Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Systematic Investigation into Radio Supernovae with Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis: Implications for Massive Stars' Mass Loss and Shock Acceleration Physics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A uniform MCMC analysis of 27 radio supernovae finds that stripped-envelope progenitors lose mass at roughly $10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, an order of magnitude more than Type II progenitors, and attributes several anomalous fit…

desk verdict A genuinely useful first systematic MCMC fit of 32 radio SNe, but the headline mass-loss gap between SNe II and SESNe is mostly inherited from the assumed wind velocities, not from the radio data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06609 v1 pith:4SJV2LEJ submitted 2025-05-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Tomoki Matsuoka , Keiichi Maeda , Shigeo S. Kimura , Masaomi Tanaka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords radiosupernovaecircumstellarmediummass-losshistoryshockaccelerationmagneticfieldamplificationMarkovchainMonteCarlostripped-envelopeconfinedmaterial
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 argues that a uniform six-parameter radio-supernova model, fitted with MCMC to 27 well-observed radio supernovae, reveals two statistical facts. First, stripped-envelope supernova progenitors lose mass at about $10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ in the final years before explosion, an order of magnitude faster than Type II progenitors at $<10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. Second, several puzzling fit results—near-unity magnetic-field amplification efficiency and an unusually shallow outer ejecta slope—disappear if a dense circumstellar shell within roughly $10^{15}$ cm of the progenitor is added to the picture. The authors conclude that such a confined dense shell is common among radio-bright supernovae, and that the standard single-power-law circumstellar medium is incomplete.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the standard synchrotron self-absorbed radio supernova model: a homologously expanding ejecta with outer density slope $n$ drives a thin-shell shock into a power-law CSM with density $\rho = D r^{-s}$, and the radio luminosity is computed from the relativistic electron spectrum and amplified magnetic field, with parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(\log \tilde{A}_*, \log\epsilon_e, \log\epsilon_B, p, s, n)$. The MCMC sampler maps the posterior, and the key diagnostic is a degeneracy between the CSM density scale $\tilde{A}_*$ and the magnetic efficiency $\epsilon_B$: both parameters dim optically thick emission and brighten optically thin emission in similar ways, so a model lacking a dense inner shell misattributes the early-time excess to $\epsilon_B\sim 1$. Excluding the first 30 days restores moderate $\epsilon_B$, and the paper reads the resulting discrepancy as evidence for a dense confined CSM at $r\lesssim 10^{15}$ cm.

What would settle it

Observe a newly discovered stripped-envelope supernova with radio monitoring starting within days of explosion; the confined-CSM claim predicts that the early light curve will require a density enhancement near $10^{15}$ cm that is much higher than the extrapolated late-time wind and that a two-zone model will fit the data with $\epsilon_B < 0.01$. If a two-zone fit still demands $\epsilon_B\sim 1$, or if no early absorption excess appears, the artifact interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that, under one analytical radio emission model applied across 32 supernovae, the inferred mass-loss rate of stripped-envelope progenitors clusters around $10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, an order of magnitude higher than for Type II supernovae, while the electron acceleration efficiency and magnetic field amplification efficiency are both below $10^{-2}$ and their equipartition is not ruled out. When the same fits include the first 30 days of data, many objects demand $\epsilon_B \sim 1$, a value far above what particle-in-cell shock simulations produce. The paper interprets this as a model artifact: the early radio data trace a dense circumstellar medium in the immediate vicinity of the progenitor that is not smoothly connected to the outer wind, so the standard model compensates by inflating $\epsilon_B$ and lowering the CSM density scale. It also finds outer ejecta slopes as small as $n\sim 5$, below classical shock-breakout predictions, and links this to the same confined CSM flattening the outer ejecta structure.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that any dense shell near the star affects only the first thirty days, so that the later radio light curve can still be modeled with a single smooth wind and a shock trajectory unaffected by the inner structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mass-loss histories of stripped-envelope progenitors should be revised upward by roughly an order of magnitude relative to equipartition-based estimates, with consequences for final stellar evolution and pre-supernova activity.
  • Radio-bright supernovae should commonly show signatures of dense confined CSM, including flash-spectroscopy features and early-time radio absorption.
  • Shock acceleration in non-relativistic supernova shocks need not be highly efficient: efficiencies below $10^{-2}$ with a viable near-equipartition ratio between electrons and magnetic field remain consistent with the data.
  • The outer ejecta of core-collapse supernovae interacting with a confined shell can be shallower than classical predictions, which affects how ejecta mass and kinetic energy are inferred from radio light curves.
  • Single-power-law fits that include early-time radio data should be interpreted with caution, because the near-unity $\epsilon_B$ they produce is a warning sign of missing density structure rather than a reliable microphysics measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the confined-CSM interpretation: early multi-band radio follow-up within days of explosion should reveal free-free absorption or a density excess near $10^{15}$ cm in objects like those studied here, and a two-zone model with such a shell should fit the early data without requiring $\epsilon_B\sim 1$.
  • The $\tilde{A}_*$-$\epsilon_B$ degeneracy implies that published single-zone radio fits that fix $\epsilon_e=\epsilon_B=0.1$ carry a hidden systematic bias in inferred CSM density, so future work should fit density and microphysics jointly rather than fixing either.
  • The confined shell proposed here may be the same phenomenon seen in flash-spectroscopy supernovae and in some stripped-envelope events, suggesting a common pre-explosion mass-ejection mechanism across apparently different transient classes.
  • A hydrodynamic simulation of a shock crossing a dense inner shell would provide a decisive check: if it reproduces the early rise with $\epsilon_B<0.01$, the artifact interpretation is confirmed; if not, the large $\epsilon_B$ from early-included fits would reflect genuine shock microphysics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic MCMC analysis of 32 radio-selected supernovae with clear light-curve peaks, fitting a standard analytical radio SN model to 27 objects. The fitted parameters are the CSM density scale A~, electron acceleration efficiency eps_e, magnetic field amplification efficiency eps_B, electron spectral index p, CSM density slope s, and outer ejecta density slope n. The authors report that stripped-envelope SN (SESN) progenitors have mass-loss rates about an order of magnitude higher than SN II progenitors, that shock acceleration efficiencies are below 10^-2 with equipartition allowed, and that the outer ejecta density slope tends to be shallow (n ~ 5). When early-phase (first 30 days) data are included, the fits prefer extremely high eps_B, which the authors interpret as evidence for a dense CSM component near the progenitor that is not captured by the single-component model.

