Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 116 references

A Multiwavelength Autopsy of the Interacting IIn Supernova 2020ywx: Tracing its Progenitor Mass-Loss History for 100 Years before Death

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The progenitor of Type IIn supernova 2020ywx shed mass at roughly 0.01 to 0.001 solar masses per year for at least a century before exploding, and the paper argues that a binary companion, not a normal single-star wind, drove this extreme…

desk verdict A rich multiwavelength dataset and a plausible order-of-magnitude mass-loss rate, but the century-timescale claim rests on a single velocity measurement that the paper's own late-time spectra could test. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06914 v2 pith:7N5OSPUM submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.HE

Raphael Baer-Way , Poonam Chandra , Maryam Modjaz , Sahana Kumar , Craig Pellegrino , Roger Chevalier , Adrian Crawford , Arkaprabha Sarangi
show 26 more authors
Nathan Smith Keiichi Maeda A.J. Nayana Alexei V. Filippenko Jennifer E. Andrews Iair Arcavi K.Azalee Bostroem Thomas G. Brink Yize Dong Vikram Dwarkadas Joseph R. Farah D. Andrew Howell Daichi Hiramatsu Griffin Hosseinzadeh Curtis McCully Nicolas Meza Megan Newsome Estefania Padilla Gonzalez Jeniveve Pearson David J. Sand Manisha Shrestha Giacomo Terreran Stefano Valenti Samuel Wyatt Yi Yang WeiKang Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords TypeIInsupernovacircumstellarmediummass-losshistorymultiwavelengthmodelingdustformationbinaryinteractionX-rayastronomyradio
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 tries to establish that the progenitor of Type IIn supernova 2020ywx was losing mass at roughly $\sim 10^{-2}$ to $10^{-3}$ solar masses per year for at least 100 years before the explosion. The circumstellar medium (CSM) speed of $120$ km/s, measured from P Cygni absorption in optical and near-infrared spectra, anchors the timescale: the forward shock has been plowing through dense material for about a century. If true, this mass-loss rate far exceeds what single-star winds can sustain, and the paper argues that binary interaction is the most plausible driving mechanism. It also finds evidence for dust forming after the explosion, from a growing blueshift in hydrogen lines and a $\sim 1000$ K near-infrared blackbody. The multiwavelength data and modeling make SN 2020ywx a concrete case supporting the emerging view that many Type IIn supernova progenitors lose their mass through binary interaction.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the set of shock-emission formulas that convert fluxes in each waveband into a pre-explosion mass-loss rate: the adiabatic forward-shock X-ray luminosity formula $L_{\rm CS}(1\,{\rm keV}) \propto C_*^2 V_4^{3-2s} t^{3-2s}$ (Eq. 10), the H$\alpha$ luminosity relation $\dot{M} = 4 L_{\rm H\alpha} v_w / (\epsilon v_s^3)$ (Eq. 13), and the radio free-free absorption optical depth relation (Eq. 14). The load-bearing input common to all three is the CSM speed $v_w = 120$ km/s measured from the P Cygni absorption troughs, which converts the shock radius at each epoch into the duration over which the mass loss occurred. The assumed CSM density profile $\rho \propto r^{-s}$ with $s \approx 1.85$, inferred from the X-ray decline and radio modeling, ties the wavebands together and gives the non-steady, non-spherical character that motivates the binary interpretation.

