Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

A statistical study of the metallicity of core-collapse supernovae based on VLT/MUSE integral-field-unit spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Metallicity does not set apart core-collapse supernova types

desk verdict Largest IFU CCSN metallicity sample, but the 'minimally biased' claim is undercut by pre-2010 targeted SNe in the table; the null result needs a per-SN audit. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02667 v2 pith:BOTPKZW6 submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Qiang Xi , Ning-Chen Sun , Yi-Han Zhao , Justyn R. Maund , Zexi Niu , Adam J. Singleton , Jifeng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords core-collapsesupernovaemetallicityintegral-fieldspectroscopyVLT/MUSEstrong-linemethodsupernovahostgalaxiesstripped-envelope
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 builds the largest sample of core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) with integral-field-unit spectroscopy—166 nearby supernovae at $z \leq 0.02$ discovered by untargeted wide-field surveys—and uses spatially resolved metallicity maps of their host galaxies to measure the oxygen abundance at each explosion site. It finds that Type II(P), IIn, IIb, Ib, and Ic supernovae all have very similar metallicity distributions, with mean and median values of $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H}) \approx 8.4$–$8.5$ dex. The apparent differences among types are all within roughly $1\sigma$, and the large sample shrinks the stochastic sampling uncertainty to about 0.05 dex. The paper interprets this as evidence that metallicity plays only a minor role in determining which CCSN type a massive star produces, with metallicity-insensitive processes such as binary interaction dominating the distinction instead.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is spatially resolved integral-field-unit spectroscopy with VLT/MUSE, reduced with the ifuanal package. The authors build Voronoi-binned metallicity maps from strong emission lines, remove the stellar continuum with starlight, and fit galaxy-wide metallicity gradients in deprojected radius to estimate each supernova site's oxygen abundance, reducing the typical uncertainty from 0.18 dex to about 0.1 dex. The statistical argument is carried by two devices: a random resampling experiment that draws $N=14$ SNe from the full sample 10,000 times to quantify the stochastic sampling spread (about 0.05 dex at $1\sigma$), and pairwise Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests whose $p$-values are all large.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to construct a larger sample selected without any MUSE-availability criterion—for instance, all CCSNe discovered by ASAS-SN and ZTF in a fixed volume, with metallicities measured from targeted follow-up spectroscopy. If a KS test on that sample returned $p < 0.05$ between Type IIb and Type Ic metallicities with comparable subsample sizes, the central claim that all types share one distribution would be falsified. A second falsifier would be detecting a clear metallicity dependence in the fraction of stripped-envelope SNe with confirmed binary companions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the metallicity distributions of the five main core-collapse supernova types are all consistent with being randomly drawn from the same parent distribution. Using the O3N2 strong-line calibration (and the N2 calibration when needed) on VLT/MUSE datacubes, the authors derive galaxy metallicity gradients and interpolate them to each supernova site, obtaining a range of $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})$ from 8.1 to 8.7 dex. A random resampling experiment and pairwise Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests show that no pair of types differs significantly; even the apparently most distinct pair, IIb versus Ic, yields a $p$-value near 0.4. The paper concludes that the traditional single-star picture, in which metallicity-dependent line-driven winds strip the envelope and create the IIb-to-Ib-to-Ic sequence, does not match the data, and that binary interaction is a more plausible dominant channel.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the 166 SNe with archival MUSE data at $z \leq 0.02$, drawn from heterogeneous observing programs with different targets, are representative of the local core-collapse supernova population; if the archival selection is not representative, the similar metallicity distributions could be an artifact rather than a physical result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If metallicity is not the key driver, then models predicting a strong II(P) $\rightarrow$ IIb $\rightarrow$ Ib $\rightarrow$ Ic metallicity sequence from single-star winds need revision or apply only to a minority of events.
  • The null result strengthens the case that most stripped-envelope supernovae come from binary channels, where orbital separation and mass ratio rather than metallicity set the envelope stripping.
  • Future samples of a few hundred SNe per type, or samples extending to higher redshift with JWST-class IFUs, could detect the small (roughly 0.05–0.1 dex) differences that this sample cannot exclude.
  • The consistency across types implies that metallicity-based corrections to CCSN type fractions in cosmic star-formation history studies are likely unnecessary at low redshift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the binary channel dominates, a testable prediction follows: the fraction of stripped-envelope SNe with detected companions should be roughly constant across host metallicities, whereas the single-star channel would predict more companions at low metallicity.
  • The paper's null result is a floor, not a proof: selection effects from the heterogeneous archival MUSE programs could mask a real metallicity trend, so an independent sample selected purely by redshift would be a stronger test.
  • The same gradient-based metallicity estimator could be applied to Type Ia SN environments in the same datacubes, allowing a direct CCSN-versus-Ia comparison with matched systematics.
  • If the small IIb-lowest, Ic-highest trend hinted in the data is real, very large samples will be needed to resolve it; the current 0.05 dex stochastic uncertainty sets a concrete required sample size.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. arXiv:2412.02667 compiles a sample of 166 core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) at z <= 0.02 with archival VLT/MUSE integral-field spectroscopy, claiming to restrict the sample to SNe discovered by untargeted wide-field surveys. The authors measure spatially resolved gas-phase metallicities with the O3N2 (and N2) strong-line calibrations of Marino et al. (2013), derive galaxy metallicity gradients via Bayesian regression, and use them to estimate SN-site metallicities, with local-environment measurements as a cross-check (Figure 5). They find site metallicities spanning 12+log(O/H) = 8.1-8.7 dex with per-type means/medians of 8.4-8.5 dex. A resampling experiment and pairwise Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests show the type-specific metallicity distributions (II(P), IIn, IIb, Ib, Ic) are mutually consistent within ~1 sigma sampling uncertainties (~0.05 dex in the mean), and the paper concludes that metallicity plays a minor role in determining CCSN type and that binary interaction may dominate the distinction between hydrogen-rich and stripped-envelope channels.

