Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Near-IR Search for Helium in the Superluminous Supernova SN 2024ahr

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the superluminous supernova SN 2024ahr carries no detectable helium in its outer ejecta, with a conservative upper limit near 0.05 solar masses, indicating a hydrogen- and helium-stripped, Ic-like progenitor.

desk verdict A clean NIR helium non-detection for a typical SLSN-I, with a model-dependent mass limit that needs more transparency before the Ic-like conclusion can carry much weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01485 v1 pith:MSDOQHTK submitted 2025-01-02 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Harsh Kumar , Edo Berger , Peter K. Blanchard , Sebastian Gomez , Daichi Hiramatsu , Moira Andrews , K. Azalee Bostroem , Yize Dong
show 8 more authors
Joseph Farah Estefania Padilla Gonzalez D. Andrew Howell Curtis McCully Darshana Mehta Megan Newsome Aravind P. Ravi Giacomo Terreran
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords superluminoussupernovaSN2024ahrheliumabundancenear-infraredspectroscopyTypeIcstripped-envelopemagnetarenginespectralsynthesis
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

SN 2024ahr is a hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova at redshift $z=0.0861$ whose multi-band light curves and optical spectra identify it as a typical member of the luminous SLSN-I population. The central result is that a high signal-to-noise near-infrared spectrum taken 43 days after peak shows no absorption at the He I $\lambda2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ line, the cleanest helium diagnostic available for stripped-envelope supernovae. Spectral synthesis models convert this non-detection into a conservative upper limit of roughly $0.05\,M_\odot$ of helium in the outer ejecta, indicating that the progenitor lost both its hydrogen and helium layers before exploding. This matters because it shows that a reliable helium measurement is possible for a prototypical SLSN-I, not just for the peculiar events that dominate the existing near-infrared sample, and it opens a direct way to measure how many SLSNe-I explode helium-stripped rather than helium-rich.

What carries the argument

The central probe is the He I $\lambda2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ line, the strongest near-infrared helium line that does not suffer serious blending with ejecta features such as C I or Mg II, so its absence is directly interpretable as an absence of helium in the line-forming region. The mass limit is carried by a Monte Carlo spectral synthesis model of the ejecta, tuned to match SN 2024ahr's luminosity, velocity, temperature, density, and non-helium abundances, in which helium masses of 0, 0.025, and $0.05\,M_\odot$ are added to the outer layers. The model that reproduces the observed spectrum also predicts that $0.05\,M_\odot$ of helium would create a noticeable absorption feature at $2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, and no such feature appears in the data.

What would settle it

A later or deeper near-infrared spectrum of SN 2024ahr that reveals absorption at the blueshifted position of He I $\lambda2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ would overturn the conclusion that the outer ejecta are helium-free. An independent spectral synthesis calculation showing that $0.05\,M_\odot$ of helium in the adopted ejecta produces no detectable absorption at that wavelength would invalidate the upper limit, since the limit is set by the predicted visibility of that feature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that SN 2024ahr is a normal, luminous SLSN-I (peak $M_g\approx M_r\approx -21$ mag, with magnetar spin-down parameters $P_\mathrm{spin}\approx3.3$ ms, $B\approx5\times10^{13}$ G, and $M_\mathrm{ej}\approx9.5\,M_\odot$) and that its +43 day near-infrared spectrum shows no significant absorption at He I $\lambda2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$. Spectral synthesis modeling places a conservative upper limit of $\sim0.05\,M_\odot$ on the helium mass in the outer ejecta, so the progenitor was stripped of both hydrogen and helium and exploded as an Ic-like object. The same spectrum shows broad Mg I $\lambda1.575\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ and a Mg II $\lambda2.136\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ + Co II $\lambda2.126\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ blend, features typical of Type Ic supernovae but at higher velocities, and the paper argues that SN 2024ahr is a typical SLSN-I, unlike the peculiar events that make up the existing near-infrared sample.

