pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16230 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Relative frequencies of core-collapse supernovae as a function of metallicity: observations vs theoretical predictions

Claudia P. Guti\'errez , Llu\'is Galbany , Joseph P. Anderson , Dimitris Souropanis , Emmanouil Zapartas , Luc Dessart , Rubina Kotak
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapse supernovaestripped-envelope supernovaeType II supernovaemetallicitybinary interactionsstellar rotationsupernova progenitorshost galaxies
0
0 comments X

The pith

SESNe-to-SNe II ratios increase slightly with metallicity, consistent with binary or rotating-star models.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compiles relative frequencies of core-collapse supernova types from literature samples and recent distance-limited observations to test how these ratios depend on host-galaxy metallicity. It reports that stripped-envelope supernovae become modestly more common than hydrogen-rich Type II events in higher-metallicity environments. This observed trend is compared to population synthesis calculations, which show that models incorporating binary interactions or stellar rotation can both reproduce the data. The work concludes that global host properties yield consistent results with less-biased volume-limited subsamples, providing constraints on massive-star evolution without identifying a single dominant mechanism.

Core claim

Using both broad literature compilations of core-collapse supernovae with associated host-galaxy parameters and distance-limited subsamples within 50 and 100 Mpc, the observations confirm a slight increase in the SESNe-to-SNe II ratio with metallicity. Models that include either binary interactions or rotation broadly match the measured trends, yet the data leave degeneracies that prevent any single evolutionary scenario from being uniquely favored.

What carries the argument

The SESNe-to-SNe II frequency ratio measured against host-galaxy metallicity proxies (absolute magnitude, stellar mass, oxygen abundance), tested for consistency between literature and distance-limited samples and compared to binary and rotating stellar-evolution predictions.

If this is right

  • Higher-metallicity environments host a larger fraction of stripped-envelope events relative to Type II supernovae.
  • Both binary-interaction and rotation-inclusive models can reproduce the metallicity dependence of the observed ratios.
  • Trends derived from global host parameters remain consistent when restricted to distance-limited subsamples.
  • Metallicity and binarity together shape the diversity of core-collapse supernova progenitors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Direct local metallicity measurements at explosion sites could reduce the remaining model degeneracies.
  • Binary channels likely contribute to envelope stripping across a wide range of metallicities rather than only at low Z.
  • The frequency trends supply empirical inputs for predicting supernova rates in galaxies at different redshifts or stellar masses.

Load-bearing premise

Global host-galaxy magnitudes, masses and abundances reliably trace the local metallicity at the supernova explosion site, and distance-limited subsamples remove most selection biases of targeted surveys.

