pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29363 · v1 · pith:OI4YRGIXnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Sub-luminous Type IIP SN 2024abfl as a result of a significantly low energy Fe-core collapse

Rishabh Singh Teja , D. K. Sahu , G. C. Anupama , Avinash Singh , Amrit Dutta , Gitika Rameshan , Hrishav Das , Koji S Kawabata
show 2 more authors
Mridweeka Singh Varun Bhalerao
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords Type IIP supernovalow-luminosity supernovacore-collapse explosionhydrodynamical modelingprogenitor massexplosion energynickel massfaint plateau
0
0 comments X

The pith

SN 2024abfl exploded from a compact progenitor of at most 10 solar masses with energy of 0.05 foe or less and 0.003 solar masses of nickel.

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

The paper reports multiwavelength observations of SN 2024abfl, which exhibits one of the faintest and flattest plateaus among Type IIP supernovae along with narrow spectral lines indicating low ejecta velocities. One-dimensional hydrodynamical modeling of the light curve and spectra is used to infer a compact progenitor no more massive than 10 solar masses that released very little kinetic energy and synthesized almost no radioactive nickel. These parameters are presented as direct constraints on the physics of the weakest core-collapse events. The work compares the event to other low-luminosity Type IIP supernovae and discusses possible origins for such low-energy explosions.

Core claim

Detailed 1-D hydrodynamical modeling suggests a compact progenitor with an upper limit of 10 Msun. It exploded with very low-energy 0.05 foe or less with a very low nickel mass of 0.003 Msun, consistent with the observed parameters. These parameters provide important constraints on the nature of low-energy core-collapse explosions.

What carries the argument

1-D hydrodynamical modeling of the multi-band light curve, colors, and low-resolution spectra to derive progenitor mass and radius, explosion energy, and ejected nickel mass.

If this is right

  • Core-collapse explosions can release as little as 0.05 foe while still producing a Type IIP light curve.
  • Nickel-56 yields in the weakest explosions can be limited to 0.003 solar masses.
  • Compact progenitors at or below 10 solar masses are viable sources of faint Type IIP events.
  • Low-luminosity Type IIP supernovae help map the lower boundary of successful core-collapse explosions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A population of even fainter or undetected events may exist if similar low-energy collapses are common.
  • The event may mark the low-energy end of a continuous distribution rather than a distinct subclass of explosions.
  • Future high-resolution spectroscopy or late-time imaging could test whether the 1-D modeling assumptions hold for this parameter regime.

Load-bearing premise

The 1-D hydrodynamical models correctly recover the true explosion energy and nickel mass for a compact progenitor at this extremely low energy extreme.