What would settle it

Very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) imaging of SN 2020ywx at radio frequencies could spatially resolve the synchrotron-emitting region and directly test whether the free-free absorbing gas is internal, whether the CSM is clumpy, and whether the asymmetry inferred from the multiwavelength mass-loss rates is real; alternatively, a deep search for a surviving binary companion in late-time optical or near-infrared imaging could confirm or rule out the binary-interaction scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SN 2020ywx's progenitor sustained extreme mass loss of roughly $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-3}$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for at least 100 years before core collapse, traced by a CSM expansion speed of $120 \pm 22$ km/s measured from P Cygni absorption in optical H$\alpha$ and near-infrared He I lines. Three wavelength-based estimates of the mass-loss rate (from X-ray luminosity, H$\alpha$ luminosity, and radio free-free absorption) agree to within an order of magnitude, but their time evolution differs, which the paper reads as evidence for an asymmetric or clumpy CSM. The X-ray data make SN 2020ywx one of the most X-ray luminous Type IIn supernovae ever observed, and the shallow $t^{-0.77}$ decline implies a CSM density profile $\rho \propto r^{-s}$ with $s \approx 1.85$, i.e. not a steady wind. A growing blueshift in the intermediate-width hydrogen lines and a $\sim 1000$ K near-infrared blackbody are interpreted as dust forming after the explosion in the dense shell, and the overall picture points to binary interaction as the most plausible mass-loss mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The mass-loss rates assume the circumstellar matter is a smooth, spherical shell with a power-law density profile; if the CSM is actually clumpy or strongly asymmetric, as the paper itself argues to reconcile the X-ray and radio/optical results, then each waveband's flux-to-mass-loss conversion is model-dependent rather than a direct measurement, and the optical rate additionally relies on a fixed 10% H-alpha conversion efficiency that the paper notes is not well constrained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mass-loss rate of $\sim 10^{-2}$–$10^{-3}$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ held for at least 100 years, the progenitor ejected more than 1 $M_\odot$ of hydrogen-rich material before exploding, a reservoir that single-star winds cannot easily supply.
  • The inferred CSM density exponent $s \approx 1.85 \neq 2$ means the mass loss was not a constant wind, so single-band measurements of SN IIn mass loss should be interpreted with non-steady density profiles in mind.
  • The discrepancy between X-ray and optical/radio mass-loss rates implies that CSM asymmetry is significant; future multiwavelength studies of SNe IIn should treat single-wavelength mass-loss rates as lower or upper limits depending on viewing geometry.
  • If binary interaction is the real driver, SN 2020ywx becomes a benchmark for binary mass-loss models: its sustained century-long rate and $\sim 120$ km/s wind speed are concrete constraints that such models must reproduce.
  • The dust-formation evidence, from the growing blueshift and the $\sim 1000$ K blackbody, adds to the case that SNe IIn can form dust in the post-shock dense shell within a few years of explosion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its multiwavelength approach, applied to a larger sample of SNe IIn, could directly test how often the X-ray versus radio/optical mass-loss mismatch appears; a systematic study would quantify how common asymmetric CSM is among Type IIn supernovae.
  • If the CSM is genuinely clumpy or asymmetric, the mass-loss rates derived from any single band may be biased by line-of-sight geometry, meaning that published rates for other SNe IIn, mostly based on one or two wavebands, may need revision when clumping is accounted for.
  • A testable extension is to model the full multiwavelength evolution with a clumpy, non-spherical CSM; if a modest clumping factor reconciles the X-ray plateau with the declining radio/optical rates, the 100-year duration and total ejected mass would become more secure than the current spherical-shell estimates.
  • Continued radio and X-ray monitoring could discriminate between a persistent dense clump and a more uniform outflow: if the X-ray rate holds steady while the radio rate keeps declining, the clump interpretation is favored, whereas convergence of the two rates would point toward a smoother CSM.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an extensive multiwavelength dataset for the interacting Type IIn SN 2020ywx, spanning Chandra/Swift X-ray, optical and near-infrared spectroscopy and photometry, and VLA/GMRT radio observations over more than 1200 days. The authors use these data to derive pre-explosion mass-loss rates from three independent wavebands, obtaining values around 10^-2 to 10^-3 M_sun/yr, and combine the measured CSM velocity of 120 km/s with the observed shock speed to infer that this mass loss persisted for at least 100 years before explosion. They argue that the differences between the X-ray and optical/radio mass-loss evolution imply an asymmetric CSM, that a growing blueshift and a ~1000 K near-infrared blackbody indicate post-explosion dust formation, and that sustained high mass loss over a century favors binary interaction as the mass-loss mechanism.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this paper is a valuable addition to the growing sample of SNe IIn with multiwaveband mass-loss histories, and it provides one of the more detailed case studies connecting IIn progenitors to binary-driven mass loss. The strengths are substantial: the dataset is unusually complete (Chandra at four epochs, VLA/GMRT spectra at three epochs, optical/NIR spectroscopy over 1200 days), the radio and optical mass-loss rates use different physical conversions and are not trivially degenerate, the direct detection of P Cygni absorption in H-alpha gives a rare measurement of the unshocked CSM speed, and the paper makes its fitting code and data public. The dust-formation evidence from the evolving blueshift and NIR blackbody is also presented in a coherent way. However, several load-bearing quantities are derived under model assumptions whose sensitivity is not quantified, and the 100-year duration claim currently rests on a single direct CSM-velocity measurement extrapolated to much larger radii.