The observed phase space of mass-loss history from massive stars based on radio observations of a large supernova sample

Assaf Horesh; Dave A. Green; David Williams-Baldwin; Itai Sfaradi; Joe Bright; Lauren Rhodes; Rob Fender

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The observed phase space of mass-loss history from massive stars based on radio observations of a large supernova sample

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Radio non-detections of supernovae rule out strong steady winds in most Type II explosions, the paper argues.

desk verdict Valuable large-sample radio constraints on SN progenitor mass loss, with a credible qualitative discrepancy between detected and non-detected SNe, but the headline exclusion percentages rest on an untested 10^4 km/s shock velocity. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14028 v1 pith:OBGBXHDU submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.HE

Itai Sfaradi , Assaf Horesh , Rob Fender , Lauren Rhodes , Joe Bright , David Williams-Baldwin , Dave A. Green This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords core-collapsesupernovaeradioobservationsmass-lossratecircumstellarmediumTypeIIstripped-envelopenon-detectionsChevalierdiagram

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 show that the mass-loss histories of core-collapse supernova progenitors are not what radio-detected supernovae alone suggest. By combining archival radio data with new systematic observations of 99 supernovae, the authors build a sample of 325 core-collapse supernovae, 78% of which are not detected in radio. They argue that each non-detection, when interpreted through the standard supernova–circumstellar interaction model, excludes a range of steady-wind mass-loss rates, and that for about 82% of Type II supernovae with useful limits the range between $2\times10^{-6}$ and $10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ is ruled out. If correct, this means most Type II progenitors did not end their lives with the strong winds that radio-detected events appear to require, and that radio detections are a biased subsample rather than the population norm.

What carries the argument

The tool is the supernova–circumstellar interaction model (Chevalier 1981) combined with a synchrotron self-absorption spectrum with external free–free absorption (Chevalier 1998; Weiler et al. 2002). For each radio upper limit, the authors assume a constant shock velocity ($10^4\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ for Type II, $3\times10^4\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ for stripped-envelope supernovae), free expansion with $m=1$ for the first 18 months, and a steady wind with an $r^{-2}$ density profile. This converts the flux limit into a ruled-out region in the plane of mass-loss rate divided by wind speed, $\dot{M}/v_w$, and the stacking of these regions across the sample yields the headline percentages.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to measure shock radii or velocities in a sample of Type II supernovae within their first 18 months using high-resolution radio imaging of a few dozen events; if typical velocities come out well below $10^{4}$ km/s, the ruled-out region shrinks. Alternatively, detecting steady winds at rates of $2\times10^{-6}$ to $10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ in a substantial fraction of the 87 Type II supernovae whose wind is claimed to be excluded, through X-ray thermal emission or narrow optical emission lines, would contradict the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that steady-wind mass-loss rates in the range $2\times10^{-6}$ to $10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ (for an assumed wind speed of $10\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$) are excluded for the progenitors of 82% of Type II supernovae in the sample. For stripped-envelope supernovae, the corresponding excluded range is $5\times10^{-5}$ to $5\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for 86% of the objects with limits. The authors also find that the mass-loss rates inferred from radio-detected supernovae occupy a different region of parameter space than the regions excluded by radio non-detections, and they interpret this as evidence that radio detections preferentially pick out progenitors with unusually high final mass loss. They further state that the mass-loss ranges suggested for red supergiant progenitors are ruled out for about 50% of the Type II supernovae in the sample.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis rests on converting each radio upper limit into an excluded mass-loss region by assuming a fixed shock speed ($10^{4}$ km/s for Type II, $3x10^{4}$ km/s for stripped-envelope events) and no significant deceleration during the first 18 months; if real shock velocities are lower or deceleration is substantial, the excluded ranges shift or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, radio detections of Type II supernovae are a strongly biased sample, and the high terminal mass-loss rates often inferred from individual detections do not represent typical progenitors.
The standard red supergiant mass-loss prescription would be ruled out for roughly half of Type II progenitors, requiring revisions to how final-stage mass loss is included in stellar evolution models.
For stripped-envelope supernovae, the analysis excludes steady winds above $5\times10^{-5}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ in the majority of cases, pointing to weak winds or non-steady mass-loss in most progenitors.
Systematic monitoring of non-detections carries genuine physical information: a non-detection at multiple epochs probes the circumstellar density at different radii and therefore the mass-loss history over the last $\sim$1000 years.
The paper's phase-space approach can be extended to deeper and more frequent radio observations to push constraints toward lower mass-loss rates and shorter pre-explosion timescales.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the authors leave implicit is that population-averaged mass-loss rates for core-collapse supernova progenitors may be closer to the lower boundary of the excluded range, which would make final mass loss less important for determining explosion properties than many models assume.
The steady-wind assumption is unlikely to capture episodic or eruptive mass loss; the same multi-epoch upper-limit technique could be re-applied to look for time-variable CSM by comparing limits at different radii, a testable extension the paper does not perform.
The sensitivity of the 82% and 50% fractions to the assumed shock velocity and to possible deceleration within 18 months is not tested in the paper; if typical Type II shocks decelerate faster than assumed, the excluded regions shrink.
A natural next step would be to combine radio limits with early X-ray or optical flash observations for the same supernovae, which would break the degeneracy between shock velocity and density that the fixed-velocity assumption paper over.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper gives the community something it didn't have: a large, systematically monitored sample of 99 CCSNe from AMI-LA, folded into a 325-SN compilation, and used to map excluded regions in the mass-loss phase space. The qualitative conclusion—radio-detected SNe are biased toward high-mass-loss progenitors—is credible and likely robust, since it comes from comparing two distributions under the same model.