What would settle it

Pre-explosion images or post-fade imaging that reveal a progenitor star more massive than 10 solar masses at the exact site of SN 2024abfl.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29363 by Amrit Dutta, Avinash Singh, D. K. Sahu, G. C. Anupama, Gitika Rameshan, Hrishav Das, Koji S Kawabata, Mridweeka Singh, Rishabh Singh Teja, Varun Bhalerao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Light curve evolution of SN 2024abfl for various filters from GIT and HCT is shown. The light curves also include data from ZTF, ATLAS and Swift/UVOT. The constants added to the individual light curves are for visual clarity. We also mark the spectra epochs with upward arrows at the corresponding phases. (All magnitudes are in the AB system) (E. C. Bellm et al. 2019)-g and -r bands via ALeRCE (F. F¨orster … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Plot of θi vi vs (ti − t0) for various filter sets and different dilution factors from M. Hamuy et al. (2001), L. Dessart & D. J. Hillier (2005) and C. Vogl et al. (2019). We estimated slopes (then distances) by applying linear fits to the data points. I relations respectively. Another calibration exists for SCM using the V-I color without color corrections (P. Nugent et al. 2006), rather than the individu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: V −band light curve evolution for SN 2024abfl compared with other low-luminosity SNe from the literature. Grey lines in the background show a larger Type II SNe sample. We also plot MV evolution of SN 2024abfl for the higher distance (15.6 Mpc). We present the light curve evolution sequence for all the UV and optical filters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Pseudo-bolometric/bolometric light curve evolution for different filter sets as obtained using Super￾bol. Bottom: Blackbody radius and temperature evolution obtained by fitting the photometry flux with a blackbody SED. To estimate the 56Ni mass, we used multi-broadband photometry and created a pseudo-bolometric light curve of SN 2024abfl. For this purpose, we used the SuperBol code. The code computes … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Nickel mass, MNi vs mid-plateau brightness, MV plot for a sample of Type II SNe obtained from Q. Fang et al. (2024). Some of the low-luminosity events are also marked separately. Additionally, SNe with longer plateau durations (tp ≥ 120 d) are encircled in red color. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The entire spectral evolution for SN 2024abfl corrected for redshift, extinction, and scaled with respect to photometric flux is shown here. On the right side, we show the evolution of Hα. (Constant offsets have been applied to the individual spectra for visual clarity. Well-identified lines have been marked. The number next to the phase represents the scaling coefficients applied to the spectra.) low-lumi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Velocity evolution obtained for several promi￾nent and isolated metallic features (including Balmer fea￾tures) observed in the spectra is shown here. The continuous curves show mean velocities for a large Type II sample (C. P. Guti´errez et al. 2017) with the corresponding 1 − σ scatter shaded around the mean. 2009; T. Faran et al. 2014b). The comprehensive list includes: SN 2003Z (S. Spiro et al. 2014), S… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of SN 2024abfl spectra with the spectra of other well-studied low-luminosity Type II SNe sequentially covering up to the mid-plateau phase. 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 Rest Wavelength [Å] N orm alis e d f [erg s 1 c m 2 Å 1 ] + C o n s t a n t 2005cs +62.0~d 2018is +71.1~d 2003Z +74.0~d 2006ov +93.0~d 2008bk +105.0~d 2018hwm +110.97~d 2006ov +115.0~d 2008bk +134.0~d 2005cs … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of SN 2024abfl spectra with the spectra of other well-studied low-luminosity Type II SNe sequentially from mid-plateau to the radioactive tail phase. mass RSGs (S. Spiro et al. 2014; M. L. Pumo et al. 2017; A. Kozyreva et al. 2021; B. L. Barker et al. 2022) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Expected ranges of Eexp and Mej obtained from the scaling relations derived in J. A. Goldberg et al. (2019). The shaded regions include the values obtained considering the errors in the observables. With high mass RSGs showing significant fallback, as also observed in SN 20005cs (B. Paxton et al. 2018) and SN 2021wvw (R. S. Teja et al. 2024b). Prior constraints on the progenitor mass of SN 2024abfl come f… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Model light curves for 9-15 M⊙ ZAMS masses obtained using MESA+STELLA framework are compared with the observed bolometric luminosity (UV+Optical) of SN 2024abfl. Various 9 and 10 M⊙ models also differ by explosion energy (0.01-0.1 foe) and 56Ni mass (0.003-0.008 M⊙). The inset shows the corresponding photospheric velocities obtained for various progenitor models. ECSN and low-energy Fe-CCSN model light cu… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Model light curves and photospheric velocities obtained for various KEPLER code progenitors in comparison to the observed values for SN 2024abfl. (We fixed 56N i = 0.003 M⊙ for all the models) M. Gerard et al. (2026), in their recent work, had obtained a similar value of plausible progenitor ((9 M⊙) using an existing set of comprehensive progenitor models obtained from the KEPLER code (T. Sukhbold et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Blackbody fits to the optical data points obtained from the SuperBol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present extensive, well-sampled multiwavelength photometric and low-resolution optical spectroscopic observations of the low-luminosity Type IIP supernova SN 2024abfl. SN 2024abfl is found to be at the faintest end of Type IIP supernovae with unprecedented flat (0.1 mag/ 100 day) plateau evolution and a mid-plateau absolute magnitude of Mv~-13.8 mag, placing it among one of the faintest Type IIP supernovae discovered to date. SN 2024abfl is adjacent to SN 2018zd in the same host NGC~2146. Using various SN distance measurement probes, we provide independent estimates of the debated distance to the host NGC 2146 (7-9 Mpc). Spectral evolution of SN 2024abfl is found to be similar to other SNe spectra of this subclass but with very narrow line profiles, indicating moderately low expansion velocities of the ejecta. Detailed 1-D hydrodynamical modeling suggests a compact progenitor with an upper limit of 10 Msun, fairly consistent with the directly detected progenitor estimates. It exploded with very low-energy 0.05 foe or less with a very low nickel mass of 0.003 Msun, consistent with the observed parameters. These parameters provide important constraints on the nature of low-energy core-collapse explosions. We discuss possible progenitor scenarios and compare SN 2024abfl with other low-luminosity Type IIP supernovae.