Significance. If the central mass-loss claim held, this would be an important systematic constraint on massive-star mass loss and on the progenitors of stripped-envelope supernovae. The paper's strengths include the use of a uniform model framework across a relatively large sample, a transparent MCMC setup, and a robustness test with fsh = 4 that does not qualitatively change the fitted microphysical parameters. The paper is also candid about several limitations. However, the headline mass-loss difference is not actually driven by the fitted CSM density scale but by the assumed wind velocities, and the statistical significance of the group-level difference is not established. The dense-CSM interpretation also has a partially circular structure. These issues affect the paper's main conclusions and require revision before the claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (4), Table 5] The abstract and Section 8 claim that SESN progenitors have mass-loss rates an order of magnitude above those of SNe II, but the fitted CSM density scale A~ is nearly the same for the two groups (median log A~ = 1.75 +/- 1.53 for SNe II vs 1.47 +/- 1.08 for SESNe, Table 5). Since Mdot = 4*pi*v_w * 5e11 g/cm * A~ (Eq. 4), the factor of ~100 in Mdot comes almost entirely from the assumed wind velocities (10 km/s for SNe II vs 1000 km/s for SESNe), not from the radio data. Section 5.1 acknowledges the uncertainty in the CSM velocity, but this limitation is not propagated into the abstract or summary claims, and no alternative wind-velocity priors are tested. As written, the headline overstates what the radio data alone establish.
  2. [Table 5, Section 5.1] With only four SNe II in the successful-fit sample (SN 1987A, 2004dj, 2012aw, 2016X) and 1-sigma scatter of about 1.5 dex in log A~, the difference in A~ between SNe II and SESNe is not statistically significant. The manuscript should include a formal significance assessment (e.g., posterior overlap or a two-sample test) or explicitly state that the current sample cannot distinguish the group-level CSM density scales. As written, the 'order of magnitude' statement in the abstract is not supported by the fitted density scales alone.
  3. [Sections 3.3 and 5.2] The dense-CSM interpretation is introduced after excluding the first 30 days of data because the model cannot treat inhomogeneous CSM, and the same exclusion is then presented as evidence that a dense inner CSM is the missing setup. This has a circular structure. The manuscript does mention alternative explanations (genuinely large eps_B, time-dependent microphysics), but the abstract wording 'we identify the missing setup as a dense CSM' is stronger than the evidence. A direct test with a two-component or hydrodynamical CSM model, or at least an explicit statement that the dense-CSM interpretation is one of several mutually consistent possibilities, is needed to avoid circular reasoning.
  4. [Section 3.3] The exclusion of early-phase data does not remove the dynamical influence of a dense inner CSM on the shock trajectory at later times. The manuscript itself states that the shock evolution is first influenced by the inner CSM and that subsequent hydrodynamical properties would be affected, and that this effect is not included in the model. If the inner CSM modifies the shock before day 30, the fitted late-time parameters, including A~ and s, could be biased. The paper should quantify this effect (for example, by comparing with the two-component calculations of Matsuoka et al. 2025) or explicitly state that the mass-loss and density-slope results are conditional on the unperturbed single-component CSM assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 8, first bullet] The units in the mass-loss rate ranges are incomplete: '10^-7 <= Mdot < 10^-4 M_sun' and 'Mdot ~ 10^-3 M_sun' should read M_sun yr^-1 throughout.
  2. [Table 1] The final column header 'References of chi^2_red < 5' appears garbled; it should be relabeled (e.g., 'Good fit (chi^2_red < 5)') and the checkmarks defined clearly in the caption.
  3. [Section 3.2] The imposed lower limit sigma_obs,i = 0.1 F_obs,i is applied uniformly, but its effect on the derived posterior widths and on the reduced chi-square threshold is not discussed. A brief justification or a sensitivity test would clarify how much of the quoted credible intervals depends on this assumption.
  4. [Section 5.2] The phrase 'A~ only in the inner CSM' refers to a localized enhancement that is not a fitted parameter of the model; the text should clarify that this is an inferred physical interpretation, not a quantity directly constrained by the MCMC.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central mass-loss-rate gap is produced by the adopted 100x wind-velocity ratio applied to nearly equal fitted CSM densities (Eq. 4, Table 5), so the headline claim is a rescaling of an assumed input rather than a radio-data prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Eq. (4); §5.1; Table 5]
    "˜A∗ = ˙M/(4π vw) × 1/(5×10^11 g cm^−1) ... Here we assume that the CSM velocity is constant with time until the core collapse, and is comparable to the escape velocity of the progenitor; ∼ 10 km s−1 for SNe II and ∼ 1000 km s−1 for SESNe. ... the mass-loss rate of SESNe is clustering at the value of ˙M ≃ 10−3 M⊙ yr−1. This clear difference is attributed to the difference in the CSM density structure inferred in Figure 3."