Significance. If the result withstands scrutiny, this is a valuable reference dataset: it is the largest CCSN sample with IFU metallicity measurements (166 SNe), the gradient-based site metallicities are validated against local measurements (Figure 5), and the paper explicitly quantifies the stochastic sampling uncertainty (~0.05 dex) with a resampling experiment rather than treating nominal errors as the only noise source. The conclusion that the type-specific metallicity distributions are mutually consistent corroborates Kuncarayakti et al. (2018) and Pessi et al. (2023) with better statistics, and it sharpens the tension with the simple single-star, wind-stripping picture. These strengths are, however, contingent on the sample actually being the 'minimally biased' collection it claims to be; the manuscript does not currently establish that.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Table A1] The claim that the sample contains only SNe discovered by the named untargeted surveys (PTF/ZTF/ASAS-SN/Pan-STARRS/ATLAS/MASTER/Gaia/CSS/SDSS/LSQ) is contradicted by Table A1, which lists roughly three dozen SNe from 1997-2008 (including SN1997bs, SN1998dl, SN1999br, SN2003bl, SN2004cc, SN2004dk, SN2006lc, and SN2008aq) that predate the operational windows of those surveys and that are known in the literature to have been found by targeted searches such as the Lick Observatory Supernova Search and the Beijing Astronomical Observatory survey. The manuscript provides no discovering-survey column and no per-SN verification, so the 'minimally biased' property on which the entire null result depends is asserted rather than demonstrated. Because a non-negligible admixture of targeted-discovered SNe would preferentially add bright, massive, metal-rich hosts, the apparent mutual consistency of the type-specific metallicity distributions could in principle be a selection artifact; the authors must audit every entry, report the discovering survey, and re-run the analysis restricted to verified untargeted discoveries.
  2. [§2.1, Figure 3, Table 1, Table A1] The sample-size accounting is internally inconsistent. Section 2.1 reports 24 IIP + 86 II = 110 II(P), 7 IIn, 14 IIb, 20 Ib, and 14 Ic, which sums to 165 and not the stated 166; Figure 3 shows IIb = 15 (summing to 166); Table 1 lists II(P) = 106, IIn = 7, IIb = 14, Ib = 20, Ic = 14, summing to 161; and Table A1 contains 9 IIn entries, 17 IIb entries, 23 Ib entries, and 22 Ic entries, plus an apparent duplicated row for SN2017ahn. The resampling experiment in §3.1 draws N = 14 specifically because it is 'the number of SNe for Types IIb, and Ic', yet Table A1 lists 17 and 22 such SNe. Because the KS-test and resampling sample sizes are load-bearing inputs, the manuscript must reconcile the text, Figure 3, Table 1, and Table A1, and it must clearly flag or exclude the peculiar and ambiguous SNe that are presently indistinguishable in the table.
  3. [§3.1, Figures 6 and 7] The headline comparison of each subtype with the full-sample reference distribution in Figure 6 is partly self-referential: since II(P) makes up about two-thirds of the pool, the statement that 'II(P) is consistent with the reference within 1 sigma' is close to tautological. The pairwise KS tests in Figure 8 provide the non-self-referential evidence, but for IIn (n = 7) and IIb (n = 14) these tests have very low power, so the null result can only weakly constrain differences in distribution shape; it is informative mainly for the mean, for which the resampling band is ~0.05 dex. The text should present the KS tests as the primary evidence and should reconcile the apparent tension between §3.1 ('all consistent within ~1 sigma') and §4 ('the metallicities of Type IIb SNe are lower by more than 1 sigma, still consistent within 2 sigma').
  4. [§3.3] The interpretive step from a null result to 'metallicity plays a minor role in the origin of SESNe' and 'binary interaction dominates' would be substantially strengthened by a quantitative anchor: the authors do not state how large a metallicity separation the wind-stripping (single-star) channel is predicted to produce, so a reader cannot tell whether the ~0.05 dex precision actually rules out a wind-dominated scenario or whether the models predict differences below the detection threshold. Adding a model-based expectation (for example from population synthesis with and without metallicity-dependent winds) would make the constraint meaningful.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract, §2.1, §4] There are several typos: 'untargted' in the abstract, 'curial' in §2.1, 'notinincluded' in §2.1, 'metallcity' in §1, and 'Robe-lobestripping' (should be Roche-lobe stripping) in §4.
  2. [Figure 4 caption, Table A1] The Figure 4 caption contains 'SN204ci' (should be SN2004ci), and Table A1 renders 'SN2023ijd' with a ligature ('SN2023ijd'); both should be corrected.
  3. [References] The Bacon et al. (2010) reference lists arXiv:2211.16795, which appears to be an unrelated 2022 preprint identifier rather than the identifier for that SPIE proceedings paper; please verify.
  4. [§2.2, §3] Please clarify how the upper-limit metallicities of SN2014cw and SN2016dsb are treated in Table 1 and in the resampling and KS statistics, given that they are explicitly excluded from Figure 6.
  5. [§2.2] For reproducibility, please state the fraction of SNe for which the local-bin method was used instead of the gradient method and how many galaxies required manual inclination/position-angle fitting.
  6. [§2.1, Figure 2] The 'all SNe after 2016' reference sample used in Figures 1 and 2 should be defined more precisely (which surveys, what completeness limits), since the reference itself is a mixture of survey strategies.
  7. [Table A1] I recommend publishing Table A1 as a machine-readable file that includes a discovering-survey column, a subtype flag, a method flag (gradient versus local), and a column indicating which SNe are excluded as peculiar or ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central null result is a measured comparison based on external calibrations and independent pairwise tests, not a fitted input or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational and self-contained: it builds a sample with stated selection criteria (§2.1), derives metallicities with external O3N2/N2 strong-line calibrations (Eqs. 1-4; Marino et al. 2013), and tests whether type-specific distributions differ using a Monte Carlo resampling experiment and pairwise KS tests (§3.1). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the full-sample reference distribution is data-derived, and the pairwise KS tests among types, including the IIb/Ic comparison, do not reduce to the input by construction. The resampling test is mildly self-referential for the dominant Type II(P) subgroup (106 of 166 SNe are in the reference distribution), but this only affects the stated agreement of II(P) with the full sample; the independent pairwise tests and the comparisons among the smaller subsamples carry the central claim. Citations to the authors' own prior work (Niu et al. 2024b, Sun et al. 2020, Zhao et al. 2025) are corroborative context, not load-bearing support for the null result. The paper explicitly flags a real limitation, quoted in §2.1: "It is difficult to analyze the possible bias introduced by this heterogeneity," and its representativeness check (Fig. 2) is an external comparison against all SNe after 2016. A possible selection inconsistency, namely that pre-2010 SNe such as SN1999br and SN2004dk appear in Table A1 despite the untargeted-discovery criterion, is a sample-bias concern affecting the physical interpretation, not a circular derivation. Thus the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on standard strong-line calibrations, BPT classification, linear gradient assumptions, and the representativeness of the archival sample. The only fitted quantities are per-galaxy gradients and the chosen sample cuts.