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 paper presents extensive multiwavelength photometry and low-resolution optical spectroscopy of the sub-luminous Type IIP supernova SN 2024abfl in NGC 2146. It reports an unusually flat plateau (0.1 mag/100 d) and mid-plateau M_V ≈ -13.8 mag, places the event among the faintest known IIP supernovae, and uses 1-D hydrodynamical modeling to infer a compact progenitor (upper mass limit 10 M_⊙), explosion energy ≤0.05 foe, and nickel mass 0.003 M_⊙. Independent distance estimates to the host (7-9 Mpc) are also provided, and the parameters are compared with other low-luminosity IIP events.

Significance. If the modeling framework is shown to be reliable at these extremes, the result would supply one of the lowest-energy core-collapse events with direct observational constraints, helping to delineate the lower boundary of successful explosions and the role of fallback or electron-capture mechanisms. The well-sampled light curve, narrow-line spectra, and host-distance analysis constitute a useful addition to the sparse sample of sub-luminous IIP supernovae. The work explicitly credits the multi-probe distance determination and the consistency with directly detected progenitor limits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Hydrodynamical modeling] Hydrodynamical modeling section: the abstract and modeling text state that the 1-D code recovers E ≤ 0.05 foe and M_Ni = 0.003 M_⊙ as the values that reproduce the plateau, velocities, and luminosity, yet no validation runs, recovery tests, or sensitivity analysis are shown for the compact-progenitor, low-energy corner of parameter space; without such tests the derived parameters remain fitted quantities rather than independent predictions.
  2. [Distance estimates] Distance and luminosity section: the absolute magnitude (and therefore the inferred nickel mass and energy) scales directly with the adopted distance to NGC 2146; although independent probes are presented, the text does not propagate the 7-9 Mpc range into formal uncertainties on the best-fit E and M_Ni or demonstrate that the modeling conclusions remain unchanged across that interval.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and modeling] The abstract and modeling text use “or less” for the explosion energy without specifying the lower bound explored or the χ² surface; a brief statement of the explored grid and goodness-of-fit metric would clarify uniqueness.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the light-curve and velocity comparisons should explicitly state the adopted distance and reddening values used to convert observed to absolute quantities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, indicating revisions that will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Hydrodynamical modeling] Hydrodynamical modeling section: the abstract and modeling text state that the 1-D code recovers E ≤ 0.05 foe and M_Ni = 0.003 M_⊙ as the values that reproduce the plateau, velocities, and luminosity, yet no validation runs, recovery tests, or sensitivity analysis are shown for the compact-progenitor, low-energy corner of parameter space; without such tests the derived parameters remain fitted quantities rather than independent predictions.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks explicit validation runs or sensitivity analysis in the low-energy, compact-progenitor regime. Although the 1-D hydrodynamical code is the same framework used in prior studies of sub-luminous Type IIP events, dedicated recovery tests for this extreme corner of parameter space are not presented. In the revised manuscript we will add a subsection with sensitivity analyses and recovery experiments on synthetic light curves to demonstrate that the code reliably recovers input parameters in this regime. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Distance estimates] Distance and luminosity section: the absolute magnitude (and therefore the inferred nickel mass and energy) scales directly with the adopted distance to NGC 2146; although independent probes are presented, the text does not propagate the 7-9 Mpc range into formal uncertainties on the best-fit E and M_Ni or demonstrate that the modeling conclusions remain unchanged across that interval.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the manuscript does not propagate the 7-9 Mpc distance range into formal uncertainties on E and M_Ni. We will revise the distance and modeling sections to include explicit error propagation from this distance interval. We will also present modeling results at the bounding distances (7 Mpc and 9 Mpc) to show that the conclusions on progenitor mass, explosion energy, and nickel mass remain unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; modeling reports fitted parameters

