Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

The Red Supergiant Progenitor of the Type II Supernova 2024abfl

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper identifies a red supergiant of about 10 to 16 solar masses as the progenitor of the Type II supernova 2024abfl, based on its pre-explosion appearance in archival Hubble Space Telescope images.

desk verdict A careful progenitor candidate for SN 2024abfl with solid multi-epoch photometry, but the RSG mass claim hinges on an assumed extinction that the paper's own NaID data contradict; the abstract oversells the conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13166 v1 pith:BAZHHALW submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Jingxiao Luo , Lifu Zhang , Bing-Qiu Chen , Qiyuan Cheng , Boyang Guo , Jiao Li , Yanjun Guo , Jianping Xiong
show 4 more authors
Xiangcun Meng Xuefei Chen Zhengwei Liu Zhanwen Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapsesupernovaeredsupergiantprogenitorsTypeIIHSTarchivalphotometrystellarevolutiontracksNGC2146interstellarextinctionelectron-capturesupernovacandidates
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 identifies the likely progenitor star of SN 2024abfl, a Type II supernova in the galaxy NGC 2146, using archival Hubble Space Telescope images taken between 2004 and 2024. The star appears at the supernova's position, is consistently bright in the red F814W filter near magnitude 25, and is barely detected in shorter-wavelength filters. Placing it on the host galaxy's color-magnitude diagram, the authors argue that its color and brightness match a red supergiant moderately extinguished by dust, with a bolometric luminosity corresponding to an initial mass of about 10 to 16 solar masses. If correct, this adds another direct link between a specific massive star and a core-collapse supernova, at the lower end of the red-supergiant mass range.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pre-explosion point source at the supernova location, detected in archival HST data. The argument is carried by comparing its F814W and F606W photometry against a color-magnitude diagram of NGC 2146 built from the same HST frames, using the RSG branch as a reference locus. Extinction is estimated by shifting the source onto this branch, a bolometric correction from Beasor et al. (2024) converts F814W brightness to luminosity, and MESA stellar evolution tracks of 10 to 25 solar mass stars define the expected luminosities at core carbon exhaustion.

What would settle it

After SN 2024abfl fades, a deep HST or JWST image should show that the point source at the explosion site has vanished; if a similarly bright red source remains, the identification as the single progenitor star fails. An improved distance to NGC 2146 could also falsify the mass estimate if it pushes the luminosity outside the 10 to 16 solar mass track range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the source at the site of SN 2024abfl is a red supergiant (RSG) progenitor with an initial mass of 10 to 16 solar masses. This is based on four F814W detections at magnitude ~25 together with marginal F606W and F555W detections, which put the source slightly redward and below the RSG branch of NGC 2146's color-magnitude diagram. After applying a total extinction of A_F814W ~ 0.8 mag and a bolometric correction of BC = 0.0, the derived luminosity matches MESA evolution tracks of 10 to 16 solar mass stars at the time of core carbon exhaustion, for the adopted host distance of 12.6 to 21.7 Mpc. The abstract states this as a conclusion, while the body text more cautiously calls the source a candidate for the progenitor of SN 2024abfl.

Load-bearing premise

The source is reddened by about 0.8 magnitudes of dust, a value chosen by moving its color onto the red supergiant branch; if the true extinction is much lower, the source's color no longer fits a red supergiant and a luminous super-AGB star becomes viable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adds SN 2024abfl to the small sample of Type II supernovae with identified red supergiant progenitors, at the low-mass end of the range.
  • Supports the standard picture that ordinary Type II supernovae arise from red supergiants, and provides a contrast to the nearby SN 2018zd, an electron-capture supernova candidate in the same host galaxy.
  • The roughly 25 percent F814W brightening between 2019 and 2023, if real, is a pre-explosion variability signal that could be sought in other RSG progenitors.
  • If the RSG interpretation holds, the required reddening implies substantial dust along the line of sight in the spiral arm, which could be probed with resolved extinction maps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the host distance uncertainty (12.6 to 21.7 Mpc) dominates the luminosity error, a precise Cepheid or TRGB distance to NGC 2146 would directly tighten the initial-mass estimate; the paper leaves this as future work.
  • The alternative low-extinction scenario, in which the source is a luminous super-AGB star that exploded as an electron-capture supernova, would become testable if SN 2024abfl develops electron-capture features in its nebular spectrum; the paper raises this possibility but does not adopt it.
  • If a binary companion contributed to the pre-explosion flux, the stated initial mass would be an upper limit on the exploding star's mass; only post-explosion deep imaging of the site can settle whether a companion survives.
  • The paper notes the supernova's unusually low peak brightness; if that persists, SN 2024abfl could be a peculiar object whose connection to a standard RSG progenitor is less straightforward than the photometric match alone suggests.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes archival HST imaging of the site of Type II SN 2024abfl in NGC 2146, detecting a red point source at the SN position in four F814W epochs and two shorter-wavelength epochs. The authors find that the source's brightness and color are consistent with a moderately reddened red supergiant and, using MESA tracks and a distance of 12.6-21.7 Mpc, estimate an initial mass of 10-16 M_sun. They also discuss alternative interpretations, including a luminous SAGB/ECSN progenitor, binary companions, and chance alignment, and use the non-detection of infrared emission to argue for interstellar rather than circumstellar reddening.