free parameters (3)
  • Per-galaxy metallicity gradient slope and intercept = Variable per galaxy (Bayesian regression)
    The gradient is fitted to each galaxy's bin metallicities and used to estimate SN-site metallicity. These are honest fits to data, not ad hoc tunings, but the central claim's SN metallicities depend on them.
  • Voronoi bin target SNR = 120 (reduced until ≥10 bins)
    Choice of target signal-to-noise ratio for spatial binning; affects the number and size of bins and thus the gradient fit.
  • Redshift cut = z ≤ 0.02
    Chosen based on the host-galaxy magnitude comparison; determines the sample and is central to the claim of representativeness.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The O3N2 and N2 strong-line calibrations (Marino et al. 2013) provide accurate gas-phase oxygen abundances for the SN host galaxies.
    Equations (1) and (3) are adopted from prior literature; if these calibrations are biased for the galaxy population in the sample, the absolute metallicities (8.1-8.7 dex) and possibly the comparisons could shift.
  • domain assumption The BPT diagram with the Kewley et al. (2001) maximum starburst line correctly selects star-forming regions.
    Used in Section 2.2 to remove non-star-forming bins before computing gradients; misclassification could bias the gradients.
  • domain assumption Galaxy metallicity gradients are approximately linear over the fitted radial range and can be safely extrapolated to SN positions outside the range.
    Section 2.2 states extrapolation is 'safe within a certain range' but does not quantify the range or the number of SNe requiring extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The archival MUSE sample at z≤0.02 is representative of the local CCSN population despite heterogeneous observing programs.
    Section 2.1 acknowledges the difficulty and uses host B-band magnitude comparison as the only quantitative check; if this assumption fails, the null result could be an artifact of data availability.
  • domain assumption Redshifts and SN classifications from TNS/OSC are reliable.
    The analysis depends on these external catalogs for sample selection and redshift corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A statistical study of the metallicity of core-collapse supernovae based on VLT/MUSE integral-field-unit spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOTPKZW6