full rationale

The abstract states that 'Detailed 1-D hydrodynamical modeling suggests a compact progenitor with an upper limit of 10 Msun... It exploded with very low-energy 0.05 foe or less with a very low nickel mass of 0.003 Msun, consistent with the observed parameters.' This is standard inference by fitting model parameters to data rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation that bears the central load. No equations or sections are quoted that reduce the claimed values to the inputs by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained as an application of an external hydro code to observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that 1-D hydro codes calibrated on higher-energy events remain accurate at 0.05 foe, on the adopted distance to NGC 2146, and on standard assumptions about nickel mixing and opacity in the ejecta. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • explosion energy
    Fitted inside the hydro code to reproduce the observed plateau luminosity and duration; quoted upper limit 0.05 foe.
  • nickel mass
    Fitted to match the late-time luminosity; quoted value 0.003 solar masses.
  • progenitor mass upper limit
    Derived from the hydro models; stated as <=10 solar masses.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption One-dimensional hydrodynamical models accurately capture the light-curve and spectral evolution of low-energy core-collapse events.
    Invoked when the paper states that the models are consistent with the observed parameters.
  • domain assumption The distance to NGC 2146 lies between 7 and 9 Mpc.
    Used to convert apparent to absolute magnitudes that then set the energy and nickel mass.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5868 in / 1799 out tokens · 22171 ms · 2026-06-29T06:26:57.419747+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

97 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [2]

    P., Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Hamuy, M., et al

    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. [3]

    E., Krafton, K

    Andrews, J. E., Krafton, K. M., Clayton, G. C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw164

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw164 2016

  3. [4]

    B., et al

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2012, ApJL, 756, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/L30

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/l30 2012

  4. [5]

    D., & Fu, A

    Arnett, W. D., & Fu, A. 1989, ApJ, 340, 396, doi: 10.1086/167402 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L....

    work page doi:10.1086/167402 1989

  5. [6]

    V., Blinnikov, S

    Baklanov, P. V., Blinnikov, S. I., & Pavlyuk, N. N. 2005, Astronomy Letters, 31, 429, doi: 10.1134/1.1958107 Lowest of the low: SN 2024abfl19

    work page doi:10.1134/1.1958107 2005

  6. [7]

    1979, A&A, 72, 287

    Barbon, R., Ciatti, F., & Rosino, L. 1979, A&A, 72, 287

    1979

  7. [8]

    L., Harris, C

    Barker, B. L., Harris, C. E., Warren, M. L., O’Connor, E. P., & Couch, S. M. 2022, ApJ, 934, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f3 2022

  8. [9]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

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

  9. [10]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Benetti, S., Turatto, M., Balberg, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 361, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04122.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04122.x 2001

  10. [11]

    2004, Ap&SS, 290, 13, doi: 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000022161.03559.42

    Blinnikov, S., & Sorokina, E. 2004, Ap&SS, 290, 13, doi: 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000022161.03559.42

    work page doi:10.1023/b:astr.0000022161.03559.42 2004

  11. [12]

    I., R¨ opke, F

    Blinnikov, S. I., R¨ opke, F. K., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054594

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054594 2006

  12. [13]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/98

    Bose, S., & Kumar, B. 2014, ApJ, 782, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/98

