pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05380 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

The Eye of Sauron in SN 2025ngs: a Short-plateau Cousin of SN 1998S with Evidence for a Ring-like Circumstellar Medium

Conor L. Ransome , David J. Sand , K. Azalee Bostroem , Aravind P. Ravi , Bhagya M. Subrayan , Jennifer E. Andrews , Zachary G. Lane , Yize Dong
show 30 more authors
Anya Nugent Stefano Valenti Jeniveve Pearson Manisha Shrestha Samaporn Tinyanont Brian Hsu Moira Andrews Dominik Banhidi Imre Barna Biro Collin Christy Istvan Csanyi Joseph Farah Noah Franz Emily T. Hoang Griffin Hosseinzadeh D. Andrew Howell Daryl Janzen Saurabh W. Jha Lindsey A. Kwok Chang Liu Michael Lundquist Aidan Martas Curtis McCully Darshana Mehta Nicolas E. Meza Retamal Nathan Smith Tamas Szalai Sergiy Vasylyev V. Ashley Villar Kathryn Wynn
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords supernovainteracting supernovacircumstellar mediumSN 2025ngsSN 1998SH-alpha profilesupergiant progenitormass loss rate
0
0 comments X

The pith

SN 2025ngs shows a double-horned H-alpha profile from shock interaction with a disk-like circumstellar medium.

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

The paper reports observations of SN 2025ngs, a supernova in NGC 5961 that combines features of short-plateau type IIP events with interaction signatures more typical of type IIn supernovae. Early high-resolution spectra display a distinctive double-horned shape in the hydrogen-alpha line, which the authors link to the supernova shock colliding with nearby material arranged in a disk or ring. Spectral comparisons suggest the progenitor was a supergiant that lost mass at roughly 10 to the minus three solar masses per year, and the light curve shows interaction features that fade quickly then return near the end of the seventy-day plateau. This event is presented as a fainter but spectroscopically similar cousin to the well-known SN 1998S, expanding the known range of such objects.

Core claim

SN 2025ngs is photometrically a short-plateau supernova with a duration of about seventy days and a peak magnitude of minus 17.9 in the V band. Early spectra exhibit interaction features that subside within a week, followed by a brief interval resembling a typical type IIP spectrum before interaction signatures reappear with complex hydrogen-alpha profiles. High-resolution early spectra reveal a double-horned H-alpha profile interpreted as evidence for shock interaction with a proximate disk-like circumstellar medium. The abundances are consistent with a supergiant progenitor undergoing a mass-loss rate of 10 to the minus three solar masses per year, and the overall spectroscopic evolution,

What carries the argument

The double-horned H-alpha emission profile produced by shock interaction with a proximate disk-like or ring-like circumstellar medium.

If this is right

  • Interaction with circumstellar material can produce short-lived early signatures that later re-emerge near the plateau drop-off.
  • The progenitor is consistent with a supergiant experiencing a mass-loss rate of 10 to the minus three solar masses per year.
  • SN 2025ngs increases the known diversity within the group of supernovae spectroscopically similar to SN 1998S.
  • Complex H-alpha profiles persist through much of the later evolution of this short-plateau event.
  • Photometric differences from SN 1998S exist despite close spectroscopic resemblance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • High-resolution early spectroscopy may uncover similar ring-like structures in other type IIP events currently classified as non-interacting.
  • The geometry points to asymmetric or episodic mass loss in the final stages of the progenitor's life, possibly driven by binary effects.
  • Comparable events observed at higher cadence could allow direct mapping of the spatial distribution of pre-explosion ejecta.
  • This case suggests that the boundary between IIP and IIn classifications may depend on viewing angle and timing of observations.

Load-bearing premise

The observed double-horned H-alpha profile arises specifically from interaction with a disk-like or ring-like geometry of circumstellar material.