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (6) and (10)] The X-ray mass-loss rate is partially circular. The authors set the fitted X-ray luminosity decline exponent (-0.77) equal to the theoretical expression in Eq. (6) to constrain s ≈ 1.85, and then insert this same s into Eq. (10) to derive C* and hence the mass-loss rate. The resulting X-ray mass-loss plateau is therefore not an independent measurement of the density profile; it partly inherits the model assumption. The paper should quantify this by showing how the derived mass-loss rate and its time evolution change for, e.g., s = 2 (the canonical wind value) or for the range n = 6-12, and by reporting the joint covariance between n and s. Without this, the claimed discrepancy between the flat X-ray mass-loss rate and declining optical/radio rates cannot be cleanly attributed to CSM asymmetry.
  2. [Section 4.2.1 and Figure 19] The central 'at least 100 years' duration claim is extrapolated from a single direct CSM-velocity measurement. The only quoted absorption-trough velocity is v_abs = 120 ± 22 km/s from the MMT H-alpha spectrum at day 448 (Section 3.2, Figure 10), and the NIR He I line at day 608 is an emission FWHM, not an independent absorption measurement. At the adopted shock speed of ~4000 km/s, this directly probes CSM ejected only ~40 years before explosion. Extending this speed to the radii corresponding to the full 100-year duration assumes the CSM speed is constant over another factor ~2.5 in radius, yet Table A2 shows that high-resolution MMT spectra exist at days 1220 and 1361. I request that the authors measure (or upper-limit) the P Cygni absorption velocity in those late spectra, or explicitly state that the 100-year duration is a model-dependent extrapolation rather than a direct measurement. Because v_CSM enters linearly in every mass-loss normalization (Eqs. 13 and 14, and C* in Eq. 10), an outer CSM that is faster or slower by even a factor of two would directly change both the inferred duration and the absolute mass-loss rates. The order-of-magnitude mass-loss rate may survive, but the binary-timescale argument currently rests on an unverified extrapolation.
  3. [Section 4.2.1, Eq. (13)] The optical mass-loss rate is directly proportional to the assumed H-alpha conversion efficiency epsilon, fixed at 0.1. The text correctly notes that this efficiency is not well constrained and is a significant source of uncertainty, but no sensitivity test is given. Varying epsilon over the plausible range 0.03-0.3 changes the optical mass-loss rate by an order of magnitude, which is comparable to or larger than the differences between wavebands on which the asymmetry claim is based. The authors should show a sensitivity curve or at least state the allowed range of epsilon and its effect on the comparison in Figure 19.
  4. [Section 4.3, Eq. (14)] The radio mass-loss rate and its time evolution depend strongly on the assumed CSM electron temperature Te and on the choice of internal free-free absorption model. The authors adopt Te decreasing linearly from 10^5 K to 10^4 K, justified by CLOUDY steady-state models, but this directly drives the reported 'gradually increasing' radio mass-loss rate in the decades before explosion. If Te were held constant, the radio mass-loss evolution would be flatter. Additionally, Section 3.3 acknowledges that the best-fit internal FFA model does not reproduce the flux around 10 GHz at two epochs (Figure 12); this residual affects the fitted optical depth τ5 and hence Eq. (14). I ask the authors to quantify how much of the radio mass-loss decline is attributable to the Te(t) assumption and to give a systematic uncertainty from the model residuals, so that the radio evolution can be compared honestly with the optical and X-ray results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2.1] The abstract states 'for at least 100 yrs pre-explosion' without the caveat that this assumes a constant CSM speed of 120 km/s over the full extrapolated radius range; given the direct measurement only reaches ~40 yr pre-explosion, the abstract should either soften the claim or explicitly flag the assumption.
  2. [Figure 14] The caption contains the typo 'IIn Sne' and the axis label 'Years Pre-Explosion' would benefit from an explicit statement of the assumed v_CSM and v_sh values so that the mapping from observation time to pre-explosion time is unambiguous.
  3. [Table A3] Several GMRT rows list the same 'Days Since Expl.' value for different calendar dates (e.g., 744 for both 2022-09-27 and 2023-09-02), which is likely a typo or a carry-over from a repeated epoch; the table should use a single consistent epoch column.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Figure 10] The caption says 'The spectra are normalized to the narrow features'; since the figure shows normalized flux, it should say 'normalized to the peak of the narrow component' to avoid implying the full narrow-line profile is used.
  5. [Section 3.1] The 6.5-7.0 keV feature is identified as ionized Fe, but the text would be clearer if it specified the likely ionic species (e.g., Fe XXV/Fe XXVI) rather than only 'ionized Fe lines'.
  6. [Title] The draft typeset title contains a typo, 'T racing', which should be 'Tracing' in the published version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The X-ray mass-loss 'plateau' is inherited from the fitted CSM slope s≈1.85; the other waveband rates are independent but this one partly restates its input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Eqs. 6 and 10)]
    "We set our fitted exponent equal to the exponent in the theoretical expression to constrain s and n ... We find s ≈ 1.8–1.9 ... We fix s at 1.85 ... The result is C∗ = 210 at the first X-ray epoch, suggesting a mass-loss rate of (1.3±0.7)×10−2 M⊙ yr−1 ... This mass-loss rate does not change significantly over the following epochs even when adjusting for the evolution of the shock radius and hovers around 0.01 M⊙ yr−1 throughout the evolution."

