al. (2016), an external published dataset, so the 12000 km/s discrepancy is measured against independent results rather than defined by a fitted input. The theoretical estimate of a 10000-15000 km/s effect is derived from the rest wavelengths of the Fe II triplet (4924, 5018, 5169 Angstrom) and a Doppler argument, not from the comparison itself. The use of power-law and broken power-law residuals in Section 4 to estimate additional spline-fitting scatter is a statistical error-quantification procedure, not a prediction forced by the fitted parameters; it assumes the model form but does not make the method's output equal to its input. Self-citations to Finneran et al. (2024b) document the spline methodology and prior context, but the load-bearing velocity discrepancy and continuum explanation are established by this paper's own direct comparison in Section 5. The stated caveat that template velocities were not re-fit with the same pipeline affects the robustness of the comparison, but that is an external-data limitation rather than a circular step. No equation or fitted parameter is shown to reduce to the claimed result by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

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

The central quantitative claims rest on tuneable analysis parameters (smoothing widths, knot density, phase shifts) and on several modeling assumptions: power-law velocity evolution, comparability of externally published template velocities, and inference of continuum slope from blackbody temperature. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Fourier smoothing parameter k (template fitting method) = 25, 50, 100, 150, 200, 300 (tested range)
    Controls smoothing strength in the template fitting method; the error contribution is estimated by varying k across the tested range (Section 2.1).
  • Savitzky-Golay filter width (spline fitting method) = 0.25% to 10% of spectrum length
    Tuneable smoothing parameter; variation shifts measured velocities by about 500-1000 km/s in high-S/N spectra and up to 3000-4000 km/s in low-resolution or low-S/N spectra (Section 2.2).
  • Spline density (number of knots) = 2 knots, and 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% knot densities
    Tuneable spline complexity; affects the fidelity of the fit to the smoothed spectrum and the inferred minimum wavelength (Section 2.2).
  • Template phase shift = -4, -2, 0, 2, 4 days applied artificially
    Chosen perturbations used to quantify the error from inaccurate or rounded spectral phase in the template fitting method (Section 3.2).
  • Power-law and broken power-law fit parameters for velocity evolution = Best-fit slopes and break times from Figure 9, not tabulated
    Used to define residual scatter attributed to unaccounted spline method error; the residual scatter depends on the assumed functional form (Section 4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Fe II feature near 5000 Å is a blend of three iron lines (4924, 5018, 5169 Å) with comparable strengths, and the minimum-flux wavelength tracks one of these lines.
    Used by both methods to convert wavelength to velocity; the paper's continuum-bias mechanism depends on which line dominates the minimum.
  • domain assumption Residual scatter of spline velocities around power-law or broken power-law fits represents measurement error rather than real structure in velocity evolution.
    Section 4 and Figure 9 estimate the spline method's unaccounted error from these residuals; if real evolution deviates from power laws, the error estimate is inflated.
  • domain assumption Published template-fitting velocities from Modjaz et al. (2016) are directly comparable to the spline velocities computed in this paper.
    Section 5's Figures 10-14 overlay those published velocities with new spline fits to diagnose method discrepancies.
  • domain assumption The continuum under the iron feature is dominated by a thermal or blackbody component, so its slope can be inferred from effective temperature and visual inspection.
    Sections 5 and 6 use the relative blue and red appearance of SN2013dx and SN1998bw and a single temperature estimate from Toy et al. (2016) to support the continuum-bias mechanism.
  • domain assumption Typical temperature evolution of Ic-BL supernovae, as in Taddia et al. (2019), implies most events have blue continua at the iron feature, so the red-continuum bias is rare.
    This underlies the claim that spline fitting remains broadly applicable despite the proposed bias mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring the expansion velocities of broad-line Ic supernovae: An investigation of neglected sources of error in two popular methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DGVFSQ2A

@misc{pith2026241112574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring the expansion velocities of broad-line Ic supernovae: An investigation of neglected sources of error in two popular methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DGVFSQ2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12574}
}
abstract