    The quantity actually constrained by the radio fits is log ˜A∗, whose type medians are 1.75 for SNe II and 1.47 for SESNe (Table 5) — overlapping and, if anything, slightly higher for SNe II. Equation (4) then defines ˙M as 4π vw × 5×10^11 g cm^−1 × ˜A∗. With vw adopted as 10 km/s for SNe II and 1000 km/s for SESNe (§5.1), the reported order-of-magnitude gap in ˙M is almost entirely the assumed 100x wind-velocity ratio; the fitted density scale is comparable within its ~1.5 dex 1σ scatter. The abstract’s central mass-loss comparison therefore reduces, by Eq. (4), to a rescaling of an assumed input rather than an independently inferred quantity.

full rationale

The MCMC fitting and the light-curve modeling are largely self-contained: the posterior distributions, priors, and χ² selection are clearly specified, and the individual fitted parameters are presented with credible intervals. The dense inner CSM interpretation in §5.2 is speculative but not circular in the strict sense; it is offered as a suggested resolution of an early-phase discrepancy, with the alternative of genuinely high ϵB explicitly left open. The genuine circularity is in the headline mass-loss claim. The fitting parameter ˜A∗ equals ˙M/(4π vw) by Eq. (4), so converting the fitted ˜A∗ values into ˙M is a definitional rescaling, not a new measurement. The type comparison then inherits the assumed wind velocities: the medians of log ˜A∗ are 1.75 (SNe II) and 1.47 (SESNe), so the radio data alone do not establish a denser CSM around stripped-envelope progenitors. The reported factor ~50–100 in ˙M is essentially the ratio of the assumed wind velocities (100) times a density-scale ratio near unity. The paper acknowledges the velocity uncertainty in §5.1, but the abstract and summary present the order-of-magnitude mass-loss difference as an inference from the radio sample. Because the central claim reduces by construction to an adopted input, the circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central statistical claims are driven by six fitted parameters per supernova plus fixed inputs (Mej, Eej, D) taken from prior literature. The mass-loss rate comparison further depends on assumed constant wind velocities. The proposed dense inner CSM is an inferred missing component with independent external support, so it is not purely ad hoc, but it is not directly measured in this paper.