    Eq. (6) gives L_X ∝ t^{−(12−7s+2ns−3n)/(n−s)}. The authors fix s≈1.85 by equating this exponent to the observed t^{−0.77} decay. Eq. (10) then has L(1 keV) ∝ C∗^2 V_4^{3−2s} t^{3−2s} = C∗^2 V_4^{−0.7} t^{−0.7} for s=1.85. Solving for C∗ from the same observed light curve therefore gives C∗ ∝ t^{−0.07}/V_4^{0.7} (with V_4 declining only weakly), i.e. a near-constant mass-loss rate by construction. The reported X-ray plateau is a restatement of the fitted decay exponent, not an independent measurement; only the normalization of the rate is set by the observed luminosity.

full rationale

The paper's optical and radio mass-loss derivations are independent: the optical rate uses the measured Hα luminosity, the adopted shock speed, and v_CSM=120 km s−1, while the radio rate uses the fitted 5 GHz free-free optical depth. Neither reduces to the X-ray fit. The central claim of a high mass-loss rate (~10−2–10−3 M⊙ yr−1) for at least 100 years is supported by those independent channels and by the measured CSM speed, so the paper is not wholly circular. However, one load-bearing piece of the multiwavelength picture—the X-ray mass-loss plateau and the statement that the star was losing mass at a near-constant rate with no pre-explosion uptick—is not an independent finding: s≈1.85 is fitted from the X-ray luminosity decay, and inserting that same s into Eq. (10) forces the inferred C∗ (and hence the mass-loss rate) to be nearly constant. This is a fitted input presented as a prediction. I find no other circular step: the self-citations to Chevalier & Fransson (2017), Dwarkadas et al. (2016), and Sarangi et al. (2018) provide standard formulae or background interpretations, and the dust-formation argument is supported by independent spectral evolution rather than by citation alone. The score of 6 reflects partial circularity: one central 'prediction' reduces by construction, while the order-of-magnitude mass-loss and long duration retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's mass-loss measurements rest on established shock-emission models plus several hand-set parameters: the CSM density slope s, the ejecta slope n, the H-alpha efficiency epsilon, the radio electron temperature history, and the explosion epoch. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • CSM density power-law index s = 1.85
    Chosen by equating the fitted X-ray luminosity decay exponent (t^-0.77) to the theoretical expression (Eq. 6); used in all X-ray mass-loss and density calculations.
  • Ejecta density power-law index n = about 6
    Adopted with some input from radio modeling; used to extrapolate early shock temperatures and to compute cooling times.
  • H-alpha conversion efficiency epsilon = 0.1
    Fixed at 10% in Eq. (13); scales the optical mass-loss rate inversely and is acknowledged as poorly constrained.
  • Radio CSM electron temperature = 10^5 K early, 10^4 K late with linear decline
    Assumed for converting the 5 GHz optical depth to a mass-loss rate (Eq. 14); justified by CLOUDY runs not shown in the paper.
  • Explosion epoch = MJD 59105, midpoint with +/-53 days
    Assumed as the midpoint between last nondetection and discovery; sets the time axis for all mass-loss rates and durations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Established synchrotron and thermal shock emission models correctly map observed flux to shock properties and mass-loss rate.
    The X-ray, radio, and optical mass-loss derivations invoke Chevalier 1982, Fransson et al. 1996, and Weiler et al. 1986 as background; the paper does not re-derive them.
  • domain assumption CSM density is a single power law r^-s with constant s over the observed epochs.
    Used in Eqs. (6), (8), (10), and (11); the paper later invokes asymmetry and clumping to explain discrepancies, which is formally inconsistent with a smooth spherical model.
  • domain assumption Solar abundances and electron-ion equipartition in the forward shock.
    Adopted in sections 3.1 and 4.1 because metallicity is unmeasured; sets the temperature-to-luminosity conversion.
  • domain assumption The P Cygni absorption trough traces the unshocked CSM expansion speed.
    Gives v_CSM = 120 km/s, which anchors the 100-year duration timescale through t_ML = v_sh / v_CSM times t.
  • domain assumption The H-alpha luminosity is powered by CSM interaction and traces the shock kinetic energy.
    Basis of Eq. (13); if a significant fraction of H-alpha comes from photoionization or the H II region, the optical mass-loss rate is biased.
  • domain assumption The X-ray 0.2-50 keV simulated flux captures the full forward-shock luminosity.
    Needed because Chandra only measures 0.2-10 keV while the fitted temperatures exceed 10 keV at early epochs; if a large high-energy component is missed, L and Mdot are underestimated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multiwavelength Autopsy of the Interacting IIn Supernova 2020ywx: Tracing its Progenitor Mass-Loss History for 100 Years before Death." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7N5OSPUM