What is genuinely new is the systematic multi-epoch monitoring and the explicit construction of excluded regions rather than just mean mass-loss rates. Building on Bietenholz et al. (2021), they go a step further by showing where in the Mdot/vw plane the non-detections actually rule things out. They also test sensitivity to p and epsilon_B, which is good practice, and they are honest about the steady-wind assumption.

The soft spot is real. The headline 82% exclusion fraction for Type II SNe assumes v_sh = 10^4 km/s and free expansion (m=1), but in Section 4.1 the paper itself reports the median Type II shock velocity from radio peaks is ~5,000 km/s and notes that radio velocities may be decelerated. A lower v_sh suppresses the predicted flux for a given Mdot, so the same upper limit excludes a smaller or shifted mass-loss range. The paper never tests this, nor does it test m<1; the 18-month cutoff is asserted, not demonstrated. That makes the specific percentages (82%, 50%, 86%) softer than they appear. The central discrepancy between detected and non-detected SNe would likely survive, but the quantitative boundaries are not yet pinned down.

Two lesser issues: the sample is heterogeneous with no formal selection function, and incomplete optical classification could let some Type IIn interlopers in. These are fixable with more transparency about selection and spectra.

This paper is for supernova observers and stellar-evolution modelers who want population-level constraints on final-stage mass loss. The dataset alone is worth publishing, and the phase-space mapping is a useful framework. Send it to peer review; a good referee should push for the v_sh and m sensitivity analysis and for making the data tables and reduction code available.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper assembles a large sample of 325 core-collapse supernovae with radio observations, including 99 new AMI-LA targets, and analyzes both radio detections and upper limits in the framework of the Chevalier SN-CSM interaction model. From the radio-detected SNe the authors derive shock velocities and the mass-loss parameter Mdot/v_w; from the non-detections they translate flux-density upper limits into excluded regions of Mdot/v_w and CSM density phase space. The central quantitative claim is that for 82% (87/106) of Type II SNe with limits, mass-loss rates in the range 2x10^-6 to 10^-4 M_sun/yr are ruled out, and that roughly 50% of Type II SNe exclude the mass-loss range commonly attributed to red supergiant winds. The paper further argues that radio-detected SNe are a biased subsample with preferentially high mass-loss rates.

Significance. If the main claims are robust, this is a valuable population-level constraint on pre-supernova mass loss: it uses a large, partly systematic radio sample and, importantly, exploits upper limits to map the allowed and excluded phase space rather than only fitting detected sources. The new AMI-LA observations and the public machine-readable catalogs are useful assets. The comparison between the mass-loss distribution of radio-detected SNe and the exclusion regions from non-detections is a conceptually important contribution. However, the size of the claimed exclusion fractions depends on a set of model assumptions (shock velocity, free expansion, equipartition, steady wind) whose sensitivity is not fully quantified in the paper.

major comments (3)

[§5 and footnote 5; Fig. 6] The conversion of each radio upper limit into an excluded Mdot/v_w interval assumes v_sh = 10^4 km/s for Type II SNe, but §4.1 reports a median radio-inferred shock velocity of about 5000 km/s for this class. Since the predicted optically thick flux scales as a positive power of v_sh (with R = v_sh t and B roughly independent of v_sh at fixed Mdot/v_w and time, F ∝ v_sh^{9/7} for p=3), a factor-2 overestimate of v_sh boosts the predicted flux by a factor of about 2-3 and therefore makes a given upper limit exclude a larger and shifted mass-loss interval. The paper tests sensitivity to p and epsilon_B but not to v_sh; the headline 82% and 50% fractions are thus not demonstrated to be robust. Please recompute the exclusion statistics for v_sh = 5000 km/s (and for a plausible range, say 3000-10^4 km/s) and report the resulting percentages.
[§4.1 and §5, footnote 6] The free-expansion assumption (m=1) for the first 18 months is load-bearing for all the exclusion results. The paper's own discussion of §4.1 notes that measured radio velocities may be decelerated late-time values, and deceleration is strongest precisely when the CSM is dense—the regime that this method aims to exclude. The 18-month cutoff does not guarantee m=1. A decelerating shock has R < v_sh0 t at the time of observation, so for a fixed upper limit the excluded Mdot/v_w interval shrinks and moves to higher values. I request a sensitivity test with, e.g., m=0.8 and m=0.9 (or a simple Sedov-like deceleration prescription) to show how the 82% and 50% fractions change.
[§6, Fig. 9 and Appendix B] The paper shows that varying epsilon_B and p shifts the phase space of allowed Mdot/v_w, but it does not propagate these changes into the headline exclusion percentages. For example, the top-right panel of Fig. 9 (epsilon_B = 0.01) makes the low-mass-loss end of the excluded region disappear, which directly affects the statement that the RSG mass-loss range is excluded for ~50% of Type II SNe. Please state the 82% and 50% numbers (or equivalent) for each of the parameter variations in Fig. 9, or explicitly qualify the abstract claims as valid only under the fiducial assumptions epsilon_e = epsilon_B = 0.1, f = 0.5, p = 2.4/3, and v_sh fixed.