Load-bearing premise

The upper limit rests on the assumption that $0.05\,M_\odot$ of helium placed in the outer ejecta of a model tuned to this supernova would actually produce a visible absorption feature at $2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$; if the true helium line formation is weaker than the model predicts, or the model is not representative of such explosions at day 43, the limit would be too strict.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SN 2024ahr's progenitor was stripped of both hydrogen and helium before explosion, placing the event in the Ic-like subclass rather than the Ib-like subclass.
  • The He I $\lambda2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ line is a usable helium search tool for SLSNe-I at $z\lesssim0.1$ with ground-based 8-meter telescopes, as demonstrated by this observation.
  • The current near-infrared sample of SLSNe-I is dominated by unusual events (low-luminosity, a pair-instability candidate, and an optical helium claim not confirmed at $2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$), so SN 2024ahr gives the cleanest benchmark for a typical SLSN-I.
  • A larger, unbiased near-infrared survey of prototypical SLSNe-I would constrain the fraction of hydrogen-poor superluminous explosions that retain helium, testing the possible evolutionary paths to these events.
  • The inferred magnetar parameters ($P_\mathrm{spin}\approx3.3$ ms, $B\approx5\times10^{13}$ G, $M_\mathrm{ej}\approx9.5\,M_\odot$) are typical of the SLSN-I population, supporting the magnetar central-engine interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this upper limit is representative, optical helium searches in SLSNe-I should generally fail, because optical He I lines require helium masses of roughly 0.2-1.0 $M_\odot$ to be visible, while the near-infrared line probes below $0.05\,M_\odot$.
  • A testable extension is late-time nebular spectroscopy of SN 2024ahr: a helium-poor CO-core explosion should show strong oxygen and carbon emission with little or no helium recombination emission, directly checking the Ic-like interpretation.
  • Because SN 2024ahr is one of the nearest SLSNe-I, the same observing strategy can be repeated for a modest sample of $z\lesssim0.1$ events; if most show no He I $2.058\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ absorption, the Ic-like channel dominates the population, while occasional detections would reveal a minority Ib-like path.
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 presents multi-band UV/optical photometry, optical spectroscopy, and a Gemini-South near-IR spectrum of SN 2024ahr, a hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova at z=0.0861. The authors determine the redshift from host-galaxy lines, characterize a typical SLSN-I light curve (M_g ≈ M_r ≈ −21 mag, rise and decline times near 40 and 80 rest-frame days), fit a magnetar spin-down model with P_spin ≈ 3.3 ms, B ≈ 6×10^13 G, and M_ej ≈ 9.5 M_sun, and use a +43 d rest-frame NIR spectrum to search for He I λ2.058 μm. No significant He I absorption is detected; TARDIS models with helium added to the outer ejecta predict a detectable feature at 0.05 M_sun, which the authors adopt as a rough upper limit and use to argue that the progenitor was Ic-like, i.e., stripped of both hydrogen and helium.