The velocities of Ic-BL supernovae can be determined using two techniques (spline fitting and template fitting), sometimes resulting in different velocities for the same event. This work compares and contrasts both methods, identifying sources of error which are not accounted for by most authors and quantifying their impact on the final velocity measurement. Finally, it identifies the cause of velocity discrepancies for events measured using both methods. We quantified the impact of pre-smoothing the spectra prior to use of both methods using two well-sampled cases. To identify the source of velocity discrepancies, two cases were measured and directly compared. Additional sources of error for template fitting arise due to the choice of phase of the template spectrum ($\sim$1000 km/s) and smoothing of the input spectrum ($\sim$500 km/s). The impact of phase shifts is minimised at peak time. The spline fitting method tends to underestimate uncertainties by around 1000 km/s. This method can also be impacted by fine tuning of the smoothing parameters ($\sim$500-1000 km/s). Optimum smoothing parameters for different cases are presented along with suggestions for best practice. Direct comparison of both methods showed that velocity discrepancies are not always present, debunking the claim that the template fitting method always handles blending better than spline fitting. Spline fitting seems to struggle to handle blending only in cases where the Fe II features are superimposed on a red continuum, which biases the minimum of this feature towards the bluest line of the triplet, creating an artificially higher velocity. This situation may be relatively rare among Ic-BLs, based on typical temperature evolution. Both methods can be applied under certain circumstances with similar results. The morphology of the velocity evolution of an SN appears to be the same regardless of the method used.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12574 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Influence of the smoothing parameter, k, on velocity measured by the template fitting method for GRB980425-SN1998bw (left panel) and GRB130702A-SN2013dx (right panel). A smaller value of k implies more severe smoothing. 25 50 100 150 200 300 Smoothing constant k 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 vFe vFe(k = 100) [k m/s] Pre-peak Peak Post-peak vFe II(k = 100) 25 50 100 150 200 300 Smoothing constant k 1000 800 600 400 200… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sample spectra used to determine the optimum param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of Si II velocity with filter width and spline density for a sample spectrum of GRB980425-SN1998bw; this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of changing the filter width and number of spline knots on the shape and fidelity of the spline fitting method. These [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: U, V, g, r and i band photometry for the Ic-BL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Influence of small shifts in phase on the Fe II velocity for GRB980424-SN1998bw (left panel) and GRB130702A-SN2013dx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Best fits and residual plots for a selection of Ic-BL supernovae with and without GRBs. The velocities are typically scattered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of results produced by the spline-fitting and template-fitting procedures; template fitting velocities from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Direct comparison of spline and template fitting velocities. Times of spectra are relative to T0 in the rest-frame of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fits produced by the template fitting method (left) and spline fitting method (right) for the spectrum of GRB980425- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of results produced by the spline-fitting and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Velocity evolution of broad-lined type-Ic supernovae with and without gamma-ray bursts

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GRB-linked and ordinary broad-lined type Ic supernovae show statistically indistinguishable expansion velocities and velocity decay rates in the largest such sample to date.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    1982

  2. [2]

    2011, A&A, 534, A43

    Bazin, G., Ruhlmann-Kleider, V ., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A43

    2011

  3. [3]

    B., Modjaz, M., Hicken, M., et al

    Bianco, F. B., Modjaz, M., Hicken, M., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 19

    2014

  4. [4]

    D., Walters, R., et al

    Blagorodnova, N., Neill, J. D., Walters, R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 035003

    2018

  5. [5]

    2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054 D’Elia, V ., Pian, E., Melandri, A., et al

    Cano, Z., Wang, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054 D’Elia, V ., Pian, E., Melandri, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A116

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08866

    Finneran, G., Cotter, L., & Martin-Carrillo, A. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08866

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.11503

    Finneran, G., Cotter, L., & Martin-Carrillo, A. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.11503

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

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

    1998

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Ho, A. Y . Q. 2020, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology

    2020

  2. [10]

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

    2020

  3. [11]

    2020, A&A, 639, L11

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

    2020

  4. [12]

    B., & Graur, O

    Liu, Y .-Q., Modjaz, M., Bianco, F. B., & Graur, O. 2016, ApJ, 827, 90

    2016

  5. [13]

    2023, GRB Coordinates Net- work, 34370, 1

    Martin-Carrillo, A., Schneider, B., Laskar, T., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Net- work, 34370, 1

    2023

  6. [14]

    A., Iwamoto, K., & Nomoto, K

    Mazzali, P. A., Iwamoto, K., & Nomoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 545, 407

    2000

  7. [15]

    P., et al

    Modjaz, M., Blondin, S., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 99

    2014

  8. [16]

    Q., Bianco, F

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

    2016

  9. [17]

    2001, ApJ, 555, 900

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

    2001

  10. [18]

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

    2013

  11. [19]

    J., Ashall, C., James, P

    Prentice, S. J., Ashall, C., James, P. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1559

    2019

  12. [20]

    J., Ashall, C., Mazzali, P

    Prentice, S. J., Ashall, C., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4162

    2018

  13. [21]

    J., Mazzali, P

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

    2016

  14. [22]

    R., et al

    Rho, J., Evans, A., Geballe, T. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 232

    2021

  15. [23]

    & Golay, M

    Savitzky, A. & Golay, M. J. E. 1964, Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627

    1964

  16. [24]

    2014, A&A, 566, A102

    Schulze, S., Malesani, D., Cucchiara, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A102

    2014

  17. [25]

    M., Kong, J

    Silverman, J. M., Kong, J. J., & Filippenko, A. V . 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1819

    2012

  18. [26]

    P., Yang, S., Anand, S., et al

    Srinivasaragavan, G. P., Yang, S., Anand, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14586

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2019, A&A, 621, A71

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A71

    2019

  20. [28]

    2015, A&A, 574, A60

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Leloudas, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A60

    2015

  21. [29]

    L., Cenko, S

    Toy, V . L., Cenko, S. B., Silverman, J. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 79

    2016

  22. [30]

    & Gal-Yam, A

    Yaron, O. & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668 Article number, page 14 G. Finneran and A. Martin-Carrillo : Measuring the expansion velocities of broad-line Ic supernovae Appendix A: Additional violin and smoothing plots 1.0 1.5 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 SG Window length [% length of spe...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.