minor comments (6)

[§3.2] "We find out that ∼ 78%" should be "We find that ∼ 78%".
[§4.1, units] The notation "M [M⊙ yr−1] / vw [km s−1]" is used inconsistently; the text sometimes writes "M /vw" and sometimes "Mdot/v_w". A uniform mathematical notation (e.g., \dot{M}/v_w) would improve readability.
[§5, footnote 5] The shock velocity is written as "104 kms−1" and "3 × 104 kms−1" with the exponent not superscripted; this is a typographical error that should be fixed.
[Fig. 5 caption] "Cumilutive distribution" should be "Cumulative distribution".
[§6.1] The sentence "by 38% and 62 for feB = 10 and 100" is missing a percent sign after 62; it should read "by 38% and 62%, respectively."
[§2, Eq. (1)] The constants c1, c5, c6 are said to be found in Pacholczyk (1970), but the reference list only cites the book without page numbers; please provide a more specific pointer or equation numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ruled-out mass-loss regions are forward-model censuses of radio upper limits under stated assumptions; the untested shock-velocity and deceleration sensitivity is a robustness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central exclusion fractions are forward-model calculations, not fits renamed as predictions. For radio-detected SNe the paper fits Eq. 8 to obtain peak parameters and inverts Eqs. 3-6 to get Mdot/vw; for non-detected SNe it takes each upper limit and, under the stated assumptions R = vsh*dt (footnote 5: vsh = 10^4 km/s for Type II, 3x10^4 km/s for stripped-envelope), computes via Eq. 1 (times e^{-tau_ff}), Eq. 5, and Eq. 6 the Mdot/vw values whose predicted flux exceeds the limit. The headline number ('for 82% (87 out of 106) of the Type II SNe with limits on their mass-loss rate, the region of mass-loss rate between 2x10^-6 and 10^-4 M_sun/yr is ruled out') is a census of these independent, single-SN calculations. The excluded interval is not defined in terms of the detected-SN distribution, and the claimed discrepancy is an empirical comparison of two quantities computed from disjoint datasets under the same stated model. Microphysical inputs (p = 2.4/3, eps_e = eps_B = 0.1, f = 0.5, Te = 10^5 K) are taken from external literature (Chevalier 1998; Weiler et al. 2002; Scott & Readhead 1977; Bietenholz et al. 2021), so no model premise or uniqueness result is imported from the authors' own prior work. Self-citations (Horesh et al. 2013c, 2020; Sfaradi et al. 2024; Rose et al. 2024) appear only as illustrative examples of individual SNe (equipartition deviations, inverse-Compton cooling, FFA, late-time decay) and are not load-bearing. The genuine caveats are robustness gaps rather than circular steps: Sec. 4.1 assumes free expansion (m = 1) within the first 18 months; Sec. 5 footnote 6 restricts the sample to that window for the same reason; footnote 5 fixes vsh = 10^4 km/s although Sec. 4.1 measures a Type II median of about 5000 km/s; and Sec. 6 plus Appendix B test sensitivity to p and eps_B but never to vsh or m, so the 82% and 50% headline fractions could shift if those assumptions fail. Under the stated rubric those concerns belong to correctness risk, not circularity, and do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the standard Chevalier radio supernova model, with several assumed microphysical parameters (electron index, energy fractions, filling factor, electron temperature) and assumed shock and wind velocities for the upper-limit analysis. These parameters are not fitted to the final conclusion but directly control the quantitative exclusion ranges. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced. The main caveat is that the assumed steady-wind density profile and constant shock velocity are load-bearing for the statistical claims.

free parameters (7)

electron energy index p = p=2.4 (Type II), p=3 (stripped-envelope)
Assumed from literature values for optically thin spectra; changing p by +/-0.5 changes inferred Mdot/v_w by about 50% (Section 6.2).
energy fractions epsilon_e, epsilon_B = epsilon_e = epsilon_B = 0.1
Equipartition assumption; deviations with epsilon_B < epsilon_e shift inferred mass-loss rates by factors up to about 14 (Section 6.1).
emission filling factor f = 0.5
Assumed emitting volume fraction; affects radius and mass-loss scalings (Section 2).
electron temperature T_e = 10^5 K
Assumed for free-free absorption optical depth; true value may vary (Section 2).
shock velocity for non-detected SNe = 10^4 km/s (Type II), 3x10^4 km/s (stripped-envelope)
Assumed constant velocities for converting upper limits to excluded density regions; not varied in the main analysis (Section 5).
wind velocity v_w = 10 km/s (Type II), 1000 km/s (stripped-envelope)
Assumed typical wind speeds to convert Mdot/v_w to mass-loss rate; results for other values are shown in Appendix A.
per-SN fitted peak parameters = F_p, nu_a, t_a (and a, b) from Eq. 8 fits
Fitted to radio spectra or light curves for 45 SNe; these determine the derived mass-loss rates for detected SNe (Section 4).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Chevalier SN-CSM synchrotron emission model (Eqs. 1-5)
Standard model used to relate the radio peak to radius, magnetic field, and CSM density; not derived in this paper.
domain assumption Constant mass-loss rate steady wind density profile rho = Mdot/(4 pi v_w r^2) (Eq. 6)
Assumes the CSM was deposited by a steady wind; deviations such as shells or episodic mass loss are excluded.
domain assumption Free expansion with no deceleration for up to 1.5 years (m=1)
Assumed to convert observed times to shock radii; explicitly noted as an approximation in Sections 4.1 and 5.
domain assumption Radio peak dominated by SSA with external FFA
The fitting template Eq. 8 assumes an SSA spectrum with external free-free absorption; for high mass-loss rates FFA can dominate and the derived values become lower limits.
domain assumption Type IIn SNe and special cases excluded from analysis
Assumes the remaining sample follows the standard steady-wind scenario; lack of full optical spectra for all SNe means some excluded objects may be misclassified (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The observed phase space of mass-loss history from massive stars based on radio observations of a large supernova sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OBGBXHDU