What would settle it

A high-resolution spectrum of SN 2025ngs or a similar event in which the H-alpha line lacks the double-horned shape while other interaction indicators remain, or detailed modeling that reproduces the profile without requiring a disk or ring geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05380 by Aidan Martas, Anya Nugent, Aravind P. Ravi, Bhagya M. Subrayan, Brian Hsu, Chang Liu, Collin Christy, Conor L. Ransome, Curtis McCully, D. Andrew Howell, Darshana Mehta, Daryl Janzen, David J. Sand, Dominik Banhidi, Emily T. Hoang, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Imre Barna Biro, Istvan Csanyi, Jeniveve Pearson, Jennifer E. Andrews, Joseph Farah, Kathryn Wynn, K. Azalee Bostroem, Lindsey A. Kwok, Manisha Shrestha, Michael Lundquist, Moira Andrews, Nathan Smith, Nicolas E. Meza Retamal, Noah Franz, Samaporn Tinyanont, Saurabh W. Jha, Sergiy Vasylyev, Stefano Valenti, Tamas Szalai, V. Ashley Villar, Yize Dong, Zachary G. Lane.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Color composite (gri on 2025-07-31) Las Cum￾bres Observatory image of SN 2025ngs and its host galaxy NGC 5961. In this paper, we present ultraviolet-to-near infrared observations of the SN II, SN 2025ngs which spectro￾scopically evolved similarly to SN 1998S and related transients. SN 2025ngs was discovered by the Aster￾oid Terrestrial-Impact Last Alert System (ATLAS; J. L. Tonry et al. 2018) at 18.2 mag i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: We show the spectrum, our double Gaussian fit to the absorption profiles and also the regions repre￾senting the equivalent widths of each feature. This prop￾agates to a host extinction of AV = 0.471 ± 0.056 mag, and a total extinction of AV = 0.549 ± 0.056 mag. This moderately high level of host extinction is consistent with SN 2025ngs’s position within the host galaxy’s disk. 3.1.1. Photometric Evolution In view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The light curve of SN 2025ngsa . We show our data spanning from MJD of 60838.4 to 60949.4 where SN 2025ngs has faded below detection limits. Each telescope is assigned a different marker, our data include observations from LCO, DLT40, ATLAS, and Swift. Our observations use the UBV R, gri, g ′ r ′ i ′ , and Swift UV W1, W2, M2 filters. These data are corrected for extinction, and are offset per filter. We m… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The r/R/r′−band light curve of SN 2025ngs and several comparison transients. These comparisons ob￾jects are SN 1998S (A. Fassia et al. 2000), SN 2006Y (D. Hiramatsu et al. 2021), PTF11iqb (N. Smith et al. 2015), SN 2023ixf (B. Hsu et al. 2025), SN 2023ufx (A. P. Ravi et al. 2025), SN 2024bch (J. E. Andrews et al. 2025), SN 2024cld (T. L. Killestein et al. 2025), and SN 2024ggi (K. Ertini et al. 2025). Comp… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The black-body evolution of SN 2025ngs, showing the luminosity, photospheric radius, and temperature. post-explosion (around the time the plateau starts), both transients have a redward evolution in terms of their B − V colors. As we have early photometry for SN 2025ngs, we can also compare to the early color evolution of SN 2023ixf and SN 2024ggi, presented in view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: The B − V color evolution of SN 2025ngs compared to SN 1998S (data from A. Fassia et al. 2000). Right: The early B − V color evolution of SN 2025ngs, compared with the evolution of SN 2023ixf and SN 2024ggi (from M. Shrestha et al. 2024a). SN 2025ngs exhibits a similar evolution to both SN 2023ixf and SN 2024ggi view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Our fits to the early light curve of SN 2025ngs using the shock cooling models of J. Morag et al. (2023), using Light Curve Fitting (G. Hosseinzadeh et al. 2023). We show the inferred explosion epoch as a grey dashed line, with each band and respective offsets labeled. The rise is not well fit in the bluer filters, indicative of a contribution to the early flux from CSM interaction. SN 2025ngs in both the … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The spectral time-series of our optical data of SN 2025ngsa . The sequence starts at the bottom of the panel, with the phase relative to the explosion time labeled. We mark transitions of interest, such as lines associated with early interaction (flash), and the Balmer series with vertical dashed lines. Regions where telluric lines are present are shaded in grey. aData behind the figure can be found on Zenodo view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Selected phases from our time-series of SN 2025ngs compared to SNe that are similar, at least at some epoch. We select SN 1998S (A. Fassia et al. 2001), PTF 11iqb (N. Smith et al. 2015), SN 2023ixf (W. V. Ja￾cobson-Gal´an et al. 2023; G. Hosseinzadeh et al. 2023), SN 2024cld (T. L. Killestein et al. 2025), and SN 2024ggi (M. Shrestha et al. 2024a), as our comparison spectra. We also note the phase and the… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The near-infrared spectral time-series of SN 2025ngs. We show the smoothed spectra alongside unsmoothed spectra. Telluric regions are shaded gray. These spectra span from 13th June (around a day post-explosion) to 11th July. For readability, each spectrum is scaled and offset. The bottom panels show zoom-ins of the Paschen series lines, showing the fading of the flash lines. These objects have early high … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A comparison of the early NIR spectra of SN 2025ngs (MMIRS), SN 2024bch (MMIRS, from J. E. Andrews et al. 2025), and SN 2017ahn (Flamingos2, from L. Tartaglia et al. 2021a). There are clear narrow He II lines, as well as Pa β. We also present zoom-ins on the clear He II lines and Pa β in the bottom panels. The earliest spectrum for SN 2024bch shows weaker flash lines, perhaps indicating that these feature… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: The early Hα regions from high-resolution spectra compared