@misc{pith2026241206914,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multiwavelength Autopsy of the Interacting IIn Supernova 2020ywx: Tracing its Progenitor Mass-Loss History for 100 Years before Death},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7N5OSPUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06914}
}
abstract

While the subclass of interacting supernovae with narrow hydrogen emission lines (SNe IIn) consists of some of the longest-lasting and brightest SNe ever discovered, their progenitors are still not well understood. Investigating SNe IIn as they emit across the electromagnetic spectrum is the most robust way to understand the progenitor evolution before the explosion. This work presents X-Ray, optical, infrared, and radio observations of the strongly interacting Type IIn SN 2020ywx covering a period $>1200$ days after discovery. Through multiwavelength modeling, we find that the progenitor of 2020ywx was losing mass at $\sim10^{-2}$--$10^{-3} \mathrm{\,M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}}$ for at least 100 yrs pre-explosion using the circumstellar medium (CSM) speed of 120 km/s measured from our optical and NIR spectra. Despite the similar magnitude of mass loss measured in different wavelength ranges, we find discrepancies between the X-ray and optical/radio-derived mass-loss evolution, which suggest asymmetries in the CSM. Furthermore, we find evidence for dust formation due to the combination of a growing blueshift in optical emission lines and near-infrared continuum emission which we fit with blackbodies at $\sim$ 1000 K. Based on the observed elevated mass loss over more than 100 years and the configuration of the CSM inferred from the multiwavelength observations, we invoke binary interaction as the most plausible mechanism to explain the overall mass-loss evolution. SN 2020ywx is thus a case that may support the growing observational consensus that SNe IIn mass loss is explained by binary interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06914 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radio, optical, and X-ray images of SN 2020ywx all taken ∼ 500 days post-explosion. The crosshairs point at the reported location of the SN (Srivastav et al. 2020). North is up and east is to the left. We emphasize the lack of emission from the host galaxy at radio and X-ray wavelengths. The beam size is shown in the radio image at 5 GHz in the lower-left corner. We additionally show 0.5 mJy contours in the radio im… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The four Chandra X-ray spectra of SN 2020ywx with their fits (thermalized plasma models with associated Gaussians). The models are denoted with dashed lines in cases where there are multi-component models (at the first two epochs). The residuals are plotted as sign (data-model) × ∆χ 2 . For details on the best-fit parameters, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temperature vs. column density contours from the two epochs in March 2023 and January 2024. We obtain a rough estimate for the temperature through these temper￾ature fits. function using MCMC fitting and find a decay rate of 0.00333+0.000015 −0.000016 mag day−1 in the ZTF r band and 0.00455+0.00003 −0.00003 mag day−1 in the ZTF g band. The dif￾ference in decline in the two bands is likely due to the strong Hα emissi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The fit to the 0.2–50 keV X-ray flux of SN 2020ywx over time with a power law. We show the measured 0.2–10 keV flux as well as the simulated 0.2–50 keV evolution to which we fit, finding a power law that declines as t −0.77 . This suggests a shallow s ≈ 1.85 CSM densit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The host-subtracted and extinction-corrected optical light curves of SN 2020ywx in LCO gri, ZTF gri, and ATLAS o bands. The LCO i-band results differ from those of ZTF owing to varying wavelength coverage in the two bands. The dip in LCO i band magnitude around 400 day…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Extinction-corrected optical spectra of SN 2020ywx across all epochs. The Hα emission line is most prominent, but there is additionally significant Hβ. We also note the declining presence of the Ca II NIR triplet. favors the electron-scattering hypothesis for the origi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hα and Hβ profiles across selected epochs for SN 2020ywx. The increasing blueshift of the intermediate component for Hα and Hβ (starting at 114 days at positive velocities and then going towards negative velocities, at 1220 days at −690 km/s) is visible. See figure 16 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MCMC posteriors and the fitting (with H II region contamination from [N II]) to the first optical spectrum of SN 2020ywx (83 days post-explosion). B, I, N, and NII refer to the broad, narrow, intermediate, and [N II] components of the model. A and C refer to amplitude …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The NIR spectra of SN 2020ywx with accom￾panying cold blackbody fits. We note that at later times the continuum is redder than at earlier times, suggesting an emerging dust component. Telluric regions are shaded in gray and denoted by the ⊕ symbol. The prominent HeI a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radio spectra of SN 2020ywx at the 3 VLA epochs with the best-fit internal free-free absorption (FFA) model (denoted with the solid line as FFAint), the synchrotron self-absorption model (denoted with the dashed line as SSA), and the external FFA model (denoted with t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Radio light curves of SN 2020ywx with the associated internal free-free absorption model at 6 frequencies across VLA and GMRT bands. The model generally fits the data well despite the VLA frequencies not being well sampled over time. evolving temperature. We emphasize…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: X-ray 0.2–10 keV luminosity and column density comparison between SN 2020ywx and other SNe IIn. We see that 2020ywx is one of the most luminous IIn Sne of all time, surpassing other SNe at certain epochs. We show the pre-explosion mass-loss timescale corresponding to …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A comparison of R/r-band optical light curves for SN 2020ywx and three prototypical SNe IIn, SNe 1988Z, 2005ip and 2010jl. We note that SN 2020ywx is constant in its decline. The SN 2010jl data are from Zhang et al. (2012); Baer-Way et al. (2024), the SN 2005ip data a…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evolution of the central velocity of the inter￾mediate component fit to SN 2020ywx’s Hα profiles with points from different telescopes labeled. The uncertainties are added in quadrature from the fitting and the resolution of the telescope (detailed in Table A2). The e…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: A comparison between optical and NIR hy￾drogen lines at ∼ 600 days post-explosion. The dashed lines show the MCMC-fitted center velocity for each line. We note a more prominent blueshift in the bluest line, suggesting dust effects. We find that the flux ratio between …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The evolution of the photometerically-calibrated Hα luminosity from the broad and intermediate Gaussian components of our fits. These values are averaged at simi￾lar epochs and used to calculate the optically derived mass￾loss rate. We notice a general decline with th…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Mass-loss rate constrained across wavelengths at epochs for which we have data in each band. The mass loss is consistently high at ∼ 0.01 M⊙ yr−1 and persists near this rate for close to 100 yr (with this time frame measured through the relative speed of the shock to …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2702