Significance. If the RSG interpretation holds, this is a valuable addition to the small sample of directly detected Type II SN progenitors, particularly in a galaxy that also hosted SN 2018zd, allowing a controlled comparison of the RSG and SAGB/ECSN channels. The study makes good use of multi-epoch archival data, and the source's photometric stability over 19 years is clearly documented. The central claim is, however, currently limited by the degeneracy between the assumed host-galaxy extinction and the stellar classification: the RSG solution is obtained by forcing the source onto the RSG branch, and the paper itself concedes that the alternative SAGB interpretation remains viable with the independent NaID-based extinction. With the present data the conclusion is a candidate rather than a secure identification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 4] The host-galaxy extinction A_F814W ≈ 0.8 is derived by moving the source along the extinction vector until it lands on the RSG branch of the CMD. This procedure presupposes that the source is an RSG, so it cannot independently support the RSG classification. The independent NaID-based estimate (A_F814W ≈ 0.1) is set aside with only a reference to scatter; the paper should either provide a quantitative justification for preferring the CMD-based value or fold both estimates into the analysis.
  2. [Section 4.3] The paper explicitly concedes that if the NaID-based extinction is adopted, the source color is too red for a normal RSG and a luminous SAGB/ECSN progenitor becomes viable. This is not a minor perturbation: it removes the 10-16 M_sun RSG conclusion and instead points to the lower-mass SAGB/ECSN channel, the same debate as for SN 2018zd. The manuscript should treat this as a live alternative, not a footnote, and state what observations would distinguish the two cases.
  3. [Abstract vs. Section 5] The abstract states unequivocally that 'the SN 2024abfl had an RSG progenitor with initial mass of 10M⊙-16M⊙', while the Conclusions (Section 5) identify the source as 'a candidate for progenitor' and acknowledge the SAGB possibility. The abstract overstates the certainty of the result and should be brought into line with the body of the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The header 'photomtry' should be 'photometry'.
  2. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'Its out of scope of this study' should be 'It is out of the scope of this study'.
  3. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'the F814W brightness of the progenitor translate to' should be 'translates to'.
  4. [Sections 4.1 and 4.2] The word 'envelop' should be 'envelope' in both occurrences.
  5. [Section 3.3] The distance notation '15.6+6.1−3.0 Mpc or D = 12.6−21.7 Mpc' is confusing; please clarify that the range is the full uncertainty interval.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

RSG conclusion is partially circular: A_F814W≈0.8 is fitted by assuming the source is an RSG, then that same reddening is used to confirm the RSG and derive 10–16 M⊙.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Fig. 4) and Section 5]
    "If we assume the progenitor candidate was a RSG, then its location on the CMD indicates that it was moderately reddened, with a total A_F814W ∼ 0.8. ... When adopting BC=0.0 and corrected for the estimated total extinction, the F814W brightness of the progenitor translate to a luminosity ... roughly correspond to the luminosity range of 10M⊙ to 16M⊙ stars when they exhaust their carbon in the core."