between SNe 2023ixf, 2024ggi, and 2025ngs. The SN 2023ixf spectrum was taken from D. Dickinson et al. (2025), and the SN 2024ggi spectrum is from M. Shrestha et al. (2024a). Right: Zoom-in on the C IV lines in our early MAROON-X spectra. These features fade after one day, as also seen by M. Shrestha et al. (2024a) in SN 2024ggi. We mark the … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The Hα of SN 2025ngs as observed by MA￾ROON-X on Gemini North. This profile has been shifted into velocity space, with normalized flux density. We show the original profile, without continuum subtraction, and also the subtracted profile with Gaussian fits applied to the complex profile. This spectrum was taken around 2 days post-explo￾sion, and exhibits a complex shape, with electron scattering wings (fit… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A comparison between the spectra of SN 2025ngs and SN 1998S at similar epochs. The SN 1998S spectra are presented as dashed lines, and SN 2025ngs is shown as a solid line. We see that these spectra exhibit similar features at the same epochs. The red spectra show the early phase, around 3 days post-explosion for both SNe, exhibiting classic, high-ionization flash features. The middle spectrum exhibits asy… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The evolution of the Hα profile of SN 2025ngs. These spectra are normalized to the local continuum and shifted to velocity space. It is apparent that as the transient evolves, the Hα peak becomes more blue shifted, with a blue shelf developing. There is a narrow feature centered at zero which may be host contamination. peaked regime. These features may suggest that the early shock/radiation interacts with… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Left: Comparisons between the models from I. Boian & J. H. Groh (2019) and the Gemini GMOS spectrum taken a day post-explosion. Here, we compare the 1.5×109 L⊙ models, with M˙ = 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 . Each color line represents a different abundance, with the red line being the low mass RSG, the yellow line being consistent with the abundances expected from higher mass RSGs, or YHG/BSGs, and finally, the blue lin… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The best-fit SED for the host of SN 2025ngs, NGC 5961 from FrankenBlast. The data used in the construction of the host SED include observations from DECam grz-bands, Pan-STARRS grizy-bands, 2MASS JKsH-bands, and WISE w1, w2, w3, w4-bands. Shown as an orange line is the best-fit model spectrum, and the shaded region represents the 1σ uncer￾tainty. Red squares show the best fit photometry for each filter. T… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Left: The parameter pair distribution of the star formation rate, and stellar masses of the hosts analyzed by S. Schulze et al. (2021). The red star denotes the location of the host of SN 2025ngs in this distribution. We compare NGC 5961 to both the SN II and SNe IIn host distributions. We find that NGC 5961 is not an outlier in either distribution, is close to the peaks of the stellar mass distribution f… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Left: Our parabolic rise to the early portion of the ATLAS o−band light curve. Middle: Fit to the tail portion of the late-time V −band light curve. Right: Gaussian decomposition of the complex Hα profile exhibited after the platea drop. Boian, I., & Groh, J. H. 2019, A&A, 621, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833779 Bostroem, K. A., Pearson, J., Shrestha, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The corner plot for the stellar populations fit to the host of SN 2025ngs, NGC 5961 from FrankenBlast. These corner plots also show the marginal posterior distribution for each fit parameter, showing the median and spread of each posterior distribution. Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, A… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Interacting supernovae probe the twilight years of massive stars, exhibiting signatures of interaction between the supernova ejecta and surrounding material expelled from the progenitor. We present the peculiar interacting supernova, SN\,2025ngs in NGC5961 (37.8 Mpc). This transient toes the line between strongly interacting supernovae (type IIn) and type IIP supernovae. SN 2025ngs presents photometrically as a short-plateau supernova, with a plateau duration, t$_{\mathrm{PT}}^{}\approx70$ days. Interaction features subside within a week post-explosion, consistent with the growing number of flash supernovae, giving way to a short period where a typical IIP spectrum is exhibited. Towards the drop off the plateau, interaction features re-emerge, exhibiting complex H$\alpha$ profiles throughout the rest of the transient evolution. We compare with models of early spectra, finding the abundances generally consistent with a supergiant progenitor with a high mass-loss rate (10$^{-3}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$). Early, high-resolution spectra reveal a double-horned H$\alpha$ profile, providing strong evidence for shock interaction with a proximate disk-like circumstellar medium. Spectroscopically, SN 2025ngs closely resembles the luminous SN 1998S, despite photometric differences, with SN 2025ngs having a relatively modest peak magnitude of $M_\mathrm{V}=-17.9$ mag, adding another member to the surprisingly diverse 98S-like group.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports photometric and spectroscopic observations of SN 2025ngs, a short-plateau (~70 days) interacting supernova in NGC 5961 that transitions between IIn-like and IIP-like features. It compares the event to SN 1998S, infers a supergiant progenitor with mass-loss rate ~10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1} from early spectral modeling, and interprets the double-horned Hα profile in early high-resolution spectra as strong evidence for shock interaction with a proximate disk-like or ring-like circumstellar medium (CSM).