Significance. The non-detection is a useful addition: SN 2024ahr is among the nearest typical SLSNe-I, the NIR spectrum has high signal-to-noise, and the identifications of Mg I λ1.575 μm and the Mg II/Co II blend are credible and place the event closer to Type Ic than Type Ib in the NIR. The compilation of the small existing NIR SLSN-I sample is also valuable, and the authors are appropriately cautious in places, noting that the limit applies to the outer ejecta. The helium limit is not circular: the TARDIS calculation is a forward sensitivity test rather than a fit to the non-detection. The main weakness is that the quantitative helium mass limit and the Ic-like progenitor conclusion rest on a single TARDIS line-formation calculation whose inputs and validation are not reported, so the central claim is not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Figure 7] The TARDIS models that set the 0.05 M_sun limit are not reproducible from the text. The authors state that luminosity, ejecta mass, velocity, temperature, density, and abundances were adjusted to match the photometric and spectroscopic properties, but none of these values is quoted and no goodness-of-fit statistic or uncertainty is given. Because the upper limit is entirely a prediction of this model, the adopted parameter set and its justification must be provided, at minimum in a table or appendix, before the limit can be assessed.
  2. [§3.3, Figure 7] The He I λ2.058 μm line-strength calibration is not validated at the relevant phase. TARDIS's standard treatment does not include non-thermal excitation from magnetar spin-down or radioactive decay, which is known to affect He I line formation in stripped-envelope supernovae (Hachinger et al. 2012; Teffs et al. 2020), and no comparison to He lines in SNe Ib/c at similar phases is shown. A factor-of-few error in the predicted line strength would change the mass limit in either direction; the paper should quantify this sensitivity, for example by varying the TARDIS inputs or cross-checking against a He-rich SN, before calling the limit conservative.
  3. [Abstract and §4] The statement that the progenitor was stripped of both hydrogen and helium and is therefore Ic-like goes beyond the analysis, since the upper limit applies only to helium in the outer ejecta at +43 d and does not exclude helium at lower velocities or in mixed regions. Please soften the conclusion to 'the outer ejecta are helium-poor' or explicitly discuss how the outer-ejecta limit maps to a full progenitor-stripping conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The word 'metalicity' should be 'metallicity'; the sentence introducing the R23 diagnostic also reads awkwardly and should be rephrased.
  2. [§3.3, Figure 4 caption] There are small typographical issues in the caption and text: 'aout 6000 km s−1' should be 'about 6000 km s−1', and the sentence describing SN 2019hge contains a misplaced period.
  3. [§4] The text has 'hogher expansion velocities', which should be 'higher expansion velocities'.
  4. [Figure 6 caption] The caption has 'Wavelngth' instead of 'Wavelength'; in addition, the comparison phases range from +34 to +101 d, so the text should state explicitly that this spread is a caveat for the comparison.
  5. [Abstract and §4] The abstract calls the upper limit 'conservative' while the conclusions call it 'rough'; please reconcile the terminology and state the dominant systematic uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the helium upper limit in SN 2024ahr is a forward TARDIS sensitivity test with injected helium, not a fit to the non-detection.

full rationale

The central claim—a conservative upper limit of ~0.05 M_sun on helium in the outer ejecta—is derived from TARDIS models in which helium is added by hand (0, 0.025, and 0.05 M_sun) and the synthetic spectra are compared with the observed NIR spectrum at the He I 2.058 um line. The non-detection itself is not a fitted target; the paper explicitly says the model parameters are adjusted to match the photometric and spectroscopic properties and then varying amounts of helium are added to estimate detectability. This is a forward sensitivity calculation, so the derived limit is not equivalent to its input by construction. The light-curve magnetar fit supplies inputs such as ejecta mass and velocity, but those inputs do not encode the answer to whether helium would be visible at 2.058 um; the helium line is an added synthetic opacity, not a fitted parameter. Self-citations to population studies and MOSFiT fitting priors (e.g., Nicholl et al. 2017; Gomez et al. 2024) provide context and are not the load-bearing evidence for the helium limit. Concerns about TARDIS's treatment of He I 2.058 um line formation, especially non-thermal excitation in SLSNe-I, are model-validation or soundness issues, not circularity. The comparison to external SN Ib/Ic NIR spectra and published SLSNe-I NIR spectra further supports the classification argument independently of the TARDIS limit. Overall, no circular step that reduces a prediction to its own inputs was identified.

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

The central helium claim rests on two families of assumptions: (1) standard SLSN modeling assumptions from MOSFiT that fix the ejecta mass, velocity, and luminosity used in TARDIS; (2) the TARDIS line-formation model for He I 2.058 μm. The paper's own text says the TARDIS parameters are adjusted to match the observations (§3.3), meaning the models carry a number of hand-tuned inputs. There are no invented entities. The listed free parameters are the fitted or adjusted quantities that the helium limit inherits.