@misc{pith2026241202667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A statistical study of the metallicity of core-collapse supernovae based on VLT/MUSE integral-field-unit spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOTPKZW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02667}
}
abstract

Metallicity plays a crucial role in the evolution of massive stars and their final core-collapse supernova (CCSN) explosions. Integral-field-unit (IFU) spectroscopy can provide a spatially resolved view of SN host galaxies and serve as a powerful tool to study SN metallicities. While early transient surveys targeted on high star formation rate and metallicity galaxies, recent untargeted, wide-field surveys (e.g., ASAS-SN, ZTF) have discovered large numbers of SNe without this bias. In this work, we construct a large sample of SNe discovered by wide-field untargted searches, consisting of 166 SNe of Types II(P), IIn, IIb, Ib and Ic at $z \leq 0.02$ with VLT/MUSE observations. This is currently the largest CCSN sample with IFU observations. With the strong-line method, we reveal the spatially-resolved metallicity maps of the SN host galaxies and acquire accurate metallicity measurements for the SN sites, finding a range from $12 + \log(\text{O/H}) = 8.1$ to 8.7 dex. And the metallicity distributions for different SN types are very close to each other, with mean and median values of 8.4--8.5 dex. Our large sample size narrows the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty down to only 0.05 dex. The apparent metallicity differences among SN types are all within $\sim$1$\sigma$ uncertainties and the metallicity distributions for different SN types are all consistent with being randomly drawn from the same reference distribution. This suggests that metallicity plays a minor role in the origin of different CCSN types and some other metallicity-insensitive processes, such as binary interaction, dominate the distinction of CCSN types.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02667 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cumulative distributions of the apparent (a) and absolute (b) B￾band magnitudes of SN host galaxies. The dashed line is for SNe before 2010, when most were discovered by transient surveys targeted on bright galaxies, while the solid line is for those after 2016, when most were discovered by untargeted SN searches. ies. Therefore, the early studies on SN metallicity are unavoidably affected by the bias caused by targ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Number of SNe of different types in the final sample. gular diameters are less likely to be observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Example results of metallicity measurements for 7 SNe located in 4 host galaxies. Column 1: RGB images of host galaxies generated from MUSE datacube. The RGB components correspond to the cumulative fluxes from three spectral bands: 6550–6750 Å, 4950–5150 Å, and 4750–4950 Årespectively. Column 2: H𝛼 flux maps generated by simulating narrowband filter (6548–6578 Å) observations of the MUSE datacube. The continuum is f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Data points: the number and mean metallicities for different types of CCSNe; the error bars are propagated from individual metallicity measure￾ment uncertainties. Shaded regions: the 1𝜎, 2𝜎 and 3𝜎 (from dark to light) distributions of the mean values of randomly resamp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative metallicity distributions for different types of CCSNe. The black line represents the metallicity distribution for all SNe in the sample. The grey-shaded regions (from dark to light) indicate the 1𝜎, 2𝜎, and 3𝜎 uncertainties caused by the stochastic sampling…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 𝑝-value from KS test for each pair of SN types. MNRAS 000, 1–13 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.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. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. The power of binaries on stripped-envelope supernovae across metallicity: uniform progenitor parameter space and persistently low ejecta masses, but subtype diversity