@misc{pith2026250114028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The observed phase space of mass-loss history from massive stars based on radio observations of a large supernova sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OBGBXHDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14028}
}

abstract

In this work we study the circumstellar material (CSM) around massive stars, and the mass-loss rates depositing this CSM, using a large sample of radio observations of 325 core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe; only $\sim 22 \%$ of them being detected). This sample comprises both archival data and our new observations of 99 CCSNe conducted with the AMI-LA radio array in a systematic approach devised to constrain the mass-loss at different stages of stellar evolution. In the SN-CSM interaction model, observing the peak of the radio emission of a SN provides the CSM density at a given radius (and therefore mass-loss rate that deposited this CSM). On the other hand, limits on the radio emission, and/or on the peak of the radio emission provide a region in the CSM phase space that can be ruled out. Our analysis shows discrepancy between the values of mass-loss rates derived from radio-detected and radio-non-detected SNe. Furthermore, we rule out mass-loss rates in the range of $2 \times 10^{-6} - 10^{-4} \, \rm M_{\odot} \, yr^{-1}$ for different epochs during the last 1000 years before the explosion (assuming wind velocity of $10 \, \rm km \, s^{-1}$) for the progenitors of $\sim 80\%$ of the type II SNe in our sample. In addition, we rule out the ranges of mass-loss rates suggested for red supergiants for $\sim 50 \%$ of the progenitors of type II SNe in our sample. We emphasize here that these results take a step forward in constraining mass-loss in winds from a statistical point of view.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14028 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Chevalier diagram showing the peak spectral radio luminosity as a function of taνa. The peak of each SN was obtained by fitting Eq.4 in Chevalier (1998) to the spectrum at a specific time, or to the light curve of a specific frequency (see §4). The arrows are for an SN whose peak was not observed, and the direction of the arrow indicates whether the peak is in later or earlier times than the time of the highest obse… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The radio flux density (at 15.5 GHz) as a function of M/v ˙ w under the SN-CSM interaction model presented in §2 at different timescales (a week, a month, six months, and a year) after the SN explosion. A 3σ upper limit of 0.03 mJy (plotted on the bottom left) is translated to ruled out regions in M /v ˙ w as all values of M /v ˙ w that produce higher flux densities than the upper limit are ruled out (this is seen i… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Limits on the specific radio luminosity from the SNe in our sample that were not detected in radio wavelengths. Each limit is marked with a triangle, the lines are connecting limits from the same SN. The top panel shows the limits on the radio emission from type II SNe (excluding type IIn as discussed in §4.2). The bottom panel shows the limits on the radio emission from stripped-envelope SNe (blue is for SNe of typ… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: These plots summarize the ruled out regions in phase space of the density profile around the CCSNe in our sample. The color map shows the percentage of type II (top panel) and stripped-envelope (bottom panel) SNe in our sample that rule out a density for a given radius…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Representation of the phase space of mass-loss rate divided by wind velocity using combined data from both radio-detected and radio-non-detected SNe. This plot shows the ruled-out regions as limits on M/v ˙ w (as described in §5), and the distribution of this parameter…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of mass-loss history between SNe with an observed radio peak, and SNe with radio limits. For the SNe with an observed radio peak we present the distribution of M/v ˙ w (bar histogram). For the SNe with limits on their radio emission, or on their radio peak, …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The radio flux density (at 15.5 GHz) as a function of M /v ˙ w under the SN-CSM interaction model presented in §2 at 30 days after the SN explosion. A 3σ upper limit of 0.03 mJy (plotted on the bottom left) is translated to ruled out regions in M /v ˙ w as all values o…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Representation of the phase space of mass-loss rate for different wind velocities using combined data from both radiodetected and radio-non-detected SNe. These plots are similar to the plots seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Representation of the phase space of mass-loss rate for different assumptions on the micro-physical parameters. These plots are similar to the plots seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

The progenitors and circumstellar environments of stripped-envelope interacting supernovae from BPASS
astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using BPASS, only binary progenitors whose mass loss forms a circum-binary disc reproduce the luminosities and rise times of stripped-envelope interacting supernovae.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

E., Horesh , A., Mooley , K

Anderson , G. E., Horesh , A., Mooley , K. P., et al. 2017, , 466, 3648, 10.1093/mnras/stw3310

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3310 2017
[2]

K., Beswick , R

Argo , M. K., Beswick , R. J., Muxlow , T. W. B., & Pedlar , A. 2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1084