What would settle it

A statistically significant sample of core-collapse supernovae with direct spectroscopic metallicity measurements at the explosion sites showing no trend in the SESNe-to-SNe II ratio with metallicity would falsify the claimed observational dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16230 by Claudia P. Guti\'errez, Dimitris Souropanis, Emmanouil Zapartas, Joseph P. Anderson, Llu\'is Galbany, Luc Dessart, Rubina Kotak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of the host galaxy absolute magnitudes (left) and stellar masses (right) for the literature sample. The vertical lines indicate the median for the samples shown in the legend. II (57.08%) 2232 IIn (9.82%) 384 SLSNe-II (2.15%) 84 IIb (4.88%) 191 Ib (6.11%) 239 Ic (6.88%) 269 Ic-BL (2.97%) 116 Ibc (1.61%) 63 SLSNe-I (3.76%) 147 Ibn/Icn/Ien (1.66%) 65 Ib-Ca-rich (0.15%) 6 SNe (1.84%) 72 I (1.05%)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Numbers and relative fractions of SNe (excluding SNe Ia) clas￾sified between 2019 to 2024 and reported to TNS. geted, wide-field surveys such as All-Sky Automated Survey for SuperNovae (ASAS-SN; Shappee et al. 2014); the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS; Tonry et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2020); and ZTF, which offer precise astrometry and enable robust SN–host associations. Consequently, t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Metallicity inferred from Mhost g (Mhost B ; top) and M∗ (bottom) using the relations of Tremonti et al. (2004) versus metallicities derived from PP04 N2 (left) and O3N2 diagnostics (right). The latter have been converted to the Tremonti et al. (2004) calibration using the conversion relations of Kewley & Ellison (2008). The number of events in each panel, along with the median values of the x- and y-axis … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of the host galaxy absolute magnitudes for the sam￾ple obtained between 2019 and 2024. Top: Full sample. Middle: SNe within 100 Mpc. Bottom: SNe within 50 Mpc. The vertical lines indi￾cate the median for the samples shown in the legend. The grey shaded area highlights the low-luminosity region (Mhost g (or Mhost B )≳ −18.5 mag). ally considered complete to a magnitude of ∼ 19.0 (Tonry et al. 2… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Metallicity inferred from Mhost g (Mhost B ) and M∗ using the relations of Tremonti et al. (2004). The orange dashed line denotes the one-to-one (x = y) relation. shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of relative SN type ratios from the literature sample as a function of metallicity, inferred from both global (Mhost g as magenta stars, M∗, as cyan circles) and local (N2 as green crosses and O3N2, as gold x) galaxy properties. The ratio configuration for each case is indicated in the top right of the corresponding panel. Vertical black dashed lines mark the metallicities of the Small Magellani… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Metallicity inferred from Mhost g (Mhost B ) and M∗ using the relations of Tremonti et al. (2004, circles) and Berg et al. (2012, stars). Left: metallicities estimated with both relations across the full parameter range. Right: metallicities derived within specific ranges of stellar mass and absolute magnitude. The orange dashed line denotes the one-to-one (x = y) relation. 4.2. Comparison to previous stud… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ratio between different SN types as a function of metallicity inferred from Mhost g compared with both observations (markers) and models (lines). The ratio configuration for each case is indicated in the top right of the corresponding panel. Vertical black dashed lines mark the metallic￾ities of the SMC, LMC, and the Sun for reference. The grey area highlights the low-metallicity regime (12 + log(O/H)< 8.… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding supernova (SN) progenitors remains a major challenge in astrophysics, as it involves untangling the complex interplay between stellar physics (e.g., evolution, binarity, explosion) and environments (e.g., metallicity, star formation rate). To address this, we present relative frequencies of core-collapse SNe (CCSNe) as a function of metallicity using two complementary samples: (i) all literature SNe that have associated host galaxy parameters (absolute magnitudes, stellar masses, and/or oxygen abundances); and (ii) SNe classified between 2019 and 2024 with host magnitude information, including distance-limited subsamples within 50 Mpc and 100 Mpc. We found that CCSNe from the literature sample are associated with luminous galaxies, reflecting both the higher stellar content of such systems and selection biases inherent to targeted surveys. In contrast, the distance-limited subsamples provide a less biased view, showing that hydrogen-rich SNe (SNe II) are more commonly found in lower-luminosity galaxies than stripped-envelope SNe (SESNe). Comparisons between the literature sample and distance-limited subsamples indicate that trends derived from global measurements remain consistent. For the SESNe-to-SNe II ratios, we confirm a slight increase with metallicity, reflecting a higher fraction of SESNe in metal-rich environments. Comparison with theoretical predictions shows that models including either binary interactions or rotation can broadly reproduce the observed trends, although degeneracies remain, and no single scenario uniquely explains the data. Overall, our results provide observational constraints on massive-star evolution and highlight the key role of metallicity and binarity in shaping the observed diversity of CCSNe.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the relative frequencies of different types of core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) as a function of metallicity, using both a comprehensive literature sample with associated host galaxy parameters and a new sample of SNe discovered between 2019 and 2024. It reports that stripped-envelope SNe (SESNe) are more common in higher-luminosity, metal-rich galaxies compared to SNe II, with a slight increase in the SESNe-to-SNe II ratio with increasing metallicity proxies (absolute magnitudes, stellar masses, oxygen abundances). Distance-limited subsamples (50 and 100 Mpc) are analyzed to reduce selection biases, and the observed trends are compared to theoretical predictions from models including binary interactions and rotation, which are found to broadly reproduce the data despite remaining degeneracies.