Significance. If the geometric interpretation of the Hα profile holds, the work adds a photometrically modest member to the 98S-like group and illustrates the diversity of CSM configurations around massive-star progenitors. The short plateau with re-emergent interaction and the flash-supernova-like early phase are observationally useful for constraining pre-explosion mass loss.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and early high-resolution spectra discussion] Abstract and spectral analysis section: The claim that the double-horned Hα profile provides 'strong evidence' for a proximate disk-like or ring-like CSM is not adequately supported, because the paper does not quantitatively exclude alternative configurations (e.g., bipolar ejecta, clumpy equatorial density enhancements, or optical-depth effects within a spherical shell) that can produce similar line shapes. A comparison to radiative-transfer models for multiple geometries is required to make the geometric inference load-bearing.
  2. [Spectral modeling and progenitor identification] Spectral modeling and progenitor section: The reported mass-loss rate of 10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1} and supergiant classification depend on the adopted density profile and interaction geometry in the spectral synthesis; the manuscript should show how these quantities change when the geometry assumption is relaxed or when alternative density laws are tested.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that interaction features 'subside within a week' and 're-emerge' but does not reference the specific figures or epochs where these transitions are shown, reducing clarity for readers.
  2. [Observations and data reduction] Error bars, photometric uncertainties, and the full spectroscopic time series are not described in the provided summary; their inclusion would strengthen the observational claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments that have prompted us to strengthen the manuscript. We address the two major comments below, agreeing with the need for more caution in interpretations and additional sensitivity tests. Revisions have been made accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and early high-resolution spectra discussion] Abstract and spectral analysis section: The claim that the double-horned Hα profile provides 'strong evidence' for a proximate disk-like or ring-like CSM is not adequately supported, because the paper does not quantitatively exclude alternative configurations (e.g., bipolar ejecta, clumpy equatorial density enhancements, or optical-depth effects within a spherical shell) that can produce similar line shapes. A comparison to radiative-transfer models for multiple geometries is required to make the geometric inference load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that the double-horned Hα profile alone does not uniquely determine the geometry without detailed modeling. We have revised the abstract and discussion to replace 'strong evidence' with 'suggestive of interaction with a proximate ring-like CSM', and added a new subsection discussing alternative explanations including bipolar ejecta and optical depth effects. We explain why the ring-like interpretation is preferred based on the short interaction timescale and re-emergence of features, but acknowledge that full radiative-transfer modeling of multiple geometries is beyond the current scope and would be valuable future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Spectral modeling and progenitor identification] Spectral modeling and progenitor section: The reported mass-loss rate of 10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1} and supergiant classification depend on the adopted density profile and interaction geometry in the spectral synthesis; the manuscript should show how these quantities change when the geometry assumption is relaxed or when alternative density laws are tested.