2007
[3]

2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

Barniol Duran , R., Nakar , E., & Piran , T. 2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/78 2013
[4]

R., & Chevalier , R

Berger , E., Kulkarni , S. R., & Chevalier , R. A. 2002, , 577, L5, 10.1086/344045

work page doi:10.1086/344045 2002
[5]

J., Fenech , D., Thrall , H., et al

Beswick , R. J., Fenech , D., Thrall , H., et al. 2005, IAU Circulars, 8572

2005
[6]

J., Muxlow , T

Beswick , R. J., Muxlow , T. W. B., Argo , M. K., & Pedlar , A. 2004 a , IAU Circulars, 8332

2004
[7]

J., Muxlow , T

Beswick , R. J., Muxlow , T. W. B., Argo , M. K., Pedlar , A., & Marcaide , J. M. 2004 b , IAU Circulars, 8435

2004
[8]

2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1254

Bietenholz , M., & Bartel , N. 2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1254

2007

Show all 143 references

[9]

2008 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1525

---. 2008 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1525

2008
[10]

2008 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1657

---. 2008 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1657

2008
[11]

2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, 6429

---. 2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, 6429

2014
[12]

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

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

2021 doi
[13]

F., Kamble , A., Margutti , R., Milisavljevic , D., & Soderberg , A

Bietenholz , M. F., Kamble , A., Margutti , R., Milisavljevic , D., & Soderberg , A. 2018, , 475, 1756, 10.1093/mnras/stx3194

2018 doi
[14]

2015, , 806, 160, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/160

Bose , S., Sutaria , F., Kumar , B., et al. 2015, , 806, 160, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/160

2015 doi
[15]

M., Arcavi , I., et al

Cao , Y., Kasliwal , M. M., Arcavi , I., et al. 2013, , 775, L7, 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L7

2013 doi
[16]

2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1605

Chakraborti , S., & Ray , A. 2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1605

2008
[17]

2015, , 805, 187, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/187

Chakraborti , S., Soderberg , A., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2015, , 805, 187, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/187

2015 doi
[18]

2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 27

Chandra, P. 2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 27

2018
[19]

2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1082

Chandra , P., Chakraborti , S., & Ray , A. 2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1082

2007
[20]

A., Chugai , N., et al

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

2012 doi
[21]

A., Chugai , N., Fransson , C., & Soderberg , A

Chandra , P., Chevalier , R. A., Chugai , N., Fransson , C., & Soderberg , A. M. 2015, , 810, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/32

2015 doi
[22]

2002, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 30, 755

Chandra , P., Ray , A., & Bhatnagar , S. 2002, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 30, 755

2002
[23]

2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1271

Chandra , P., & Soderberg , A. 2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1271

2007
[24]

2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1359

---. 2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1359

2008
[25]

2009 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1891

---. 2009 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1891

2009
[26]

2009 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 2351

---. 2009 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 2351

2009
[27]

2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1465

Chandra , P., Stockdale , C., Weiler , K., et al. 2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1465

2008
[28]

J., Chevalier , R

Chandra , P., Stockdale , C. J., Chevalier , R. A., et al. 2009, , 690, 1839, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1839

2009 doi
[29]

Chevalier , R. A. 1981, , 251, 259, 10.1086/159460

1981 doi
[30]

1998, , 499, 810, 10.1086/305676

---. 1998, , 499, 810, 10.1086/305676

1998 doi
[31]

A., & Fransson , C

Chevalier , R. A., & Fransson , C. 2006, , 651, 381, 10.1086/507606

2006 doi
[32]

2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

---. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 875, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_34

2017 doi
[33]

A., & Soderberg , A

Chevalier , R. A., & Soderberg , A. M. 2010, , 711, L40, 10.1088/2041-8205/711/1/L40

2010 doi
[34]

O., Frail , D

Corsi , A., Ofek , E. O., Frail , D. A., et al. 2010, The Astronomer's Telegram, 2915

2010
[35]

de Jager , C., Nieuwenhuijzen , H., & van der Hucht , K. A. 1988, , 72, 259

1988
[36]

2022, , 938, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c26

DeMarchi , L., Margutti , R., Dittman , J., et al. 2022, , 938, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c26

2022 doi
[37]

J., et al

Dessart , L., Blondin , S., Brown , P. J., et al. 2008, , 675, 644, 10.1086/526451

2008 doi
[38]

R., Milisavljevic , D., Parrent , J., et al

Drout , M. R., Milisavljevic , D., Parrent , J., et al. 2016, , 821, 57, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/57

2016 doi
[39]

V., Romero-Ca \ n izales , C., Reddy , R., & Bauer , F

Dwarkadas , V. V., Romero-Ca \ n izales , C., Reddy , R., & Bauer , F. E. 2016, , 462, 1101, 10.1093/mnras/stw1717

2016 doi
[40]

R., Cowan , J

Eck , C. R., Cowan , J. J., Boffi , F. R., & Branch , D. 1996, , 472, L25, 10.1086/310349

1996 doi
[41]

J., & Kordi , A

Elmhamdi , A., Tsvetkov , D., Danziger , I. J., & Kordi , A. 2011, , 731, 129, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/129

2011 doi
[42]

Filippenko , A. V. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309, 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