    The extinction A_F814W≈0.8 is not independently measured; it is chosen so that the source falls on the RSG branch, with the assumption stated explicitly ('If we assume ... a RSG'). The dereddened position is therefore on the RSG branch by construction. The same extinction is then used to compute the bolometric luminosity and to read off a mass from MESA tracks, producing the 10–16 M⊙ RSG conclusion. The alternative NaID-based extinction (A_F814W≈0.1) would leave the source too red for an RSG, and the paper itself concedes in Section 4.3 that in that case a luminous SAGB/ECSN progenitor fits. Thus the RSG classification and mass range embed the initial RSG assumption, even though the source's redness, brightness, and stability are independent observational facts.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that SN 2024abfl had an RSG progenitor of 10–16 M⊙ is not fully independent of its own assumption: the host-galaxy extinction is derived by assuming the source is an RSG and shifting it onto the RSG branch of the CMD. That same extinction is then used to deredden the source and compare it with MESA RSG tracks, so the RSG classification is partly guaranteed by the chosen reddening rather than independently established. The paper is transparent about the degeneracy: Section 4.3 explicitly states that if the NaID-based extinction is adopted instead, the source no longer fits an RSG and a luminous SAGB/ECSN progenitor becomes viable. No other circular step is present: the photometry, distance estimate from Callis et al. (2021), MESA calculations, and bolometric correction are external inputs, and there is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The abstract's definitive wording overstates the body's more cautious 'candidate for progenitor' language, which further reflects the unresolved extinction degeneracy. Because the RSG type itself reduces to the fitted extinction, but the mass range retains independent inputs (distance, MESA tracks, brightness), the partial circularity is scored at 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The mass estimate rests on a chain of adopted inputs: an archival HST source at the SN position treated as the progenitor, a distance from Callis et al. (2021), a CMD-derived extinction of about 0.8 mag, standard reddening, a bolometric correction BC = 0.0, and MESA models at solar metallicity. Each is stated explicitly, but none is independently derived here.

free parameters (2)
  • Host extinction A_F814W = ~0.8 mag
    Inferred by shifting the source onto the RSG branch of the host CMD (Section 4.1, Fig. 4). It sets the dereddened luminosity and therefore the inferred mass. The NaID-based estimate gives ~0.1 mag, leaving the RSG interpretation in tension.
  • E(F606W-F814W) = ~0.4 mag
    Excess reddening needed to place the source on the RSG branch (Section 4.3). It is equivalent to the A_F814W ~ 0.8 assumption and is used to argue against a blue supergiant.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The pre-explosion source is the SN progenitor (or a binary containing it), based on centroid agreement within 0.2 arcsec.
    Assumed in Section 3.1; chance alignment or an unresolved companion is discussed in Section 4.3 and is to be tested by post-explosion imaging.
  • domain assumption The total extinction is A_F814W ~ 0.8 mag as inferred from the CMD RSG-branch placement, with a standard reddening vector.
    Section 4.1; the alternative NaID-based estimate (~0.1 mag) is noted and set aside due to scatter in the NaID-extinction relation.
  • domain assumption Distance to NGC 2146 is D = 15.6 (+6.1, -3.0) Mpc from Callis et al. (2021).
    Adopted in Section 3.3; the mass range is recomputed for the ends of this interval, but the distance is not independently measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption Bolometric correction BC = 0.0 for a pre-SN RSG near core collapse (Beasor et al. 2024).
    Used in Section 4.1 to convert F814W to bolometric luminosity; a different BC would shift the inferred mass.
  • domain assumption MESA tracks (r22.05.1, Z = 0.02, overshooting fov = 0.014, alpha_mlt = 1.8, Dutch wind factor 0.8) with carbon exhaustion as the pre-SN stage represent RSG endpoints.
    Section 3.2; the inferred initial mass range is read off these tracks.
  • domain assumption The NaID equivalent width to extinction relation of Poznanski et al. (2012) is valid but has large scatter.
    Section 4.1; the paper uses it only as a constraint and explicitly acknowledges the scatter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Red Supergiant Progenitor of the Type II Supernova 2024abfl." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BAZHHALW

@misc{pith2026241213166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Red Supergiant Progenitor of the Type II Supernova 2024abfl},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BAZHHALW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13166}
}
abstract