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/98 2014

  13. [14]

    A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c 2023

  14. [15]

    Core-collapse supernova explosion theory

    Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w 2021

  15. [16]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.12943, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.12943

    Callis, E., Fraser, M., Pastorello, A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.12943, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.12943

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.12943 2021

  16. [17]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  17. [18]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.04309, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.04309

    Chen, X., Sun, N.-C., Xi, Q., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.04309, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.04309

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04309 2026

  18. [19]

    The nature of SN 1997D: low-mass progenitor and weak explosion

    Chugai, N. N., & Utrobin, V. P. 2000, A&A, 354, 557, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9906190 Cs¨ ornyei, G., & Guti´ errez, C. P. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.15788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.15788

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9906190 2000

  19. [20]

    K., Singh, A., Kawabata, K., & Teja, R

    Das, H., Sahu, D. K., Singh, A., Kawabata, K., & Teja, R. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4515, 1

    2024

  20. [21]

    K., Kasliwal, M

    Das, K. K., Kasliwal, M. M., Sollerman, J., et al. 2026, PASP, 138, 024204, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae33f5

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ae33f5 2026

  21. [22]

    2025, A&A, 694, A260, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452507

    Dastidar, R., Misra, K., Valenti, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A260, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452507

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452507 2025

  22. [23]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 439, 671, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053217

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053217 2005

  23. [24]

    2025, A&A, 698, A293, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555161

    Dessart, L., John Hillier, D., & Sarangi, A. 2025, A&A, 698, A293, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555161

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555161 2025

  24. [25]

    Duffell, P. C. 2016, ApJ, 821, 76, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/76

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/76 2016

  25. [26]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01776, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.01776

    Fang, Q., Maeda, K., Ye, H., Moriya, T., & Matsumoto, T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.01776, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.01776

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.01776 2024

  26. [27]

    V., et al

    Faran, T., Poznanski, D., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2014a, MNRAS, 445, 554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1760

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1760

  27. [28]

    V., et al

    Faran, T., Poznanski, D., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2014b, MNRAS, 442, 844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu955

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu955

  28. [29]

    E., Petermann, I., et al

    Farmer, R., Fields, C. E., Petermann, I., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/22

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/22 2016

  29. [30]

    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

  30. [31]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 F¨ orster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  31. [32]

    D., Giannios, D., & Mimica, P

    Fraser, M., Ergon, M., Eldridge, J. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1417, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19370.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19370.x 2011

  32. [33]

    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

  33. [34]

    E., Clayton, G

    Gerard, M., Andrews, J. E., Clayton, G. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.02638, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.02638

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.02638 2026

  34. [35]

    A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B

    Goldberg, J. A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2019, ApJ, 879, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6 Guti´ errez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f52

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6 2019

  35. [36]

    The Standard Candle Method for Type II Supernovae and the Hubble Constant

    Hamuy, M. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0309122

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0309122 2003

  36. [37]

    Hamuy, M., & Pinto, P. A. 2002, ApJL, 566, L63, doi: 10.1086/339676

    work page doi:10.1086/339676 2002

  37. [38]

    A., Maza, J., et al

    Hamuy, M., Pinto, P. A., Maza, J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, 615, doi: 10.1086/322450

    work page doi:10.1086/322450 2001

  38. [39]

    Array programming with NumPy,

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  39. [40]

    A., Van Dyk, S

    Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 903, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01384-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01384-2 2021

  40. [41]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  41. [42]

    2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-4506, 1

    Itagaki, K. 2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-4506, 1

    2024

  42. [43]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  43. [44]

    K., & Ammon, K

    Jordi, K., Grebel, E. K., & Ammon, K. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 657

    2005

  44. [45]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Scmidt (Netherlands: IOS Press), 87–90. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/403913/

    2016

  45. [46]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab350 20Teja et al

    Janka, H.-T. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab350 20Teja et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab350 2021

  46. [47]

    Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team

    Kramida, A., Yu. Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team. 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12), [Online]. Available:https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2026, March 9]. National Institute of Standards and

    2024

  47. [48]

    C., et al

    Kumar, H., Bhalerao, V., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea 2022

  48. [49]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5a9e

    Li, L., Zhang, J., Zhao, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5a9e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5a9e 2026

  49. [50]

    D., Filippenko, A

    Li, W., Van Dyk, S. D., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1060, doi: 10.1086/499916

    work page doi:10.1086/499916 2006

  50. [51]

    2025, ApJL, 982, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbf0b mnicholl

    Luo, J., Zhang, L., Chen, B.-Q., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbf0b mnicholl. 2018, mnicholl/superbol: superbol v1.0, v1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2155821

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbf0b 2025

  51. [52]

    Blinnikov, S. I. 2023, PASJ, 75, 634, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad024

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psad024 2023

  52. [53]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015b, ApJ, 814, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/63

  53. [54]

    2023, A&A, 678, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346713

    Nagao, T., Mattila, S., Kotak, R., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2023, A&A, 678, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346713

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346713 2023

  54. [55]

    2006, ApJ, 645, 841, doi: 10.1086/504413 Olivares E., F., Hamuy, M., Pignata, G., et al

    Nugent, P., Sullivan, M., Ellis, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 841, doi: 10.1086/504413 Olivares E., F., Hamuy, M., Pignata, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/833 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.1086/504413 2006

  55. [56]

    P., Belloni, T

    Pastorello, A., Zampieri, L., Turatto, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 74, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07173.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07173.x 2004

  56. [57]

    N., & Ogilvie, G

    Pastorello, A., Sauer, D., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1752, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10587.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10587.x 2006

  57. [58]

    E., & Quataert, E

    Pastorello, A., Valenti, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14505.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14505.x 2009

  58. [59]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  59. [60]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  60. [61]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  61. [62]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  62. [63]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  63. [64]

    J., Folatelli, G., Anderson, J

    Pessi, P. J., Folatelli, G., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1855

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1855 2019

  64. [65]

    Prabhu, T. P. 2014, Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy Part A, 80, 887, doi: 10.16943/ptinsa/2014/v80i4/55174

    work page doi:10.16943/ptinsa/2014/v80i4/55174 2014

  65. [66]

    L., Zampieri, L., Spiro, S., et al

    Pumo, M. L., Zampieri, L., Spiro, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3013, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2625

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2625 2017

  66. [67]

    L., Mazzali, P

    Reguitti, A., Pumo, M. L., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3730 Rodr´ ıguez,´O., Clocchiatti, A., & Hamuy, M. 2014, AJ, 148, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/107

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3730 2021

  67. [68]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 2005

  68. [69]

    I., et al

    Sato, M., Tominaga, N., Blinnikov, S. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad50cb 2024

  69. [70]

    A., Kirk J

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  70. [71]

    W., Young, D

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

    2021

  71. [72]

    Sim, S. A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 769, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 28

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 2017

  72. [73]

    Sahu, D. K. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1957

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1957 2018

  73. [74]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.14137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.14137

    Singh, A., Goto, S., Sarangi, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.14137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.14137

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.14137 2026

  74. [75]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 2009

  75. [76]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. 2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:0003.002

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e 2020

  76. [77]

    L., et al

    Spiro, S., Pastorello, A., Pumo, M. L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu156

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu156 2014

  77. [78]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/38 2016

  78. [79]

    361, Massive Stars Near and Far, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 361, Massive Stars Near and Far, ed. J. Mackey, J. S. Vink, & N. St-Louis, 610–611, doi: 10.1017/S1743921322002034

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921322002034

  79. [80]

    S., Goldberg, J

    Teja, R. S., Goldberg, J. A., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 974, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d9

  80. [81]

    S., Singh, A., Sahu, D

    Teja, R. S., Singh, A., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac610b Lowest of the low: SN 2024abfl21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac610b 2022

Showing first 80 references.