Significance. If the central trends are confirmed to be robust against systematic uncertainties in the metallicity proxies, this work provides key observational benchmarks for massive star evolution models, particularly regarding the roles of metallicity and binarity in determining supernova subtypes. The adoption of distance-limited samples is a positive step toward minimizing survey biases, offering a more representative view of the CCSN population.

major comments (1)
  1. The headline result of a slight increase in the SESNe-to-SNe II ratio with metallicity is derived by binning events using global host-galaxy parameters. However, galaxies exhibit radial metallicity gradients typically ranging from 0.05 to 0.2 dex per scale length, which can lead to misassignment of the local metallicity at the explosion site by several tenths of a dex. The distance-limited subsamples address volume and targeting biases but do not account for this spatial mismatch. A quantitative propagation of the uncertainty due to gradient scatter is needed to assess whether the observed slope remains significant or could be consistent with a flat relation.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript should include or reference supplementary data tables listing the individual supernovae, their classifications, host parameters, and derived metallicities to facilitate reproducibility and independent verification of the binned ratios.
  2. Error bars or confidence intervals on the reported frequency ratios and trends should be explicitly presented in the relevant figures and tables to allow assessment of the statistical significance of the slight increase.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary and for identifying a key limitation in our use of global metallicity proxies. We address the major comment in detail below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The headline result of a slight increase in the SESNe-to-SNe II ratio with metallicity is derived by binning events using global host-galaxy parameters. However, galaxies exhibit radial metallicity gradients typically ranging from 0.05 to 0.2 dex per scale length, which can lead to misassignment of the local metallicity at the explosion site by several tenths of a dex. The distance-limited subsamples address volume and targeting biases but do not account for this spatial mismatch. A quantitative propagation of the uncertainty due to gradient scatter is needed to assess whether the observed slope remains significant or could be consistent with a flat relation.

    Authors: We agree that radial metallicity gradients introduce an important source of uncertainty when global host-galaxy parameters are used as proxies, and that the distance-limited subsamples do not fully mitigate this spatial mismatch. This is a standard limitation in large-sample SN environment studies, but it merits explicit quantification. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that (i) adopts literature-typical gradient values (0.05–0.2 dex per scale length) and mean SN offsets from the literature, (ii) performs a Monte Carlo resampling of the metallicity proxies with added scatter, and (iii) re-derives the SESNe-to-SNe II ratio trend and its significance. We will report the resulting range of slopes and p-values to demonstrate whether the observed mild positive trend remains statistically distinguishable from zero. This addition will strengthen the robustness discussion without altering the core observational results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; observational ratios and trends derived directly from sample counts and compared to independent external models

full rationale

The paper's core derivation consists of counting CCSNe subtypes in bins defined by observed host-galaxy parameters (absolute magnitudes, stellar masses, oxygen abundances) treated as metallicity proxies, then computing SESNe-to-SNe II ratios and comparing the resulting trends to theoretical predictions from separate works. No equations or definitions reduce the reported ratios to fitted parameters defined by the same data; the counts are direct tallies from the literature and new samples. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz is invoked to force the result. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks, with the only potential issues being systematic biases in proxy accuracy (addressed under correctness, not circularity).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Analysis rests on standard astrophysical assumptions about supernova classification and the use of global galaxy properties as metallicity proxies; no new entities or fitted parameters are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Global host-galaxy metallicity measurements accurately represent conditions at the supernova progenitor site
    Invoked when associating all SNe with host parameters such as oxygen abundances and luminosities

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5638 in / 1197 out tokens · 49372 ms · 2026-05-10T07:11:10.181415+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    1974

  2. [2]

    P., Gutiérrez, C

    Anderson, J. P., Gutiérrez, C. P., Dessart, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A110