    Aghakhanloo, M., Smith, N., Milne, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2702

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2702 2023

  2. [2]

    P., Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Hamuy, M., et al

    Anderson, J. P., Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/67

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/67 2014

  3. [3]

    E., Clayton, G

    Andrews, J. E., Clayton, G. C., Wesson, R., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/45

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/45 2011

  4. [4]

    Angel, J. R. P., Hilliard, R. L., & Weymann, R. J. 1979, in The MMT and the Future of Ground-Based Astronomy, ed. T. C. Weekes, Vol. 385, 87

    1979

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Aretxaga, I., Benetti, S., Terlevich, R. J., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 343, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02830.x

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et a...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2175

    Baer-Way, R., DeGraw, A., Zheng, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2175

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2175 2024

  8. [8]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004

    2015

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 31

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    F., & Bartel, N

    Bietenholz, M. F., & Bartel, N. 2017, ApJ, 851, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa960b

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

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

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

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    F., Brunthaler, A., Soderberg, A

    Bietenholz, M. F., Brunthaler, A., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/125

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    G., et al

    Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Williams, G. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae380

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14

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

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Chugai, N., et al

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Chugai, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/110

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Soderberg, A. M. 2015, ApJ, 810, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/32

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

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

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

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Nayana, A. J. 2024, ApJL, 963, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad275d

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa85a2

    Chandra, P., & Kanekar, N. 2017, ApJ, 846, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa85a2

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

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

    1982 doi

  14. [23]

    A., & Irwin, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Irwin, C. M. 2012, ApJL, 747, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L17

    2012 doi

  15. [24]

    Chugai, N. N. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/250.3.513

    1991 doi

  16. [25]

    N., & Danziger, I

    Chugai, N. N., & Danziger, I. J. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 173, doi: 10.1093/mnras/268.1.173

    1994 doi

  17. [26]

    2023, A&A, 670, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244867

    Cold, C., & Hjorth, J. 2023, A&A, 670, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244867

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907

    2004 doi

  19. [28]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2022, A&A, 660, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243372

    2022 doi

  20. [30]

    Bauer, F. E. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1717

    2016 doi

  21. [31]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    2007 doi

  22. [32]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    Fabricant, D., Fata, R., Epps, H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    2019 doi