1997 doi
[43]

D., Smith , N., Ammons , S

Fox , O. D., Smith , N., Ammons , S. M., et al. 2015, , 454, 4366, 10.1093/mnras/stv2270

2015 doi
[44]

2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

Gal-Yam, A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer), 1--43

2017
[45]

C., Fox , D

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

2007 doi
[46]

C., et al

Hickish, J., Razavi-Ghods, N., Perrott, Y. C., et al. 2018, , 475, 5677, 10.1093/mnras/sty074

2018 doi
[47]

2013 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 5198

Horesh , A., Cao , Y., Mooley , K., & Carpenter , J. 2013 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 5198

2013
[48]

2011, The Astronomer's Telegram, 3512

Horesh , A., Kasliwal , M., Carpenter , J., et al. 2011, The Astronomer's Telegram, 3512

2011
[49]

R., Corsi , A., et al

Horesh , A., Kulkarni , S. R., Corsi , A., et al. 2013 b , , 778, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/63

2013 doi
[50]

B., et al

Horesh , A., Stockdale , C., Fox , D. B., et al. 2013 c , , 436, 1258, 10.1093/mnras/stt1645

2013 doi
[51]

2020, , 903, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd38

Horesh , A., Sfaradi , I., Ergon , M., et al. 2020, , 903, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd38

2020 doi
[52]

2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16885, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16885

Irani , I., Morag , J., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16885, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16885

2023 doi arXiv
[53]

2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 5154

Kamble , A., & Soderberg , A. 2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 5154

2013
[54]

M., Chomiuk , L., et al

Kamble , A., Soderberg , A. M., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2014, , 797, 2, 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/2

2014 doi
[55]

M., et al

Kamble , A., Margutti , R., Soderberg , A. M., et al. 2016, , 818, 111, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/111

2016 doi
[56]

T., Stockdale , C

Kelley , M. T., Stockdale , C. J., Sramek , R. A., et al. 2006, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 495

2006
[57]

2016, A&A, 593, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628800

Kimani , N., Sendlinger , K., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628800

2016 doi
[58]

I., Soderberg , A

Krauss , M. I., Soderberg , A. M., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2012, , 750, L40, 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L40

2012 doi
[59]

K., Van Dyk , S

Lacey , C. K., Van Dyk , S. D., Weiler , K. W., et al. 1999, IAU Circulars, 7336

1999
[60]

K., Weiler , K

Lacey , C. K., Weiler , K. W., Sramek , R. A., & van Dyk , S. D. 1998, IAU Circulars, 7068

1998
[61]

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

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

2012 doi
[62]

1988, , 192, 221

Lundqvist , P., & Fransson , C. 1988, , 192, 221

1988
[63]

M., et al

Margutti , R., Milisavljevic , D., Soderberg , A. M., et al. 2014, , 797, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/107

2014 doi
[64]

P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & 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
[65]

M., et al

Milisavljevic , D., Margutti , R., Soderberg , A. M., et al. 2013, , 767, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/71

2013 doi
[66]

2007, , 381, 280, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12258.x

Misra , K., Pooley , D., Chandra , P., et al. 2007, , 381, 280, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12258.x

2007
[67]

J., Van Dyk , S

Montes , M. J., Van Dyk , S. D., Weiler , K. W., Sramek , R. A., & Panagia , N. 1997, , 482, L61, 10.1086/310694

1997 doi
[68]

1998, , 506, 874, 10.1086/306261

---. 1998, , 506, 874, 10.1086/306261

1998 doi
[69]

J., & Chandra , P

Nayana , A. J., & Chandra , P. 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11350

2018
[70]

J., Chandra , P., & Ray , A

Nayana , A. J., Chandra , P., & Ray , A. K. 2018, , 863, 163, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad17a

2018 doi
[71]

J., Margutti , R., Wiston , E., et al

Nayana , A. J., Margutti , R., Wiston , E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02647, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02647

2024 doi arXiv
[72]

Pacholczyk , A. G. 1970, Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes in galactic and extragalactic sources ( Series of Books in Astronomy and Astrophysics, San Francisco: Freeman, 1970 )

1970
[73]

A., Alberdi , A., Colina , L., et al

P \'e rez-Torres , M. A., Alberdi , A., Colina , L., et al. 2009, , 399, 1641, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15389.x

2009
[74]

C., Scaife, A

Perrott, Y. C., Scaife, A. M. M., Green, D. A., et al. 2013, , 429, 3330, 10.1093/mnras/sts589

2013 doi
[76]

2002 b , , 572, 932, 10.1086/340346

---. 2002 b , , 572, 932, 10.1086/340346

2002 doi
[77]

G., & Green , D

Pooley , G. G., & Green , D. A. 1993, , 264, L17, 10.1093/mnras/264.1.L17

1993 doi
[78]

A., et al

Romero-Ca \ n izales , C., Herrero-Illana , R., P \'e rez-Torres , M. A., et al. 2014, , 440, 1067, 10.1093/mnras/stu430

2014 doi
[79]

A., Alberdi , A., et al

Romero-Canizales , C., Perez-Torres , M. A., Alberdi , A., et al. 2011, The Astronomer's Telegram, 3291

2011
[80]

2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 3853, 10.1093/mnras/stae2289