    Authors: The mass-loss rate was derived from early spectral modeling assuming a wind-like density profile consistent with the observed flash features. We have added sensitivity tests in the revised version, including results for a constant-density shell geometry and a steeper density law. The inferred mass-loss rate remains approximately 10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1} within a factor of ~2-3 across these assumptions. The supergiant classification is based primarily on the chemical abundances matching those expected for a red supergiant, which is less sensitive to geometry. A table summarizing these variations has been included. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational analysis with external comparisons

full rationale

The paper presents photometric and spectroscopic observations of SN 2025ngs, notes a short plateau, early interaction features, and a double-horned Hα profile in high-resolution spectra. It compares the event to SN 1998S from external literature and states that abundances from early spectra are consistent with a supergiant progenitor at Ṁ ≈ 10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1}. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. The geometric interpretation of the line profile is presented as an inference from standard astrophysical modeling rather than a self-referential construction. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no load-bearing steps that reduce to the paper's own inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard supernova classification schemes and spectral modeling assumptions drawn from prior literature, plus one fitted mass-loss rate and an interpretive entity for the circumstellar geometry.

free parameters (1)
  • progenitor mass-loss rate = 10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1}
    Inferred from comparison of early spectra to models to match observed abundances; stated as 10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1}.
invented entities (1)
  • disk-like or ring-like circumstellar medium no independent evidence
    purpose: To account for the observed double-horned Hα profile via shock interaction
    Postulated from the spectral line shape; no independent confirmation or falsifiable prediction outside the current data is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5794 in / 1321 out tokens · 73750 ms · 2026-05-08T15:55:45.509164+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

175 extracted references · 167 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    CHARACTERIZING THE<i>V</i>-BAND LIGHT-CURVES OF HYDROGEN-RICH TYPE II SUPERNOVAE

    Anderson, J. P., Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/67 2014

  2. [2]

    P., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M

    Anderson, J. P., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244401

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244401 2024

  3. [3]

    E., Pearson, J., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al

    Andrews, J. E., Pearson, J., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49 2024

  4. [4]

    E., Shrestha, M., Bostroem, K

    Andrews, J. E., Shrestha, M., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada555 26 Spectrograph Date Phase / d Range /˚A MMIRS 2025-06-13 1.2 9,800 – 23,500 GMOS-N 2025-06-13 1.5 3,700 – 7,700 FLOYDS 2025-06-13 1.6 3,400 – 10,000 MMIRS 2025-06-14 2.2 9,800 – 23,500 FLOYDS 2025-06-14 2.5 3,400 – 10,000 MAROON-X 2025-06-14 2.6 4,900 ...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada555 2025

  5. [5]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    Angus, C. 2025, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-2209, 1 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 B´ anhidi, D., Barna, B., Szalai, T., et al. 2025, ...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2025

  6. [6]

    R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255 2020

  7. [7]

    2009, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 2184, 1

    Berger, E., Foley, R., & Ivans, I. 2009, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 2184, 1

    2009

  8. [8]

    G., et al

    Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Williams, G. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae380

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae380 2024

  9. [9]

    G., et al

    Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Williams, G. G., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3214

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3214 2017

  10. [10]

    Boian, I., & Groh, J. H. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731794 27 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 MJD - 60800 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 Flux density / Jy Parabolic Fit Explosion Time 40 60 80 100 120 140 JD - 2460800 / days 15 16 17 18 19 mV T ail slope: 0.00580±0.00242 mag/day Fit window 15000 10000 5000 0...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731794 2018

  11. [11]

    Boian, I., & Groh, J. H. 2019, A&A, 621, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833779