Linkage between core-collapse supernovae (SNe) and their progenitors is not fully understood and ongoing effort of searching and identifying the progenitors is needed. $\mathrm{SN\,2024abfl}$ is a recent Type II supernova exploded in the nearby star-bursting galaxy $\mathrm{NGC\,2146}$, which is also the host galaxy of $\mathrm{SN\,2018zd}$. From archival Hubble Space Telescope (HST) data, we have found a red source ($\mathrm{m_{F814W} \sim 25}$) near the location (angular distance $\leq 0.2"$) of $\mathrm{SN\,2024abfl}$ before its explosion. With F814W and F606W photometry, we found that the properties of this source matched a typical red supergiant (RSG) moderately reddened by interstellar dust at the distance of the host galaxy. We conclude that the $\mathrm{SN\,2024abfl}$ had an RSG progenitor with initial mass of $\mathrm{10M_{\odot}}$--$\mathrm{16\,M_{\odot}}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The zooming-in cutout of the SN 2024abfl location. The upper left image is from Legacy Sky Survey DR10. The lower left image is a color preview of HST data which shows the spiral arm and dust lanes around SN 2024abfl. On the right is the F555W+F606W/F814W color composite image centered on the location of SN 2024abfl. The red and cyan dashed circles represent the location of SN 2024abfl reported by ZTF and ATLAS team… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 3.2” by 3.2” cutouts centered on SN 2024abfl location. The cutouts on the upper row are from F814W observations. The cutouts on the lower row are from F555W and F606W observations. tered on the location of SN 2024abfl. The FOV of this colored image is 15.85” by 15.85”, which also includes the location of SN 2018zd. This cutout and it surrounding field showing the en￾tire NGC 2146 galaxy (image from Legacy Sky Survey… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Light curve of SN 2024abfl progenitor candidate. D = 21.7 Mpc, which roughly correspond to the expected brightness of a dim, less massive RSG. Apart from F814W magnitudes, we also detected this source in shorter wavelength, al￾lowing us to plot it in a CMD. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Progenitor of SN 2024abfl on the color￾magnitude diagram. The background dots are nearby stars in its host galaxy. The position of the progenitor is shown as the blue dot with er￾ror bars. If shifted back along the direction of ex￾tinction vector AF814W,host ∼ 0.1 indi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MESA evolution tracks of massive star with initial mass range of 10M⊙ to 25M⊙. The red box shows the luminosity of SN 2024abfl progenitor at a distance of D = 15.6 Mpc, the error bar shows the luminosity range corresponding to 15.6 +6.1 −3.0 Mpc. The gray marks are the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectra of LMC002 with different amount of extinction, normalized to have the same F814W as the SN 2024abfl progenitor. The F606W and F555W magnitudes of the progenitor is also marked. The central wavelength of each filter is placed at the pivot wavelength given by the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Sand, D

    Andrews, J., Bostroem, K. A., Sand, D. J., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4535, 1 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 al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2024

  2. [2]

    R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J

    Beasor, E. R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14027, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14027

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14027 2024

  3. [3]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, 1.13.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, 1.13.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.12585239 2024

  4. [4]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.12943, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.12943

    Callis, E., Fraser, M., Pastorello, A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.12943, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.12943

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.12943 2021

  5. [5]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4515, 1

    Teja, R. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4515, 1

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Davies, B., & Beasor, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2734 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2734 2018

  7. [7]

    Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259 11

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    D., Li, W., et al

    Elias-Rosa, N., Van Dyk, S. D., Li, W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/6

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/6 2011

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    2010, ApJL, 714, L280, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L280 Gonz´ alez-Fern´ andez, C., Dorda, R., Negueruela, I., & Marco, A

    Fraser, M., Tak´ ats, K., Pastorello, A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 714, L280, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L280 Gonz´ alez-Fern´ andez, C., Dorda, R., Negueruela, I., & Marco, A. 2015, A&A, 578, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425362

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Van Dyk, S

    Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 903, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01384-2

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-4506, 1

    Itagaki, K. 2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-4506, 1

    2024

  5. [13]

    2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-094901

    Janka, H.-T. 2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-094901

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Podsiadlowski, P., et al

    Li, W., Bloom, J. S., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2011, Nature, 480, 348, doi: 10.1038/nature10646

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Reilly, E., & Mattila, S

    Maund, J. R., Reilly, E., & Mattila, S. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2131

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    1980, PASJ, 32, 303

    Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., Yokoi, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1980, PASJ, 32, 303

    1980

  10. [18]

    R., et al

    Niu, Z., Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4e3

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    1984, ApJ, 277, 791, doi: 10.1086/161749

    Nomoto, K. 1984, ApJ, 277, 791, doi: 10.1086/161749

    1984 doi

  12. [20]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Filippenko, A

    Poznanski, D., Ganeshalingam, M., Silverman, J. M., & Filippenko, A. V. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L81, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01084.x

    2011

  17. [25]

    X., & Bloom, J

    Poznanski, D., Prochaska, J. X., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1465, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21796.x

    2012

  18. [26]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 —. 2015, PASA, 32, e016, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.17

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    Maund, J. R. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1409, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14506.x

    2009

  20. [28]

    D., Szalai, T., Van Dyk, S

    Soraisam, M. D., Szalai, T., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef22 Van Dyk, S. D. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160277, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0277 Van Dyk, S. D., Cenko, S. B., Poznanski, D....

    2023

  21. [29]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 84, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2273

    Zhang, J., Wang, X., J´ ozsef, V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 84, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2273

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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