Rose, K., Horesh, A., Murphy, T., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 3853, 10.1093/mnras/stae2289

2024 doi
[81]

R., et al

Roy , R., Kumar , B., Maund , J. R., et al. 2013, , 434, 2032, 10.1093/mnras/stt1148

2013 doi
[82]

2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11224

Ryder , S., Kool , E., Kankare , E., et al. 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11224

2018
[83]

D., Kool , E

Ryder , S. D., Kool , E. C., Filipovic , M., et al. 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, 12373

2019
[84]

D., Sadler , E

Ryder , S. D., Sadler , E. M., Subrahmanyan , R., et al. 2004, , 349, 1093, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07589.x

2004
[85]

D., Stockdale , C

Ryder , S. D., Stockdale , C. J., Immler , S., et al. 2011, The Astronomer's Telegram, 3764

2011
[86]

J., & Tenorio-Tagle , G

Salamanca , I., Terlevich , R. J., & Tenorio-Tagle , G. 2002, , 330, 844, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05167.x

2002
[87]

K., Taylor , G

Schinzel , F. K., Taylor , G. B., Stockdale , C. J., Granot , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2009, , 691, 1380, 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1380

2009 doi
[88]

A., & Readhead , A

Scott , M. A., & Readhead , A. C. S. 1977, , 180, 539, 10.1093/mnras/180.4.539

1977 doi
[89]

2024, , 686, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348761

Sfaradi , I., Horesh , A., Sollerman , J., et al. 2024, , 686, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348761

2024 doi
[90]

D., et al

Shivvers , I., Zheng , W., Van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2017, , 471, 4381, 10.1093/mnras/stx1885

2017 doi
[91]

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

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

2014 doi
[92]

2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

Smith , N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer), 403, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_38

2017 doi
[93]

A., et al

Smith , N., Li , W., Miller , A. A., et al. 2011, , 732, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/63

2011 doi
[94]

D., Mauerhan , J

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

2017 doi
[95]

2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1811

Soderberg , A. 2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1811

2008
[96]

2003, GCN Circular, 2435

Soderberg , A., Kulkarni , S., & Frail , D. 2003, GCN Circular, 2435

2003
[97]

2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1455

Soderberg , A., Chandra , P., Stockdale , C., et al. 2008, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1455

2008
[98]

M., Brunthaler , A., Nakar , E., Chevalier , R

Soderberg , A. M., Brunthaler , A., Nakar , E., Chevalier , R. A., & Bietenholz , M. F. 2010 a , , 725, 922, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/922

2010 doi
[99]

M., Chevalier , R

Soderberg , A. M., Chevalier , R. A., Kulkarni , S. R., & Frail , D. A. 2006 a , , 651, 1005, 10.1086/507571

2006 doi
[100]

M., & Kulkarni , S

Soderberg , A. M., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2005, The Astronomer's Telegram, 571

2005
[101]

M., Kulkarni , S

Soderberg , A. M., Kulkarni , S. R., Berger , E., et al. 2005 a , , 621, 908, 10.1086/427649

2005 doi
[102]

M., Kulkarni , S

Soderberg , A. M., Kulkarni , S. R., & Frail , D. A. 2004, The Astronomer's Telegram, 351

2004
[103]

2005 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 621

---. 2005 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 621

2005
[104]

M., Nakar , E., Berger , E., & Kulkarni , S

Soderberg , A. M., Nakar , E., Berger , E., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2006 b , , 638, 930, 10.1086/499121

2006 doi
[105]

M., Chakraborti , S., Pignata , G., et al

Soderberg , A. M., Chakraborti , S., Pignata , G., et al. 2010 b , Nature, 463, 513, 10.1038/nature08714

2010 doi
[106]

M., Margutti , R., Zauderer , B

Soderberg , A. M., Margutti , R., Zauderer , B. A., et al. 2012, , 752, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/78

2012 doi
[107]

2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 5264

Sokolovsky , K., Giroletti , M., Stagni , M., Nanni , M., & Mahabal , A. 2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 5264

2013
[108]

P., Sfaradi , I., Jencson , J., et al

Srinivasaragavan , G. P., Sfaradi , I., Jencson , J., et al. 2022, , 660, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142158

2022 doi
[109]

J., Kelley , M., van Dyk , S

Stockdale , C. J., Kelley , M., van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2005, IAU Circulars, 8603

2005
[110]

J., Sramek , R

Stockdale , C. J., Sramek , R. A., Van Dyk , S. D., Weiler , K. W., & Panagia , N. 2003 a , IAU Circulars, 8153

2003
[111]

J., Van Dyk , S

Stockdale , C. J., Van Dyk , S. D., Sramek , R. A., et al. 2004 a , IAU Circulars, 8282

2004
[112]

J., Weiler , K

Stockdale , C. J., Weiler , K. W., Immler , S., et al. 2008 a , IAU Circulars, 8939

2008
[113]

2008 b , Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1299

---. 2008 b , Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1299

2008
[114]

J., Weiler , K

Stockdale , C. J., Weiler , K. W., Van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2003 b , , 592, 900, 10.1086/375737

2003 doi
[115]

J., Weiler , K

Stockdale , C. J., Weiler , K. W., van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2004 b , IAU Circulars, 8415

2004
[116]