free parameters (6)
  • log \tilde{A}_* (CSM density scale) = median ~1.75 (SN II), ~1.47 (SESN)
    Fitted per SN via MCMC; determines CSM density normalization. Directly enters mass-loss rate estimates through assumed wind velocity.
  • log \epsilon_e (electron acceleration efficiency) = median ~ -3.09 (SN II), -2.11 (SESN)
    Fitted per SN; controls normalization of relativistic electron population.
  • log \epsilon_B (magnetic field amplification efficiency) = median ~ -2.12 (SN II), -2.07 (SESN)
    Fitted per SN; controls magnetic field strength. Strongly affected by inclusion of early-phase data.
  • p (electron spectral index) = median ~2.5-3.0 for most objects
    Fitted per SN; determines synchrotron spectral slope.
  • s (CSM density slope) = median ~1.85 (SESN), ~2.05 (SN II)
    Fitted per SN; describes radial gradient of CSM density; s<2 indicates decreasing mass-loss toward collapse.
  • n (outer ejecta density slope) = median ~5.5-8.5; many SESN at lower bound 5
    Fitted per SN; prior lower bound n=5, and the fit often piles up at this boundary, which the paper acknowledges (Section 7).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Thin-shell approximation for shock radius evolution (Equations 5-6)
    Assumed without hydrodynamic simulation. The paper tests fsh=4 and finds qualitative conclusions unchanged (Section 7).
  • domain assumption Single-component power-law CSM density profile (Equation 3)
    The model cannot represent inhomogeneous or confined CSM; the paper excludes early data because of this limitation (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption Power-law outer ejecta profile with n > 5 (Equations 1-2)
    Standard Chevalier (1982b) profile. The lower bound n=5 is a prior edge that many SESN fits pile up on (Section 7).
  • domain assumption Constant wind velocity equal to escape speed: 10 km/s for SNe II, 1000 km/s for SESNe
    Section 5.1: mass-loss rate is proportional to assumed wind speed, so the SN II vs SESN difference depends on these choices; the paper acknowledges this uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Minimum Lorentz factor of electrons fixed to gamma_m = 2
    Assumed for non-relativistic shocks (Wei et al. 2023); deviations would alter the electron spectrum normalization.
  • domain assumption Shock compression factor fsh = 9/8
    Used in Equations (8)-(9); the paper repeats fits with fsh=4 and reports unchanged qualitative conclusions (Section 7).
  • standard math Uniform/log-uniform priors with ranges in Table 2, plus fe<1 constraint
    Standard Bayesian choices; the prior on n may drag fits to the lower boundary, which the paper explicitly notes.
invented entities (1)
  • Dense CSM in the vicinity of the progenitor (confined CSM) independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed missing model ingredient to explain why early-phase data inclusion yields extremely high magnetic field efficiency (epsilon_B ~ 1) and why outer ejecta slopes appear shallow.
    Independent support comes from flash spectroscopy of nearby supernovae (Yaron et al. 2017; Jacobson-Galan et al. 2022, 2023) and SN 2020oi (Maeda et al. 2021). The paper's own evidence is indirect: the difference between fits with and without early data (Section 5.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematic Investigation into Radio Supernovae with Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis: Implications for Massive Stars' Mass Loss and Shock Acceleration Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4SJV2LEJ

@misc{pith2026250506609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematic Investigation into Radio Supernovae with Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis: Implications for Massive Stars' Mass Loss and Shock Acceleration Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4SJV2LEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06609}
}
abstract

We present a systematic analysis of radio supernovae (SNe) to investigate the statistical tendencies of SN progenitors' mass-loss rates and shock acceleration efficiencies. We conduct parameter estimation through Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis for 32 radio SN samples with a clear peak observed in their light curves, and successfully fit 27 objects with the widely-used radio SN model. We find the inferred mass-loss rates of stripped-envelope SN progenitors are by an order of magnitude greater ($\sim 10^{-3}\,M_\odot{\rm yr}^{-1}$) than those of SN II progenitors ($<10^{-4}\,M_\odot{\rm yr}^{-1}$). The efficiencies of electron acceleration and magnetic field amplification are found to be less than $10^{-2}$, and the possibility of their energy equipartition is not ruled out. On the other hand, we find the following two properties that might be related to limitations of the standard model for radio SNe; one is the extremely high magnetic field amplification efficiency, and the other is the shallower density gradient of the outer ejecta. We suggest the new interpretation that these peculiar results are misleading due to the setup that is not included in our model, and we identify the missing setup as a dense CSM in the vicinity of the progenitor. This means that a large fraction of radio SN progenitors might possess dense CSM in the vicinity of the progenitor, which is not smoothly connected with the outer CSM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06609 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Multi-band radio light curves of SN 2003L. Bottom: A corner plot of the marginalized posterior probability distribution of the parameters in SN 2003L. Different colors of light curves and points correspond to different ranks of chi-square values denoted in the legend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The marginalized one-dimensional probability density functions of surveyed parameters: (a) CSM density scale log A˜∗, (b) log ϵe, (c) log ϵB, (d) spectral index p, (e) CSM slope s, and (f) ejecta slope n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The contour plot of CSM density profiles of SNe II (red) and SESNe (blue). The gray dotted lines represent steady wind profiles (s = 2) with corresponding CSM den￾sity scales denoted (A∗ = A˜∗(s = 2)). For comparison we indicate the CSM models inferred for SN 2013fs by Yaron et al. (2017) and SN 2020oi by Maeda et al. (2021). 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 lookback time (year) 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 M (M y r 1 ) II… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The contour plot of mass-loss history models obtained from our parameter estimation. Red and blue con￾tours represent the models of SN II and SESNe, respectively. The mass-loss history models for SN 2013fs (Yaron et al. 2017) and SN 2020oi (Maeda et al. 2021) are also …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The marginalized one-dimensional probability density functions of (a) log A˜∗ and (b) log ϵB constructed from the MCMC sample data with the early-phase observa￾tional data included. the light curve to the variation of A˜ ∗ and ϵe. We also refer readers to Appendix C to…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: The marginalized 1D probability density functions of log α = log(ϵe/ϵB). Bottom: The posterior dis￾tribution as functions of log ϵe and log ϵB in SN 2011dh. The red line denotes the situation of equipartition (ϵe = ϵB). SNe with lower ϵe and ϵB can easily elude ob…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The marginalized one-dimensional probability density functions of (a) log ϵe, (b) p, (c) s, and (d) n constructed from the MCMC sample data with the early-phase observational data included. in the range of the color bar next to the panel while the other parameters are …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Parameter dependences of 5 GHz radio light curve reproduced by our radio SN model. The solid lines in all panels are the benchmark model with log A˜∗ = 0, log ϵe = −2, log ϵB = −2, p = 2.5, s = 1.5, and n = 8.5. In each panel, only the parameter on the title is varied …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Interacting Supernovae: a Radio and X-ray Strategy to Constrain the Structure of the Circumstellar Medium

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The rise and decay shape of a supernova's radio light curve can diagnose the three-dimensional geometry of the surrounding circumstellar medium, and hourglass-shaped winds fit SN 1993j and SN 2023ixf.