free parameters (6)
  • Magnetar spin period (Pspin) = 3.32 ms (posterior, Table 1)
    Fitted by the MOSFiT slsnni model to the UV/optical light curves; used with B and Mej to argue the event is typical of SLSNe-I, supporting generalization of the helium result to the population.
  • Magnetar magnetic field (B) = 5.6e13 G (posterior, Table 1)
    Same as Pspin; part of the typical parameters narrative.
  • Ejecta mass (Mej) = 9.51 M_sun (posterior, Table 1)
    Used as an input to the TARDIS model that sets the helium upper limit; a different ejecta mass would change the optical depth and the derived limit.
  • Ejecta velocity (vej) = ~5000 km/s (posterior, Table 1)
    Used in TARDIS to set line widths and density profile; the prior was 10^4 km/s based on spectra, so the posterior is lower, introducing systematic uncertainty.
  • TARDIS abundance set (excluding helium) = Not quoted
    The paper states abundances were adjusted to match the spectroscopic properties (§3.3). The resulting model is used to calibrate how much helium would be visible.
  • TARDIS luminosity, temperature, and density profile = Not quoted
    Adjusted to match photometric and spectroscopic properties before adding helium; not listed in the paper, so the sensitivity of the 0.05 M_sun limit to these choices is not documented.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The He I 2.058 μm line is an uncontaminated helium diagnostic in stripped-envelope SNe at this phase.
    Cited from Matheson et al. 2001, Shahbandeh et al. 2022, and others in §1. The paper's non-detection is only meaningful if this line would appear when helium is present.
  • domain assumption The TARDIS code, with the Williamson et al. 2021 style model and parameters adjusted to SN 2024ahr, correctly predicts the strength of He I 2.058 μm for a given helium mass at +43 days.
    Invoked in §3.3 and Figure 7. The model is not validated against a known helium-rich SLSN-I at a similar phase, and TARDIS is an approximate LTE radiative transfer code.
  • domain assumption The MOSFiT slsnni magnetar model gives an approximately correct ejecta mass and velocity distribution.
    Used in §3.1 to derive Mej and vej that feed the TARDIS model. The model is standard, but degeneracies among magnetar parameters are known.
  • domain assumption Any helium present would reside in the outer layers of the ejecta and produce an absorption signature.
    The upper limit is stated for outer ejecta (§3.3). If helium were mixed deep inside, it might not affect the 2.058 μm feature at this phase.
  • domain assumption The early light-curve bump and late UV data can be excluded from the magnetar fit without biasing the parameters.
    The fit starts at phase -55 days and drops UV after +75 days (§3.1). These cuts are justified by the model's inability to fit the bump and by host contamination, but any residual bias propagates to TARDIS inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Near-IR Search for Helium in the Superluminous Supernova SN 2024ahr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSDOQHTK

@misc{pith2026250101485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Near-IR Search for Helium in the Superluminous Supernova SN 2024ahr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSDOQHTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01485}
}
abstract