    2016

  3. [3]

    P., James, P

    Anderson, J. P., James, P. A., Habergham, S. M., Galbany, L., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2015, PASA, 32, e019

    2015

  4. [4]

    Anderson, J. P. et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 67

    2014

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 777

    2010

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  7. [7]

    A., Skillman, E

    Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., Marble, A. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 98

    2012

  8. [8]

    B., Modjaz, M., Hicken, M., et al

    Bianco, F. B., Modjaz, M., Hicken, M., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 19

    2014

  9. [9]

    & Prantzos, N

    Boissier, S. & Prantzos, N. 2009, A&A, 503, 137

    2009

  10. [10]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 33

    Bonnarel, F., Fernique, P., Bienaymé, O., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 33

    2000

  11. [11]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  12. [12]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1612.05560]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    J., Yates, R

    Chen, T.-W., Smartt, S. J., Yates, R. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3566

    2017

  14. [14]

    P., Ercolino, A., Jin, H., & Langer, N

    Dessart, L., Gutiérrez, C. P., Ercolino, A., Jin, H., & Langer, N. 2024, A&A, 685, A169

    2024

  15. [15]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1739

    2011

  16. [16]

    R., & Langer, N

    Dessart, L., Yoon, S.-C., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., & Langer, N. 2020, A&A, 642, A106

    2020

  17. [17]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109

    2008

  18. [18]

    2024, A&A, 685, A58

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58

    2024

  19. [19]

    Filippenko, A. V . 1988, AJ, 96, 1941 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. CCSNe_ratios

    1988

  20. [20]

    Filippenko, A. V . 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309

    1997

  21. [21]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1612.05243]

    work page arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    2017, Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae, ed

    Gal-Yam, A. 2017, Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 195

    2017

  23. [23]

    P., Sánchez, S

    Galbany, L., Anderson, J. P., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 107

    2018

  24. [24]

    M., et al

    Galbany, L., Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 33

    2016

  25. [25]

    2009, A&A, 502, 611

    Georgy, C., Meynet, G., Walder, R., Folini, D., & Maeder, A. 2009, A&A, 502, 611

    2009

  26. [26]

    S., Eldridge, J

    Gilkis, A., Vink, J. S., Eldridge, J. J., & Tout, C. A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4451 González-Bañuelos, M., Gutiérrez, C. P., Galbany, L., & González-Gaitán, S. 2025, A&A, 702, A128

    2019

  27. [27]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001

    2019

  28. [28]

    B., Huang, S., et al

    Graur, O., Bianco, F. B., Huang, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 120

    2017

  29. [29]

    P., Sullivan, M., et al

    Grayling, M., Gutiérrez, C. P., Sullivan, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 684 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Sullivan, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3232

    2023

  30. [30]

    A., Taubenberger, S., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2057

    2012

  31. [31]

    L., Woosley, S

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

    2003

  32. [32]

    2007, A&A, 461, 571

    Hirschi, R. 2007, A&A, 461, 571

    2007

  33. [33]

    Kelly, P. L. & Kirshner, R. P. 2012, ApJ, 759, 107

    2012

  34. [34]

    Kewley, L. J. & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183

    2008

  35. [35]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1933, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att, 4, 89 Krühler, T., Malesani, D., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A125

    1933

  36. [36]

    P., Galbany, L., et al

    Kuncarayakti, H., Anderson, J. P., Galbany, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A35

    2018

  37. [37]

    2013, AJ, 146, 31

    Kuncarayakti, H., Doi, M., Aldering, G., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 31

    2013

  38. [38]

    2011, A&A, 530, A95

    Leloudas, G., Gallazzi, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A95

    2011

  39. [39]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 26

    Long, G., Song, H., Meynet, G., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 26

    2022

  40. [40]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 138

    Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 138

    2014

  41. [41]

    2025, A&A, 698, A305

    Ma, X., Wang, X., Mo, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A305

    2025

  42. [42]