    astro-ph.SR 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A population synthesis with detailed binary grids shows stripped-envelope supernovae mostly come from primary stars stripped by stable mass transfer, with a flat total rate across metallicity but strong subtype variation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    T., Cappellaro E., Turatto M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-012-1017-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Ap&SS.341..163A 341, 163

    Altavilla G., Botticella M. T., Cappellaro E., Turatto M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-012-1017-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Ap&SS.341..163A 341, 163

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-012-1017-6 2012

  3. [3]

    P., Covarrubias R

    Anderson J. P., Covarrubias R. A., James P. A., Hamuy M., Habergham S. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17118.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.2660A 407, 2660

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    P., James P

    Anderson J. P., James P. A., Habergham S. M., Galbany L., Kuncarayakti H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32...19A 32, e019

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2015.19 2015

  5. [5]

    D., Bahcall J

    Arnett W. D., Bahcall J. N., Kirshner R. P., Woosley S. E., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.003213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ARA&A..27..629A 27, 629

    arXiv 1989

  6. [6]

    S., Ramsay S

    Bacon R., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 773508 ( @eprint arXiv 2211.16795 ), @doi 10.1117/12.856027

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    R., Smith N., Jencson J

    Beasor E. R., Smith N., Jencson J. E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241014027B p. arXiv:2410.14027

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14027 2024

  8. [8]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    A., Brown G

    Bethe H. A., Brown G. E., Applegate J., Lattimer J. M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0375-9474(79)90596-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979NuPhA.324..487B 324, 487

    1979 doi

  2. [10]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L..18B 953, L18

    Bostroem K. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L..18B 953, L18

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Kasliwal M

    Cao Y., Nugent P. E., Kasliwal M. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/114502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASP..128k4502C 128, 114502

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    I., Abbott D

    Castor J. I., Abbott D. C., Klein R. I., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...195..157C 195, 157

    1975 doi

  6. [14]

    C., et al., 2019, The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys ( @eprint arXiv 1612.05560 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560

    Chambers K. C., et al., 2019, The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys ( @eprint arXiv 1612.05560 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    R., Graham M

    Christensen E., 2014, in Wozniak P. R., Graham M. J., Mahabal A. A., Seaman R., eds, The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Workshop. pp 55--55

    2014

  8. [16]

    M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08752.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.358..363C 358, 363

    Cid Fernandes R., Mateus A., Sodr \'e L., Stasi \'n ska G., Gomes J. M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08752.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.358..363C 358, 363

    2005

  9. [17]

    S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.002103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ARA&A..16..371C 16, 371

    Conti P. S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.002103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ARA&A..16..371C 16, 371

    1978

  10. [18]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00540.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391L...5C 391, L5

    Crockett R. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00540.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391L...5C 391, L5

    2008

  11. [19]