  2. Red Supergiant Mass Loss and Mass-Loss Rates

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A synthesis review concluding that red supergiant mass loss is gravity-driven, metallicity-independent in rate, and bimodal, with low-mass stars keeping their mantles to core collapse and massive stars shedding them t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    @z " 0 ? l ̾ , owO , , 4'&l&'cqK &|Ĕ]& f=K v> 3 #. < 7 f # TİxoO D F

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., Kelner , S

    Aharonian , F. A., Kelner , S. R., & Prosekin , A. Y. 2010, , 82, 043002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.043002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.043002 2010

  5. [5]

    M., & Richmond , M

    Aldering , G., Humphreys , R. M., & Richmond , M. 1994, , 107, 662, 10.1086/116886

    doi:10.1086/116886 1994

  6. [6]

    2022, , 927, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f49

    Amano , T., & Hoshino , M. 2022, , 927, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f49

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f49 2022

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    F., & Turtle , A

    Ball , L., Campbell-Wilson , D., Crawford , D. F., & Turtle , A. J. 1995, , 453, 864, 10.1086/176446

    doi:10.1086/176446 1995

Show all 149 references
  1. [9]

    F., Hunstead , R

    Ball , L., Crawford , D. F., Hunstead , R. W., Klamer , I., & McIntyre , V. J. 2001, , 549, 599, 10.1086/319056

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    2014, , 442, 3147, 10.1093/mnras/stu1070

    Barniol Duran , R. 2014, , 442, 3147, 10.1093/mnras/stu1070

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Bell , A. R. 1978, , 182, 147, 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    1978 doi

  4. [12]

    Beniamini , P., & van der Horst , A. J. 2017, , 472, 3161, 10.1093/mnras/stx2203

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    R., & Chevalier , R

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

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Margutti , R., et al

    Berger , E., Keating , G. K., Margutti , R., et al. 2023, , 951, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Benvenuto , O

    Bersten , M. C., Benvenuto , O. G., Nomoto , K., et al. 2012, , 757, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/31

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Folatelli , G., Garc \' a , F., et al

    Bersten , M. C., Folatelli , G., Garc \' a , F., et al. 2018, , 554, 497, 10.1038/nature25151

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Bj \"o rnsson , C. I. 2022, , 936, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87aa

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    1987, , 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    Blandford , R., & Eichler , D. 1987, , 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    1987 doi

  13. [21]

    D., & Ostriker , J

    Blandford , R. D., & Ostriker , J. P. 1978, , 221, L29, 10.1086/182658

    1978 doi

  14. [22]

    2000, , 532, 1132, 10.1086/308588

    Blinnikov , S., Lundqvist , P., Bartunov , O., Nomoto , K., & Iwamoto , K. 2000, , 532, 1132, 10.1086/308588

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, , 439, 1807, 10.1093/mnras/stu065

    Bufano , F., Pignata , G., Bersten , M., et al. 2014, , 439, 1807, 10.1093/mnras/stu065

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    2010 a , Astroparticle Physics, 33, 307, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.03.001

    Caprioli , D., Amato , E., & Blasi , P. 2010 a , Astroparticle Physics, 33, 307, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.03.001

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    C., & Blasi , P

    Caprioli , D., Haggerty , C. C., & Blasi , P. 2020, , 905, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe05

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    E., & Jones , T

    Caprioli , D., Kang , H., Vladimirov , A. E., & Jones , T. W. 2010 b , , 407, 1773, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17013.x

    2010

  19. [27]

    2015, , 798, L28, 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L28

    Caprioli , D., Pop , A.-R., & Spitkovsky , A. 2015, , 798, L28, 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L28

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, , 794, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/46

    Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2014, , 794, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/46

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    J., Bj \"o rnsson , C

    Chandra , P., Nayana , A. J., Bj \"o rnsson , C. I., et al. 2019, , 877, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1900

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1982 a , , 259, 302, 10.1086/160167

    1982 doi

  25. [33]

    1982 b , , 258, 790, 10.1086/160126

    ---. 1982 b , , 258, 790, 10.1086/160126

    1982 doi

  26. [34]

    1998, , 499, 810, 10.1086/305676

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

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    A., & Fransson , C

    Chevalier , R. A., & Fransson , C. 1994, , 420, 268, 10.1086/173557

    1994 doi

  28. [36]

    2006, , 651, 381, 10.1086/507606

    ---. 2006, , 651, 381, 10.1086/507606

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    A., Fransson , C., & Nymark , T

    Chevalier , R. A., Fransson , C., & Nymark , T. K. 2006, , 641, 1029, 10.1086/500528