    1992, A&A, 264, 105

    Maeder, A. 1992, A&A, 264, 105

    1992

  43. [43]

    2014, A&A, 570, A13

    Makarov, D., Prugniel, P., Terekhova, N., Courtois, H., & Vauglin, I. 2014, A&A, 570, A13

    2014

  44. [44]

    2006, A&A, 447, 623

    Meynet, G., Ekström, S., & Maeder, A. 2006, A&A, 447, 623

    2006

  45. [45]

    & Maeder, A

    Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101

    2000

  46. [46]

    & Maeder, A

    Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2005, A&A, 429, 581

    2005

  47. [47]

    1941, PASP, 53, 224

    Minkowski, R. 1941, PASP, 53, 224

    1941

  48. [48]

    B., Siwek, M., et al

    Modjaz, M., Bianco, F. B., Siwek, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 153

    2020

  49. [49]

    P., & Arcavi, I

    Modjaz, M., Gutiérrez, C. P., & Arcavi, I. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 717

    2019

  50. [50]

    S., et al

    Modjaz, M., Kewley, L., Bloom, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, L4+

    2011

  51. [51]

    P., et al

    Modjaz, M., Kewley, L., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1136

    2008

  52. [52]

    I., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T

    Nomoto, K. I., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 1995, Phys. Rep., 256, 173

    1995

  53. [53]

    & Lamers, H

    Nugis, T. & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 227

    2000

  54. [54]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, 1752

    Pastorello, A., Sauer, D., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1752

    2006

  55. [55]

    1900, Philosophical Magazine, 50, 157

    Pearson, K. 1900, Philosophical Magazine, 50, 157

    1900

  56. [56]

    A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35

    2020

  57. [57]

    A., Levan, A

    Perley, D. A., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 128

    2013

  58. [58]

    A., Quimby, R

    Perley, D. A., Quimby, R. M., Yan, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 13

    2016

  59. [59]

    & Pagel, B

    Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59

    2004

  60. [60]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

    1992

  61. [61]

    & Boissier, S

    Prantzos, N. & Boissier, S. 2003, A&A, 406, 259

    2003

  62. [62]

    Prieto, J. L. et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 999

    2008

  63. [63]

    L., Ashby, M

    Rosenberg, J. L., Ashby, M. L. N., Salzer, J. J., & Huang, J.-S. 2006, ApJ, 636, 742

    2006

  64. [64]

    E., Soderberg, A

    Sanders, N. E., Soderberg, A. M., Levesque, E. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 132

    2012

  65. [65]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  66. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 1258

    Schulze, S., Krühler, T., Leloudas, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1258

    2018

  67. [67]

    2021, ApJS, 255, 29

    Schulze, S., Yaron, O., Sollerman, J., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 29

    2021

  68. [68]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48

    2014

  69. [69]

    2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    2017

  70. [70]

    Smirnov, N. V . 1939, Bull. Math. Univ. Moscou, 2, 3

    1939

  71. [71]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002

    2020

  72. [72]

    2025, MN- RAS[arXiv:2508.21042]

    Souropanis, D., Zapartas, E., Pessi, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21042

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    L., et al

    Spiro, S., Pastorello, A., Pumo, M. L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2873

    2014

  74. [74]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 130

    Sravan, N., Marchant, P., & Kalogera, V . 2019, ApJ, 885, 130

    2019

  75. [75]

    R., Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., Eldridge, J. J., & Chrimes, A. A. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2201

    2020

  76. [76]

    L., Stanek, K

    Stoll, R., Prieto, J. L., Stanek, K. Z., & Pogge, R. W. 2013, ApJ, 773, 12

    2013

  77. [77]

    M., Levan, A

    Svensson, K. M., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Fruchter, A. S., & Strolger, L. G. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 57

    2010

  78. [78]

    2019, A&A, 621, A71

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A71

    2019

  79. [79]

    2015, A&A, 574, A60

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Leloudas, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A60

    2015

  80. [80]

    Taddia, F. et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A10

    2013

Showing first 80 references.