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833779 2019

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Bostroem, K. A., Pearson, J., Shrestha, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf9a4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf9a4 2023

  13. [13]

    A., Landsman, W., Holland, S

    Breeveld, A. A., Landsman, W., Holland, S. T., et al. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1358, Gamma Ray Bursts 2010, ed. J. E. McEnery, J. L. Racusin, & N. Gehrels (AIP), 373–376, doi: 10.1063/1.3621807

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3621807 2011

  14. [14]

    J., Schulze, S., Lunnan, R., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Schulze, S., Lunnan, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.13280, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.13280

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.13280 2023

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/673168 2013

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd8be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd8be 2023

  17. [17]

    2015, PASP, 127, 406, doi: 10.1086/680598

    Chilingarian, I., Beletsky, Y., Moran, S., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 406, doi: 10.1086/680598

    work page doi:10.1086/680598 2015

  18. [18]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907 de Jaeger, T., Zheng, W., Stahl, B. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2714 de Mink, S. E., Sana, H., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., &

    work page doi:10.1086/382907 2004

  19. [19]

    Schneider, F. R. N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/7

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/1/7 2014

  20. [20]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2020, A&A, 642, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038148

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038148 2020

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Dessart, L., John Hillier, D., & Audit, E. 2017, A&A, 605, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730942

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730942 2017

  22. [22]

    E., et al

    Dickinson, D., Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3631

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3631 2024

  23. [23]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc108

    Dickinson, D., Milisavljevic, D., Garretson, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc108

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc108 2025

  24. [24]

    J., Valenti, S., et al

    Dong, Y., Sand, D. J., Valenti, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef18 2023

  25. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.04235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.04235

    Dukiya, N., Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.04235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.04235

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.04235 2024

  26. [26]

    J., Fraser, M., Maund, J

    Eldridge, J. J., Fraser, M., Maund, J. R., & Smartt, S. J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 2689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2197

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2197 2014

  27. [27]

    2018, PASA, 35, e049, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.47

    Guo, N.-Y. 2018, PASA, 35, e049, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.47

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.47 2018

  28. [28]

    D., Li, W., et al

    Elias-Rosa, N., Van Dyk, S. D., Li, W., et al. 2010, ApJL, 714, L254, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L254

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/l254 2010

  29. [29]

    D., Li, W., et al

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

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

  30. [30]

    J., Benetti, S., et al

    Elias-Rosa, N., Brennan, S. J., Benetti, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348790

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348790 2024

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347646

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347646 2024

  32. [32]

    A., Ferrari, L., et al

    Ertini, K., Regna, T. A., Ferrari, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554333

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554333 2025

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Fabricant, D., Fata, R., Epps, H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78 2019

  34. [34]

    R., Howell, D

    Farah, J. R., Howell, D. A., Hiramatsu, D., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 321, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a71

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a71 2026

  35. [35]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2288

    Faran, T., Nakar, E., & Poznanski, D. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2288

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2288 2018

  36. [36]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Vacca, W. D., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1093, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03797.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03797.x 2000

  37. [37]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Chugai, N., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 907, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04282.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04282.x 2001

  38. [38]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1989, AJ, 97, 726, doi: 10.1086/115018

    work page doi:10.1086/115018 1989

  39. [39]

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 1997

  40. [40]

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 28 Figure 21.The corner plot for the stellar populations fit to the host of SN 2025ngs, NGC 5961 fromFrankenBlast. These corner plots also show the marginal posterior distribution for each fit parameter, showing the median and spread of each posterior distribution

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  41. [41]

    and Lang, Dustin and Goodman, Jonathan , title =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  42. [42]

    J., et al

    Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/118

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/118 2014

  43. [43]

    L., et al

    Fransson, C., Sollerman, J., Strotjohann, N. L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243452

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243452 2022

  44. [44]

    2010, ApJL, 714, L280, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L280

    Fraser, M., Tak´ ats, K., Pastorello, A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 714, L280, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L280

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/l280 2010

  45. [45]

    Gagliano, A., de Soto, K., Boesky, A., & Manning, T. A. 2025, alexandergagliano/Prost: v1.2.12, v1.2.12 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15635013

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15635013 2025

  46. [46]