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

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

    Corsi , A., Ofek , E. O., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2014, , 782, 42, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/42

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    T., Pumo , M

    Dall'Ora , M., Botticella , M. T., Pumo , M. L., et al. 2014, , 787, 139, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/139

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c26

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

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Drury , L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    1983 doi

  35. [43]

    A., van der Horst , A

    Duncan , R. A., van der Horst , A. J., & Beniamini , P. 2023, , 518, 1522, 10.1093/mnras/stac3172

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    2005, , 627, 861, 10.1086/430596

    Eichler , D., & Waxman , E. 2005, , 627, 861, 10.1086/430596

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 434, 10.1038/s41550-019-0710-6

    Fang , Q., Maeda , K., Kuncarayakti , H., Sun , F., & Gal-Yam , A. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 434, 10.1038/s41550-019-0710-6

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey , D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

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

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

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    1998, , 509, 861, 10.1086/306531

    Fransson , C., & Bj \"o rnsson , C.-I. 1998, , 509, 861, 10.1086/306531

    1998 doi

  41. [49]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14438, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14438

    Hillel , S., Schreier , R., & Soker , N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14438, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14438

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    F., Hosseinzadeh , G., et al

    Huang , F., Wang , X. F., Hosseinzadeh , G., et al. 2018, , 475, 3959, 10.1093/mnras/sty066

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    o ller , M., Cikota , A., & J \

    Hubrig , S., Sch \"o ller , M., Cikota , A., & J \"a rvinen , S. P. 2020, , 499, L116, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa170

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Valenti , S., Kotak , R., et al

    Hunter , D. J., Valenti , S., Kotak , R., et al. 2009, , 508, 371, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912896

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    2009, , 695, 825, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/825

    Inoue , T., Yamazaki , R., & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2009, , 695, 825, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/825

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    V., Dessart , L., Jones , D

    Jacobson-Gal \'a n , W. V., Dessart , L., Jones , D. O., et al. 2022, , 924, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f3a

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    V., Dessart , L., Margutti , R., et al

    Jacobson-Gal \'a n , W. V., Dessart , L., Margutti , R., et al. 2023, , 954, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf2ec

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    M., et al

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

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    F., & Ohira , Y

    Kamijima , S. F., & Ohira , Y. 2022, , 106, 123025, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123025

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    R., Frail , D

    Kulkarni , S. R., Frail , D. A., Wieringa , M. H., et al. 1998, , 395, 663, 10.1038/27139

    1998 doi

  54. [62]

    2020, , 635, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937226

    Kuriyama , N., & Shigeyama , T. 2020, , 635, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937226

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    C., & Nagataki , S

    Lee , S.-H., Ellison , D. C., & Nagataki , S. 2012, , 750, 156, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/156

    2012 doi

  56. [64]

    1988, , 192, 221

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

    1988

  57. [65]

    D., Bersier , D., James , P

    Lyman , J. D., Bersier , D., James , P. A., et al. 2016, , 457, 328, 10.1093/mnras/stv2983

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    2012, , 758, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/81

    Maeda , K. 2012, , 758, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/81

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    2013 a , , 762, 14, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/14

    ---. 2013 a , , 762, 14, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/14

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    2013 b , , 762, L24, 10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L24

    ---. 2013 b , , 762, L24, 10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L24

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, , 521, 1897, 10.1093/mnras/stad618

    Maeda , K., Jiang , J.-a., Doi , M., Kawabata , M., & Shigeyama , T. 2023, , 521, 1897, 10.1093/mnras/stad618

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2015, , 807, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/35

    Maeda , K., Hattori , T., Milisavljevic , D., et al. 2015, , 807, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/35

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    2021, , 918, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc

    Maeda , K., Chandra , P., Matsuoka , T., et al. 2021, , 918, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    M., et al

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

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    2017, , 835, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    Margutti , R., Kamble , A., Milisavljevic , D., et al. 2017, , 835, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    C., Anderson , J

    Martinez , L., Bersten , M. C., Anderson , J. P., et al. 2022 a , , 660, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142075

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    2022 b , , 660, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142076

    ---. 2022 b , , 660, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142076

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    P., Bersten , M

    Martinez , L., Anderson , J. P., Bersten , M. C., et al. 2022 c , , 660, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142555

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    N., & Hoshino , M

    Matsumoto , Y., Amano , T., Kato , T. N., & Hoshino , M. 2015, Science, 347, 974, 10.1126/science.1260168

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    2017, ¥prl, 119, 105101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.105101

    ---. 2017, ¥prl, 119, 105101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.105101

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    S., Maeda , K., & Tanaka , M

    Matsuoka , T., Kimura , S. S., Maeda , K., & Tanaka , M. 2024, , 960, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad096c

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    Matsuoka , T., Lee , S.-H., Maeda , K., Takiwaki , T., & Moriya , T. J. 2022, , 930, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67a4

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    2020, , 898, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1b

    Matsuoka , T., & Maeda , K. 2020, , 898, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1b

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.14255, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.14255