We present a detailed study of SN 2024ahr, a hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova (SLSN-I), for which we determine a redshift of $z=0.0861$. SN 2024ahr has a peak absolute magnitude of $M_g\approx M_r\approx -21$ mag, rest-frame rise and decline times (50$\%$ of peak) of about 40 and 80 days, respectively, and typical spectroscopic evolution in the optical band. Similarly, modeling of the UV/optical light curves with a magnetar spin-down engine leads to typical parameters: an initial spin period of $\approx 3.3$ ms, a magnetic field strength of $\approx 6\times 10^{13}$ G, and an ejecta mass of $\approx 9.5$ M$_\odot$. Due to its relatively low redshift we obtained a high signal-to-noise ratio near-IR spectrum about 43 rest-frame days post-peak to search for the presence of helium. We do not detect any significant feature at the location of the He I $\,\lambda 2.058$ $\mu$m feature, and place a conservative upper limit of $\sim 0.05$ M$_\odot$ on the mass of helium in the outer ejecta. We detect broad features of Mg I $\,\lambda 1.575$ $\mu$m and a blend of Co II $\,\lambda 2.126$ $\mu$m and Mg II, $\lambda 2.136$ $\mu$m, which are typical of Type Ic SNe, but with higher velocities. Examining the sample of SLSNe-I with NIR spectroscopy, we find that, unlike SN 2024ahr, these events are generally peculiar. This highlights the need for a large sample of prototypical SLSNe-I with NIR spectroscopy to constrain the fraction of progenitors with helium (Ib-like) and without helium (Ic-like) at the time of the explosion, and hence the evolutionary path(s) leading to the rare outcome of SLSNe-I.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: RGB image of SN 2024ahr from our Las Cumbres Observatory data, about 59 days after discovery (yellow circle). Right: Pre-discovery image of the host galaxy from PanSTARRS-DR2 data (Flewelling 2018). SN 2024ahr is located ≈ 2.45′′ (≈ 4.1 kpc) from the center of the host galaxy near a spiral arm. Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) —The ZTF observations cover the time range from discovery on 2024 January 16 to July … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical and UV light curves of SN 2024ahr. All magnitudes are plotted in AB system and are corrected for Galactic Extinction. Vertical lines mark the epochs of optical (gray lines) and NIR (red line) spectroscopy. SN 2024ahr rises from discovery to peak in ≈ 78 d and reaches a peak absolute magnitude of mg ≈ mr ≈ −21.0. The g − r color (bottom) gradually reddens from about −0.3 to +0.3 mag from the rise to the decli… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optical spectra of SN 2024ahr, spanning phases of −26 to +118 d. The spectra exhibit a blue continuum at early time with O II and Fe II/Fe III lines typical of SLSNe-I. At later times, the spectra are dominated by various ionization states of O, Fe, C, and Ca with a typical velocity of ∼ 6000 km s−1 . The blueshifted position of features is marked with v = 6000 km s −1 estimated using the spectrum at +35 d. 2.4. Nea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NIR spectrum of SN 2024ahr obtained at a phase of +43 d (black). The Spectrum exhibits broad features of Mg I (∼ 1.5 µm) and Mg II + Co II (∼ 2.13 µm). We do not detect significant absorption from He I at 2µm. For comparison, we also show the NIR spectrum of SN 2019hge…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-band MOSFiT model light curves for SN 2024ahr. The model provides an excellent fit to the data over a span of about 200 days. The data points shown with open markers are not used in the fit (early bump, and UV points contaminated by host galaxy emission). match t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: NIR spectral comparison of SN 2024ahr with all publicly available NIR spectra of SLSNe-I at a similar phase. We identify detections of Mg I at ≈ 1.5µm and Mg II, Co II feature at ≈ 2.1µm. All comparison SLSNe-I, except for SN2019hge, do not show any detection of the He…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TARDIS model spectra with helium masses of 0, 0.025, and 0.05 M⊙, compared to our spectrum of SN 2024ahr near the He I λ2.058 µm line. The contribution of various element is represented by different colors labeled in the color bar. We find that a helium mass of 0.05 M⊙…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Detection of Helium in the Bright Superluminous Supernova SN 2024rmj

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Near-infrared spectra of SN 2024rmj show blueshifted He I 1.083 and 2.058 micron lines, the first definitive helium detection in a bright hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R., Smith, M., Sullivan, M., et al

    Angus, C. R., Smith, M., Sullivan, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1321 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 Astropy Collaboration,...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1321 2019

  2. [2]

    S., Tokita, K., et al

    Barbary, K., Dawson, K. S., Tokita, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1358, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1358

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/2/1358 2009

  3. [3]

    2014, in The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Workshop, ed

    Bellm, E. 2014, in The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Workshop, ed. P. R. Wozniak, M. J. Graham, A. A. Mahabal, & R. Seaman, 27–33, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1410.8185

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.8185 2014

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  5. [5]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  6. [6]

    K., Berger, E., Nicholl, M., & Villar, V

    Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E., Nicholl, M., & Villar, V. A. 2020, ApJ, 897, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9638

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9638 2020

  7. [7]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.6825092 2022

  8. [8]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031, doi: 10.1086/673168

    doi:10.1086/673168 2013

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    W., Smartt, S

    Chen, T. W., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1567, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1360

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al

    Chen, Z. H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca161

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    M., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/114

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    L., & Nicholl, M

    Cleland, C., McGee, S. L., & Nicholl, M. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3559, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2118

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1982, PASP, 94, 715, doi: 10.1086/131052

    1982 doi

  7. [15]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  8. [16]

    2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Flewelling, H. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 436.01 F¨ orster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-168, 1

    Fremling, C. 2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-168, 1

    2024

  10. [18]

    R., Vincenzi, M., et al

    Frohmaier, C., Angus, C. R., Vincenzi, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3607

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 —

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 —. 2019a, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819 —. 2019b, ApJ, 882, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f79