J., Weiler , K

Stockdale , C. J., Weiler , K. W., Soderberg , A., et al. 2008 c , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1452

2008
[117]

J., Weiler , K

Stockdale , C. J., Weiler , K. W., Immler , S., et al. 2008 d , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1883

2008
[118]

2009 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1915

---. 2009 a , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1915

2009
[119]

2009 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1923

---. 2009 b , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1923

2009
[120]

2009 c , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1912

---. 2009 c , The Astronomer's Telegram, 1912

2009
[121]

M., et al

Stritzinger , M., Mazzali , P., Phillips , M. M., et al. 2009, , 696, 713, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/713

2009 doi
[122]

P., & Chugai , N

Utrobin , V. P., & Chugai , N. N. 2013, A&A, 555, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321678

2013 doi
[123]

J., Kamble , A

van der Horst , A. J., Kamble , A. P., Paragi , Z., et al. 2010, The Astronomer's Telegram, 2612

2010
[124]

2011, , 726, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/99

---. 2011, , 726, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/99

2011 doi
[125]

D., Lacey , C

Van Dyk , S. D., Lacey , C. K., Sramek , R. A., & Weiler , K. W. 1999, IAU Circulars, 7322

1999
[126]

D., Montes , M

van Dyk , S. D., Montes , M. J., Weiler , K. W., Sramek , R. A., & Panagia , N. 1998, , 115, 1103, 10.1086/300261

1998 doi
[127]

D., Sramek , R

van Dyk , S. D., Sramek , R. A., Weiler , K. W., Montes , M. J., & Panagia , N. 1996, IAU Circulars, 6378

1996
[128]

D., Sramek , R

van Dyk , S. D., Sramek , R. A., Weiler , K. W., & Panagia , N. 1993, , 409, 162, 10.1086/172652

1993 doi
[129]

D., Weiler , K

van Dyk , S. D., Weiler , K. W., Sramek , R. A., & Panagia , N. 1992, , 396, 195, 10.1086/171709

1992 doi
[130]

Vink , J. S. 2022, , 60, 203, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-094949

2022 doi
[131]

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

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

2001 doi
[132]

W., Panagia , N., & Montes , M

Weiler , K. W., Panagia , N., & Montes , M. J. 2001, , 562, 670, 10.1086/322359

2001 doi
[133]

W., Panagia , N., Montes , M

Weiler , K. W., Panagia , N., Montes , M. J., & Sramek , R. A. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 387, 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093744

2002
[134]

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

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

1990 doi
[135]

W., Panagia , N., Stockdale , C., et al

Weiler , K. W., Panagia , N., Stockdale , C., et al. 2011, , 740, 79, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/79

2011 doi
[136]

W., Sramek , R

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

1986 doi
[137]

W., van Dyk , S

Weiler , K. W., van Dyk , S. D., Panagia , N., Sramek , R. A., & Discenna , J. L. 1991, , 380, 161, 10.1086/170571

1991 doi
[138]

W., Williams , C

Weiler , K. W., Williams , C. L., Panagia , N., et al. 2007, , 671, 1959, 10.1086/523258

2007 doi
[139]

Wellons , S., & Soderberg , A. M. 2011, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 43, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#217, 337.15

2011
[140]

L., Panagia , N., Van Dyk , S

Williams , C. L., Panagia , N., Van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2002, , 581, 396, 10.1086/344087

2002 doi
[141]

2014, , 782, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/30

Yadav , N., Ray , A., Chakraborti , S., et al. 2014, , 782, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/30

2014 doi
[142]

A., Gal-Yam , A., et al

Yaron , O., Perley , D. A., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510, 10.1038/nphys4025

2017 doi
[143]

2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 4866

Zauderer , A., Kamble , A., Chakraborti , S., & Soderberg , A. 2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 4866

2013
[144]

Zwart, J. T. L., Barker, R. W., Biddulph, P., et al. 2008, , 391, 1545, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13953.x

2008

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

E., Horesh , A., Mooley , K

Anderson , G. E., Horesh , A., Mooley , K. P., et al. 2017, , 466, 3648, 10.1093/mnras/stw3310

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3310 2017

[2] [2]

K., Beswick , R

Argo , M. K., Beswick , R. J., Muxlow , T. W. B., & Pedlar , A. 2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1084

2007

[3] [3]

2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

Barniol Duran , R., Nakar , E., & Piran , T. 2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/78 2013

[4] [4]

R., & Chevalier , R

Berger , E., Kulkarni , S. R., & Chevalier , R. A. 2002, , 577, L5, 10.1086/344045

work page doi:10.1086/344045 2002

[5] [5]

J., Fenech , D., Thrall , H., et al

Beswick , R. J., Fenech , D., Thrall , H., et al. 2005, IAU Circulars, 8572

2005

[6] [6]

J., Muxlow , T

Beswick , R. J., Muxlow , T. W. B., Argo , M. K., & Pedlar , A. 2004 a , IAU Circulars, 8332

2004

[7] [7]

J., Muxlow , T

Beswick , R. J., Muxlow , T. W. B., Argo , M. K., Pedlar , A., & Marcaide , J. M. 2004 b , IAU Circulars, 8435

2004

[8] [8]

2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1254

Bietenholz , M., & Bartel , N. 2007, The Astronomer's Telegram, 1254

2007