    Matsuoka , T., Maeda , K., & Chen , K.-J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.14255, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.14255

    2025 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    2019, , 885, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4421

    Matsuoka , T., Maeda , K., Lee , S.-H., & Yasuda , H. 2019, , 885, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4421

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    D., & McKee , C

    Matzner , C. D., & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 510, 379, 10.1086/306571

    1999 doi

  77. [85]

    A., Deng , J., Hamuy , M., & Nomoto , K

    Mazzali , P. A., Deng , J., Hamuy , M., & Nomoto , K. 2009, , 703, 1624, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1624

    2009 doi

  78. [86]

    A., Deng , J., Maeda , K., et al

    Mazzali , P. A., Deng , J., Maeda , K., et al. 2002, , 572, L61, 10.1086/341504

    2002 doi

  79. [87]

    M., et al

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

    2013 doi

  80. [88]

    M., Margutti , R., et al

    Milisavljevic , D., Soderberg , A. M., Margutti , R., et al. 2013 b , , 770, L38, 10.1088/2041-8205/770/2/L38

    2013 doi

  81. [89]

    T., et al

    Milisavljevic , D., Margutti , R., Parrent , J. T., et al. 2015, , 799, 51, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/51

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    2014, , 445, 1647, 10.1093/mnras/stu1837

    Morales-Garoffolo , A., Elias-Rosa , N., Benetti , S., et al. 2014, , 445, 1647, 10.1093/mnras/stu1837

    2014 doi

  83. [91]

    2024, , 528, 4209, 10.1093/mnras/stae170

    Murai , Y., Tanaka , M., Kawabata , M., et al. 2024, , 528, 4209, 10.1093/mnras/stae170

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    J., Bolatto , A., Chatterjee , S., et al

    Murphy , E. J., Bolatto , A., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy , 3, 10.48550/arXiv.1810.07524

    2018 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    J., Chandra , P., Krishna , A., & Anupama , G

    Nayana , A. J., Chandra , P., Krishna , A., & Anupama , G. C. 2022, , 934, 186, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c1e

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

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

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

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    R., et al

    Nomoto , K., Yamaoka , H., Pols , O. R., et al. 1994, , 371, 227, 10.1038/371227a0

    1994 doi

  88. [96]

    2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 41, 1, 10.1016/j.jheap.2023.12.001

    Obayashi , K., Toriyama , A., Murakoshi , M., et al. 2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 41, 1, 10.1016/j.jheap.2023.12.001

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    L., & Bocchino , F

    Orlando , S., Miceli , M., Pumo , M. L., & Bocchino , F. 2015, , 810, 168, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/168

    2015 doi

  90. [98]

    2019, , 622, A73, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834487

    Orlando , S., Miceli , M., Petruk , O., et al. 2019, , 622, A73, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834487

    2019 doi

  91. [99]

    2020, , 636, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936718

    Orlando , S., Ono , M., Nagataki , S., et al. 2020, , 636, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936718

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

    2015, Phys

    Park, J., Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 085003, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    2015 doi

  93. [101]

    2016, , 460, 44, 10.1093/mnras/stw920

    Petropoulou , M., Kamble , A., & Sironi , L. 2016, , 460, 44, 10.1093/mnras/stw920

    2016 doi

  94. [102]

    2011, , 728, 14, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/14

    Pignata , G., Stritzinger , M., Soderberg , A., et al. 2011, , 728, 14, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/14

    2011 doi

  95. [103]

    J., Ashall , C., Mazzali , P

    Prentice , S. J., Ashall , C., Mazzali , P. A., et al. 2018, , 478, 4162, 10.1093/mnras/sty1223

    2018 doi

  96. [104]

    J., Ashall , C., James , P

    Prentice , S. J., Ashall , C., James , P. A., et al. 2019, , 485, 1559, 10.1093/mnras/sty3399

    2019 doi

  97. [105]

    R., et al

    Rho , J., Evans , A., Geballe , T. R., et al. 2021, , 908, 232, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd850

    2021 doi

  98. [106]

    W., van Dyk , S

    Richmond , M. W., van Dyk , S. D., Ho , W., et al. 1996, , 111, 327, 10.1086/117785

    1996 doi

  99. [107]

    Roming , P. W. A., Pritchard , T. A., Brown , P. J., et al. 2009, , 704, L118, 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L118

    2009 doi

  100. [108]

    R., et al

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

    2013 doi

  101. [109]

    2022, , 666, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142024

    Ruiz-Carmona , R., Sfaradi , I., & Horesh , A. 2022, , 666, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142024

    2022 doi

  102. [110]

    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

  103. [111]

    E., Stockdale , C., & Prieto , J

    Salas , P., Bauer , F. E., Stockdale , C., & Prieto , J. L. 2013, , 428, 1207, 10.1093/mnras/sts104

    2013 doi

  104. [112]

    2014, , 785, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

    Santana , R., Barniol Duran , R., & Kumar , P. 2014, , 785, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

    2014 doi

  105. [113]