    D \'a lya G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2374D 479, 2374

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    G., Pagel B

    Edmunds M. G., Pagel B. E. J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/211.3.507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984MNRAS.211..507E 211, 507

    1984 doi

  13. [21]

    Fang Q., Maeda K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...47F 864, 47

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    V., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..309F 35, 309

    Filippenko A. V., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..309F 35, 309

    1997 doi

  15. [23]

    V., Li W

    Filippenko A. V., Li W. D., Treffers R. R., Modjaz M., 2001, in Paczynski B., Chen W.-P., Lemme C., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 246, IAU Colloq. 183: Small Telescope Astronomy on Global Scales. p. 121

    2001

  16. [24]

    C., Kuncarayakti H., Benvenuto O

    Folatelli G., Bersten M. C., Kuncarayakti H., Benvenuto O. G., Maeda K., Nomoto K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811..147F 811, 147

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    A., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..338F 135, 338

    Frieman J. A., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..338F 135, 338

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    A., eds, IAU Symposium Vol

    Galbany L., Stanishev V., Mour \ a o A., 2014, in Ray A., McCray R. A., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 296, Supernova Environmental Impacts. pp 350--351, @doi 10.1017/S1743921313009770

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Galbany L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A..48G 591, A48

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Galbany L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855..107G 855, 107

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Groh J

    G \"o tberg Y., de Mink S. E., Groh J. H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..11G 608, A11

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Gu \'e rou A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A...5G 608, A5

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Z., Margutti R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835...64G 835, 64

    Guillochon J., Parrent J., Kelley L. Z., Margutti R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835...64G 835, 64

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    285, New Horizons in Time Domain Astronomy

    Hadjiyska E., et al., 2012, in Griffin E., Hanisch R., Seaman R., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 285, New Horizons in Time Domain Astronomy. pp 324--326 ( @eprint arXiv 1210.1584 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921312000944

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    arXiv:2411.14685

    Hong X., Sun N.-C., Niu Z., Wu J., Xi Q., Liu J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241114685H p. arXiv:2411.14685

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kiewe M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744...10K 744, 10

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...28K 785, 28

    Kochanek C. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...28K 785, 28

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    Kochanek C. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Kudritzki R.-P., Puls J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ARA&A..38..613K 38, 613

    2000 doi

  30. [38]

    279, Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Kuncarayakti H., et al., 2012a, in Roming P., Kawai N., Pian E., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 279, Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts. pp 343--344, @doi 10.1017/S1743921312013269

    doi

  31. [39]

    458, Galactic Archaeology: Near-Field Cosmology and the Formation of the Milky Way

    Kuncarayakti H., et al., 2012b, in Aoki W., Ishigaki M., Suda T., Tsujimoto T., Arimoto N., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 458, Galactic Archaeology: Near-Field Cosmology and the Formation of the Milky Way. p. 43

  32. [40]

    Kuncarayakti H., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...30K 146, 30

    doi

  33. [41]

    Kuncarayakti H., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...31K 146, 31

    doi

  34. [42]

    Kuncarayakti H., et al., 2015, @doi [Publication of Korean Astronomical Society] 10.5303/PKAS.2015.30.2.139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PKAS...30..139K 30, 139

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    Kuncarayakti H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...613A..35K 613, A35

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638L..63L 638, L63

    Langer N., Norman C. A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638L..63L 638, L63

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/648598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121.1395L 121, 1395

    Law N. M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/648598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121.1395L 121, 1395

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    Leloudas G., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A..95L 530, A95

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    M., 2003, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#202

    Lipunov V. M., 2003, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#202. p. 47.02

    2003

  40. [48]

    Lunnan R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787..138L 787, 138

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Bersier D., James P

    Lyman J. D., Bersier D., James P. A., Mazzali P. A., Eldridge J. J., Fraser M., Pian E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..328L 457, 328

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1359L 473, 1359

    Lyman J. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1359L 473, 1359

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Deng J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..854M 640, 854

    Maeda K., Nomoto K., Mazzali P. A., Deng J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...640..854M 640, 854

    2006 doi

  44. [52]

    Maeda K., Katsuda S., Bamba A., Terada Y., Fukazawa Y., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...95M 785, 95

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    Maeda K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807...35M 807, 35

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Y., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.3334M 426, 3334