  23. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01359

    Farias, D., Gall, C., Narayan, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.01359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01359

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [34]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485

    2013 doi arXiv

  25. [35]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1982, PASP, 94, 715, doi: 10.1086/131052 —. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    1982 doi

  26. [36]

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

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

    2007 doi

  27. [37]

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

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

    2013 doi

  28. [38]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/7

    2011 doi

  29. [39]

    D., Silverman, J

    Fox, O. D., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2435

    2015 doi

  30. [40]

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

    1996 doi

  31. [41]

    J., et al

    Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/118

    2014 doi

  32. [42]

    C., Allen, G

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

    2006 doi

  33. [43]

    2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 76, 1

    Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., Pastorello, A., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 76, 1

    2021

  34. [44]

    C., Fox, D

    Gal-Yam, A., Leonard, D. C., Fox, D. B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 372, doi: 10.1086/510523

    2007 doi

  35. [45]

    2014, Nature, 511, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature13558

    Gall, C., Hjorth, J., Watson, D., et al. 2014, Nature, 511, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature13558

    2014 doi

  36. [46]

    M., & Ferland, G

    Gaskell, C. M., & Ferland, G. J. 1984, PASP, 96, 393, doi: 10.1086/131352

    1984 doi

  37. [47]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2708

    2017 doi

  38. [48]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  39. [49]

    E., Prieto, J

    Jencson, J. E., Prieto, J. L., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2795

    2016 doi

  40. [50]

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

    2021 doi

  41. [51]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d81

    Kundu, E., Lundqvist, P., Sorokina, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d81

    2019 doi

  42. [52]

    B., & Graur, O

    Liu, Y.-Q., Modjaz, M., Bianco, F. B., & Graur, O. 2016, ApJ, 827, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/90

    2016 doi

  43. [53]

    1988, A&A, 192, 221 —

    Lundqvist, P., & Fransson, C. 1988, A&A, 192, 221 —. 1991, ApJ, 380, 575, doi: 10.1086/170615 32

    1988 doi

  44. [54]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1303

    Lundqvist, P., Mattila, S., Sollerman, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1303

    2013 doi

  45. [55]

    K., et al

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

    2013 doi

  46. [56]

    Margalit, B., Quataert, E., & Ho, A. Y. Q. 2022, ApJ, 928, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53b0

    2022 doi

  47. [57]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140 Mart ´ ı-Vidal, I., Bj¨ ornsson, C

    Margutti, R., Kamble, A., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140 Mart ´ ı-Vidal, I., Bj¨ ornsson, C. I., P´ erez-Torres, M. A.,

    2017 doi

  48. [58]

    Lundqvist, P., & Marcaide, J. M. 2024, A&A, 691, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450329

    2024 doi

  49. [59]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    Mattila, S., Meikle, W. P. S., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 141, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13516.x

    2008

  51. [61]

    C., Smith, N., Filippenko, A

    Mauerhan, J. C., Smith, N., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt009

    2013 doi

  52. [62]

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

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

    2007

  53. [63]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/120

    Miceli, M., Sciortino, S., Troja, E., & Orlando, S. 2015, ApJ, 805, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/120

    2015 doi

  54. [64]

    1993, Lick Obs

    Miller, J., & Stone, R. 1993, Lick Obs. Tech. Rep. 66, Tech. rep., Lick Obs.,Santa Cruz

    1993

  55. [65]

    P., & Arcavi, I

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

    2019 doi

  56. [66]

    O., Zoglauer, A., Boggs, S

    Ofek, E. O., Zoglauer, A., Boggs, S. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/42

    2014 doi

  57. [67]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  58. [68]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562

    1995 doi

  59. [69]

    2020, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2020-3822, 1

    Pessi, P., Anderson, J., Gutierrez, C., & Irani, I. 2020, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2020-3822, 1

    2020

  60. [70]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    Quataert, E., & Shiode, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    2012

  61. [71]

    L., Habergham-Mawson, S

    Ransome, C. L., Habergham-Mawson, S. M., Darnley, M. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1938

    2021 doi

  62. [72]

    L., & Villar, V

    Ransome, C. L., & Villar, V. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10596. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10596

    2024 arXiv

  63. [73]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.10398, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.10398

    Reguitti, A., Pignata, G., Pastorello, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.10398, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.10398

    2024 doi arXiv

  64. [74]

    M., Nagao, T., Gottumukkala, R., et al

    Reynolds, T. M., Nagao, T., Gottumukkala, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13619, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13619

    2025 doi

  65. [75]