    2021, , 504, 5647, 10.1093/mnras/stab1273

    Sato , Y., Obayashi , K., Yamazaki , R., Murase , K., & Ohira , Y. 2021, , 504, 5647, 10.1093/mnras/stab1273

    2021 doi

  106. [114]

    A., Marchant , P., et al

    Shenar , T., Wade , G. A., Marchant , P., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 761, 10.1126/science.ade3293

    2023 doi

  107. [115]

    1990, , 361, L23, 10.1086/185818

    Shigeyama , T., Nomoto , K., Tsujimoto , T., & Hashimoto , M.-A. 1990, , 361, L23, 10.1086/185818

    1990 doi

  108. [116]

    1994, , 420, 341, 10.1086/173564

    Shigeyama , T., Suzuki , T., Kumagai , S., et al. 1994, , 420, 341, 10.1086/173564

    1994 doi

  109. [117]

    J., et al

    Silva-Farf \'a n , J., F \"o rster , F., Moriya , T. J., et al. 2024, , 969, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad402a

    2024 doi

  110. [118]

    2011, , 726, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    Sironi , L., & Spitkovsky , A. 2011, , 726, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    2011 doi

  111. [119]

    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

  112. [120]

    M., Chevalier , R

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

    2006 doi

  113. [121]

    M., Kulkarni , S

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

    2005 doi

  114. [122]

    M., Berger , E., Page , K

    Soderberg , A. M., Berger , E., Page , K. L., et al. 2008, , 453, 469, 10.1038/nature06997

    2008 doi

  115. [123]

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

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

    2010 doi

  116. [124]

    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

  117. [125]

    J., Williams , C

    Stockdale , C. J., Williams , C. L., Weiler , K. W., et al. 2007, , 671, 689, 10.1086/522584

    2007 doi

  118. [126]

    B., & Bouchet , P

    Suntzeff , N. B., & Bouchet , P. 1990, , 99, 650, 10.1086/115358

    1990 doi

  119. [127]

    2018, , 478, 110, 10.1093/mnras/sty999

    Suzuki , A., & Maeda , K. 2018, , 478, 110, 10.1093/mnras/sty999

    2018 doi

  120. [128]

    2009, , 692, 1131, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1131

    Tanaka , M., Tominaga , N., Nomoto , K., et al. 2009, , 692, 1131, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1131

    2009 doi

  121. [129]

    2019, , 883, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e37

    Terreran , G., Margutti , R., Bersier , D., et al. 2019, , 883, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e37

    2019 doi

  122. [130]

    S., Tomida , K., & Toma , K

    Tomita , S., Ohira , Y., Kimura , S. S., Tomida , K., & Toma , K. 2022, , 936, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac88be

    2022 doi

  123. [131]

    K., & McKee , C

    Truelove , J. K., & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 120, 299, 10.1086/313176

    1999 doi

  124. [132]

    J., Campbell-Wilson , D., Bunton , J

    Turtle , A. J., Campbell-Wilson , D., Bunton , J. D., et al. 1987, , 327, 38, 10.1038/327038a0

    1987 doi

  125. [133]

    P., & Chugai , N

    Utrobin , V. P., & Chugai , N. N. 2019, , 490, 2042, 10.1093/mnras/stz2716

    2019 doi

  126. [134]

    J., Kamble , A

    van der Horst , A. J., Kamble , A. P., Paragi , Z., et al. 2011, , 726, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/99

    2011 doi

  127. [135]

    D., Sramek , R

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

    1993 doi

  128. [136]

    T., & Murase , K

    Wei , Y., Zhang , B. T., & Murase , K. 2023, , 524, 6004, 10.1093/mnras/stad2122

    2023 doi

  129. [137]

    W., Panagia , N., Montes , M

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

    2002

  130. [138]

    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

  131. [139]

    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

  132. [140]

    W., Williams , C

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

    2007 doi

  133. [141]

    M., & Chevalier , R

    Wellons , S., Soderberg , A. M., & Chevalier , R. A. 2012, , 752, 17, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/17

    2012 doi

  134. [142]

    2022, , 925, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3824

    Xu , S., & Lazarian , A. 2022, , 925, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3824

    2022 doi

  135. [143]

    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

  136. [144]

    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

  137. [145]

    2019, , 876, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13ab

    Yasuda , H., & Lee , S.-H. 2019, , 876, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13ab

    2019 doi

  138. [146]

    R., Smartt , S

    Young , D. R., Smartt , S. J., Valenti , S., et al. 2010, , 512, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913004

    2010 doi

  139. [147]

    2010, , 710, 1515, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1515

    Zanardo , G., Staveley-Smith , L., Ball , L., et al. 2010, , 710, 1515, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1515

    2010 doi

  140. [148]

    2006, , 131, 2245, 10.1086/500972

    Zhang , T., Wang , X., Li , W., et al. 2006, , 131, 2245, 10.1086/500972

    2006 doi

  141. [149]

    A., Irani , I., Chen , P., et al

    Zimmerman , E. A., Irani , I., Chen , P., et al. 2024, , 627, 759, 10.1038/s41586-024-07116-6

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.