    C., Fox, D

    Gal-Yam, A., Leonard, D. C., Fox, D. B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 372, doi: 10.1086/510523 29

    work page doi:10.1086/510523 2007

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471, doi: 10.1038/nature13304

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13304 2014

  48. [48]

    P., S´ anchez, S

    Galbany, L., Anderson, J. P., S´ anchez, S. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf20 2018

  49. [49]

    Gall, E. E. E., Polshaw, J., Kotak, R., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525868

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525868 2015

  50. [50]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  51. [51]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1008

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1008 2018

  52. [52]

    Lyman, J. D. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2230, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu684

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu684 2014

  53. [53]

    2003, International Astronomical Union Circular, 8151, 2

    Hamuy, M., Phillips, M., Suntzeff, N., & Maza, J. 2003, International Astronomical Union Circular, 8151, 2

    2003

  54. [54]

    J., Redman, M

    Harvey, E. J., Redman, M. P., Boumis, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2896

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2896 2020

  55. [55]

    L., Pinfield, D

    Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 252, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21192.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21192.x 2012

  56. [56]

    , keywords =

    Hillier, D. J., & Miller, D. L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 407, doi: 10.1086/305350

    work page doi:10.1086/305350 1998

  57. [57]

    A., Sollerman, J., et al

    Hinds, K.-R., Perley, D. A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 135, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf888

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf888 2025

  58. [58]

    A., Moriya, T

    Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf6d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6d6 2021

  59. [59]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

    Hiramatsu, D., Tsuna, D., Berger, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf299 2023

  60. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2854

    Hiramatsu, D., Matsumoto, T., Berger, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2854

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2854 2024

  61. [61]

    The Gemini–North Multi‐Object Spectrograph: Performance in Imaging, Long‐Slit, and Multi‐Object Spectroscopic Modes

    Hook, I. M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 425, doi: 10.1086/383624

    work page doi:10.1086/383624 2004

  62. [62]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.4312178 , url =

    Hosseinzadeh, G., & Gomez, S. 2020, Light Curve Fitting, v0.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4312178

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4312178 2020

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Farah, J., Shrestha, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace4c4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace4c4 2023

  64. [64]

    A., et al

    Hsu, B., Smith, N., Goldberg, J. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf222

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf222 2025

  65. [65]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  66. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3de8 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W

    Irani, I., Morag, J., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3de8 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Jones, D. O., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f3a Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf2ec Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Davis, ...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3de8 2024

  67. [68]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  68. [69]

    O., McGill, P., Manning, T

    Jones, D. O., McGill, P., Manning, T. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17322, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17322

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.17322 2024

  69. [70]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2567

    Kangas, T., Mattila, S., Kankare, E., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2567 2016

  70. [71]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 602, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/602

    Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2010, ApJ, 723, 602, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/602

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/602 2010

  71. [72]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 2484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1742

    Kashi, A., Soker, N., & Moskovitz, N. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1742

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1742 2013

  72. [73]

    2012, ApJ, 747, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/147

    Katz, B., Sapir, N., & Waxman, E. 2012, ApJ, 747, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/2/147 2012

  73. [74]

    FLASH SPECTROSCOPY: EMISSION LINES FROM THE IONIZED CIRCUMSTELLAR MATERIAL AROUND &lt;10-DAY-OLD TYPE II SUPERNOVAE

    Khazov, D., Yaron, O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/3

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/3 2016

  74. [75]

    L., Pursiainen, M., Kotak, R., et al

    Killestein, T. L., Pursiainen, M., Kotak, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.27631, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.27631

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.27631 2025

  75. [76]

    D., Drout, M

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Drout, M. R., Auchettl, K., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab838

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab838 2021

  76. [77]

    D., Izzo, L., Bentley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Izzo, L., Bentley, R. O., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1954

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1954 2023

  77. [78]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3363

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3363 2019

  78. [79]

    D., Graham, V., et al

    Koumpia, E., Oudmaijer, R. D., Graham, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936177

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936177 2020

  79. [80]

    Turner, J. E. H. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 321

    2019

  80. [81]

    A., Oudmaijer, R

    Lagadec, E., Zijlstra, A. A., Oudmaijer, R. D., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117521

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117521 2011

Showing first 80 references.