    Mao M. Y., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.3334M 426, 3334

    2012

  47. [55]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A.114M 559, A114

    Marino R. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A.114M 559, A114

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Filippenko A

    Modjaz M., Kewley L., Bloom J. S., Filippenko A. V., Perley D., Silverman J. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/731/1/L4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731L...4M 731, L4

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..20M 677, A20

    Moriya T. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..20M 677, A20

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727...15N 727, 15

    Neill J. D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727...15N 727, 15

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    Niino Y., Nagamine K., Zhang B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2706N 449, 2706

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    R., Zhang Y., Zhao R., Liu J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4e3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..15N 955, L15

    Niu Z., Sun N.-C., Maund J. R., Zhang Y., Zhao R., Liu J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4e3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..15N 955, L15

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    Niu Z., Sun N.-C., Liu J., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3f8f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966L..20N 966, L20

    doi

  54. [62]

    Niu Z., Sun N.-C., Liu J., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970L...9N 970, L9

    doi

  55. [63]

    Nomoto K., Suzuki T., Shigeyama T., Kumagai S., Yamaoka H., Saio H., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1038/364507a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.364..507N 364, 507

    1993 doi

  56. [64]

    Pagel B. E. J., Edmunds M. G., Blackwell D. E., Chun M. S., Smith G., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/189.1.95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.189...95P 189, 95

    1979 doi

  57. [65]

    Pessi T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..28P 677, A28

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Menci N., Brocato E., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Pignata G., et al., 2009, in Giobbi G., Tornambe A., Raimondo G., Limongi M., Antonelli L. A., Menci N., Brocato E., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1111, Probing Stellar Populations Out to the Distant Universe: Cefalu 2008, Proceedings of the Interna...

    2009 arXiv

  59. [67]

    C., Hsu J

    Podsiadlowski P., Joss P. C., Hsu J. J. L., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...391..246P 391, 246

    1992 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Stanek K

    Prieto J. L., Stanek K. Z., Beacom J. F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673..999P 673, 999

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...570A...6S 570, A6

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758..132S 758, 132

    Sanders N. E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758..132S 758, 132

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47...63S 47, 63

    Smartt S. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47...63S 47, 63

    2009 doi

  65. [73]

    Smith N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..487S 52, 487

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    V., Chornock R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.1522S 412, 1522

    Smith N., Li W., Filippenko A. V., Chornock R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.1522S 412, 1522

    2011

  67. [75]

    R., Hirai R., Crowther P

    Sun N.-C., Maund J. R., Hirai R., Crowther P. A., Podsiadlowski P., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.6000S 491, 6000

    doi

  68. [76]

    R., Crowther P

    Sun N.-C., Maund J. R., Crowther P. A., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.5118S 497, 5118

    doi

  69. [77]

    R., Crowther P

    Sun N.-C., Maund J. R., Crowther P. A., Fang X., Zapartas E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab994 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.2253S 504, 2253

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    R., Crowther P

    Sun N.-C., Maund J. R., Crowther P. A., Hirai R., Kashapov A., Liu J.-F., Liu L.-D., Zapartas E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3701S 510, 3701

    2022 doi

  71. [79]

    R., Crowther P

    Sun N.-C., Maund J. R., Crowther P. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.2860S 521, 2860

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    Taddia F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...580A.131T 580, A131

    2015 doi

  73. [81]

    Taddia F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A.136T 609, A136

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    2004 doi

  75. [83]

    S., de Koter A., Lamers H

    Vink J. S., de Koter A., Lamers H. J. G. L. M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...369..574V 369, 574

    2001 doi

  76. [84]

    E., Weaver T

    Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.24.090186.001225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ARA&A..24..205W 24, 205

    1986

  77. [85]

    E., Sukhbold T., Kasen D

    Woosley S. E., Sukhbold T., Kasen D. N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913..145W 913, 145

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    E., Justham S., Smith N., Renzo M., de Koter A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A...6Z 645, A6

    Zapartas E., de Mink S. E., Justham S., Smith N., Renzo M., de Koter A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A...6Z 645, A6

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    arXiv:2411.17969

    Zhao Y.-H., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241117969Z p. arXiv:2411.17969

    2024

  80. [88]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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