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 624, doi: 10.1038/nature08579

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Fesen, R

    Gerardy, C. L., Fesen, R. A., Marion, G. H., et al. 2002, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 200, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #200, 14.04

    2002

  14. [22]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    Hosseinzadeh, G. 2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2017, MOSFiT: Modular Open-Source Fitter for Transients, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1710.006

    2017

  17. [25]

    A., Taubenberger, S., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 70, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20464.x 19

    2012

  18. [26]

    D., Karamehmetoglu, E., et al

    Holmbo, S., Stritzinger, M. D., Karamehmetoglu, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245334

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, tardis-sn/tardis: TARDIS v2024.10.14, release-2024.10.14, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13929578

    Kerzendorf, W., Sim, S., Vogl, C., et al. 2024, tardis-sn/tardis: TARDIS v2024.10.14, release-2024.10.14, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13929578

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & Sim, S

    Kerzendorf, W. E., & Sim, S. A. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu055

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Kennicutt, Robert C., J., & Pizagno, J

    Kobulnicky, H. A., Kennicutt, Robert C., J., & Pizagno, J. L. 1999, ApJ, 514, 544, doi: 10.1086/306987

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/138

    Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/138

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Shields, J. C. 2001, AJ, 121, 1648, doi: 10.1086/319390

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., Greiner, J., & Kann, D

    Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., Greiner, J., & Kann, D. A. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw512

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    2006, A&A, 459, 85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065216

    Nagao, T., Maiolino, R., & Marconi, A. 2006, A&A, 459, 85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065216

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34, doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atab092

    Nicholl, M. 2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34, doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atab092

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Nicholl, M., & Smartt, S. J. 2016, MNRAS, 457, L79, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv210

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    B., Cohen, J

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

    1995 doi

  31. [39]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2015, USA: CreateS-pace Independent Publishing Platform

    2015

  32. [40]

    Pagel, B. E. J., Edmunds, M. G., Blackwell, D. E., Chun, M. S., & Smith, G. 1979, MNRAS, 189, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/189.1.95

    1979 doi

  33. [41]

    Perley, D. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 084503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Quimby, R

    Perley, D. A., Quimby, R. M., Yan, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 13, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/13 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    2022, A&A, 666, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243256

    Pursiainen, M., Leloudas, G., Paraskeva, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243256

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Aldering, G., Wheeler, J

    Quimby, R. M., Aldering, G., Wheeler, J. C., et al. 2007, ApJL, 668, L99, doi: 10.1086/522862

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Yuan, F., Akerlof, C., & Wheeler, J

    Quimby, R. M., Yuan, F., Akerlof, C., & Wheeler, J. C. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt213

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Quimby, R. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 487, doi: 10.1038/nature10095

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  42. [50]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, A&A, 683, A223, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346855 Science Software Branch at STScI

    Schulze, S., Fransson, C., Kozyreva, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A223, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346855 Science Software Branch at STScI. 2012, PyRAF: Python alternative for IRAF, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.011

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Y., Ashall, C., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4030

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  46. [54]

    C., et al

    Smith, M., Sullivan, M., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa126

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    B., Bean, J

    Stevenson, K. B., Bean, J. L., Seifahrt, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 141, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/141

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Sukhbold, T., & Woosley, S. E. 2016, ApJL, 820, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L38

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    Teffs, J., Ertl, T., Mazzali, P., Hachinger, S., & Janka, H. T. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2549

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt171

    Valenti, S., Sand, D., Pastorello, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt171

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Stritzinger, M

    Valenti, S., Howell, D. A., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw870

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd244

    Williamson, M., Kerzendorf, W., & Modjaz, M. 2021, ApJ, 908, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd244

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-619, 1

    Wise, J., Brennan, S., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., & Perley, D. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-619, 1

    2024

  55. [63]

    Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Schulze, S., et al

    Yan, L., Perley, D. A., Schulze, S., et al. 2020, ApJL, 902, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb8c5

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    O., & Gal-Yam, A

    Zackay, B., Ofek, E. O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2016, ApJ, 830, 27, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/27 20

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2c3

    Zhu, J., Jiang, N., Dong, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2c3

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.