    1993, ApJ, 416, 167, doi: 10.1086/173223

    Ryder, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dopita, M., et al. 1993, ApJ, 416, 167, doi: 10.1086/173223

    1993 doi

  66. [76]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  67. [77]

    Sarangi, A., Dwek, E., & Arendt, R. G. 2018, ApJ, 859, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc3

    2018 doi

  68. [78]

    Sarangi, A., & Slavin, J. D. 2022, ApJ, 933, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac713d

    2022 doi

  69. [79]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  70. [80]

    Schlegel, E. M. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 269

    1990

  71. [81]

    A., Tucker, D

    Smith, J. A., Tucker, D. L., Kent, S., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2121, doi: 10.1086/339311

    2002 doi

  72. [82]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    2020 doi

  73. [83]

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

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

    2014 doi

  74. [84]

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

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

    2017 doi

  75. [85]

    Smith, N., & Andrews, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3047

    2020 doi

  76. [86]

    E., Milne, P., et al

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Milne, P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.00253, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.00253

    2023 doi arXiv

  77. [87]

    Smith, N., & Arnett, W. D. 2014, ApJ, 785, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/82

    2014 doi

  78. [88]

    M., Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Chornock, R., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V., & Foley, R. J. 2010, ApJ, 709, 856, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/856

    2010 doi

  79. [89]

    J., & Filippenko, A

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

    2008 doi

  80. [91]

    Filippenko, A. V. 2011b, MNRAS, 415, 773, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18763.x

    2011

  81. [92]

    Smith, N., & Owocki, S. P. 2006, ApJL, 645, L45, doi: 10.1086/506523

    2006 doi

  82. [93]

    M., Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/1/17

    2012 doi

  83. [94]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2430

    Smith, N., & Tombleson, R. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2430

    2015 doi

  84. [95]

    J., et al

    Smith, N., Li, W., Foley, R. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1116, doi: 10.1086/519949

    2007 doi

  85. [96]

    M., Chornock, R., et al

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

    2009 doi

  86. [97]

    D., Mauerhan, J

    Smith, N., Kilpatrick, C. D., Mauerhan, J. C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3204 33

    2017 doi

  87. [98]

    E., Rest, A., et al

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Rest, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1500

    2018 doi

  88. [99]

    W., McBrien, O., et al

    Srivastav, S., Smith, K. W., McBrien, O., et al. 2020, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 215, 1

    2020

  89. [100]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191, doi: 10.1086/131977

    1987 doi

  90. [101]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/173

    Stritzinger, M., Taddia, F., Fransson, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/173

    2012 doi

  91. [102]

    D., Sollerman, J., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Sollerman, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321180

    2013 doi

  92. [103]

    2020, A&A, 635, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936553

    Tartaglia, L., Pastorello, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936553

    2020 doi

  93. [104]

    P., Wheeler, J

    Thomas, B. P., Wheeler, J. C., Dwarkadas, V. V., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fa6

    2022 doi

  94. [105]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  95. [106]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  96. [107]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  97. [108]

    J., et al

    Turatto, M., Cappellaro, E., Danziger, I. J., et al. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.1.128

    1993 doi

  98. [109]

    A., Stritzinger, M

    Valenti, S., Howell, D. A., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw870 van Dyk, S. D., Weiler, K. W., Sramek, R. A., & Panagia, N. 1993, ApJL, 419, L69, doi: 10.1086/187139

    2016 doi

  99. [110]

    W., Panagia, N., & Sramek, R

    Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., & Sramek, R. A. 1990, ApJ, 364, 611, doi: 10.1086/169444

    1990 doi

  100. [111]

    W., Sramek, R

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

    1986 doi

  101. [112]

    C., Henderson, C

    Wilson, J. C., Henderson, C. P., Herter, T. L., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1295–1305, doi: 10.1117/12.550925

    2004 doi

  102. [113]

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

    2017 doi

  103. [114]

    E., & Smith, N

    Woosley, S. E., & Smith, N. 2022, ApJ, 938, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8eb3

    2022 doi

  104. [115]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    Wu, S., & Fuller, J. 2021, ApJ, 906, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    2021 doi

  105. [116]

    2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    Yaron, O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    2012 doi

  106. [117]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04522, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04522

    Yesmin, N., Pellegrino, C., Modjaz, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04522, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04522

    2024 doi arXiv

  107. [118]

    2010, ApJL, 717, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L62

    Yoon, S.-C., & Cantiello, M. 2010, ApJL, 717, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L62

    2010 doi

  108. [119]

    2012, AJ, 144, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131

    Zhang, T., Wang, X., Wu, C., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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