Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 125 references

A Magnetar Engine and Circumstellar Medium Interaction: Synergistic Effects in Producing Superluminous Supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetar-driven bubble can take over ejecta–CSM shocks and power superluminous supernova light curves without extreme nickel or explosion energy.

desk verdict Solid semi-analytic hybrid that couples magnetar PWB dynamics to CSI and maps the Em/Esn–tsd/tc plane; the clean FS1 takeover after RS collision is the main untested assumption, but the paper is still worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08216 v1 pith:KEXNDJ4J submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.HE

Guang-Lei Wu , Yun-Wei Yu , Liang-Duan Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords SuperluminoussupernovaeMagnetarsLightcurvesCircumstellarmatterPulsarwindbubbleShockinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Superluminous supernovae are usually explained either by a spinning magnetar or by shocks into dense circumstellar gas, treated as separate power sources. This paper argues those engines can be dynamically coupled: a magnetar wind inflates a hot bubble that accelerates through the ejecta, catches the outer interaction region, and then drives the subsequent collision with unshocked CSM. The semi-analytical hybrid model tracks energy partition among bulk kinetic energy, shock heating, and radiative diffusion across multiple stages. The resulting light curves can show luminous interaction peaks, steep post-peak declines, late magnetar-powered emission, and under some parameters a post-peak bump. If correct, ordinary core-collapse explosions plus a magnetar can supply the energy that pure interaction or pure nickel models demand only from extreme progenitors.

What carries the argument

The semi-analytical hybrid dynamical model of the isobaric pulsar-wind bubble (PWB) and the Chevalier self-similar CSI region, closed by coupled energy equations and diffusion timescales that let FS1 catch FS2 and take over the unshocked CSM.

What would settle it

A well-sampled SLSN with an asymmetric light curve and high kinetic energy whose multi-band photometry and late-time broad-line velocities cannot be fit by any hybrid track that uses canonical explosion energy ~10^51 erg plus magnetar spin-down, or whose spectra show no reprocessed continuum or high-velocity interaction signatures when the model predicts FS1 has entered the outer CSM.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When a magnetar-driven pulsar-wind bubble expands through supernova ejecta that are already interacting with dense CSM, its forward shock can overtake the reverse shock, break out of the CSI region, and thereafter dominate interaction with unshocked CSM; the coupled dynamics and diffusion produce diverse SLSN light-curve morphologies while converting magnetar rotational energy into both kinetic energy and radiated luminosity, thereby relaxing extreme nickel-mass or initial-explosion-energy requirements of pure radioactive or pure CSI models.

Load-bearing premise

The one-dimensional self-similar shock structure and thin-shell pressure balance still hold after the magnetar-driven shock collides with the outer interaction region, so the bubble can cleanly break out rather than being strongly decelerated or disrupted.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semi-analytical hybrid model for superluminous supernovae in which a magnetar-driven pulsar-wind bubble (PWB) expands through the ejecta while the outer ejecta interact with dense CSM. The model couples magnetar spin-down injection, shock heating at FS1/RS/FS2, and radiative diffusion, and follows four dynamical stages culminating in FS1 catching the CSI region and taking over interaction with unshocked CSM. Analytic asymptotic scalings are derived for breakout time, radius, pressure ratio, and heating rate (Eqs. 36–46; Figs. 8–9). The authors argue that this framework can produce luminous interaction-like peaks, asymmetric post-peak declines, late magnetar-powered emission, and post-peak bumps, while allowing a canonical initial explosion energy (~10^51 erg) rather than extreme nickel masses or explosion energies. Illustrative multi-band comparisons are shown for SN 2015bn, SN 2018gft, and SN 2020auv (Fig. 6; Table 2).

Significance. If the coupled dynamics are approximately correct, the work offers a useful unification of two standard SLSN power sources that are usually treated as independent add-ons. The multi-stage dynamical map and the Em/Esn–tsd/tc parameter-space diagnostics (Figs. 8–9) are concrete, falsifiable contributions that go beyond pure light-curve fitting. The explicit reduction of the initial kinetic-energy requirement for CSI-powered peaks is scientifically valuable for SLSN progenitor and engine studies. Strengths include a carefully written energy-budget treatment, transparent asymptotic scalings, and an honest discussion of binary/CSM geometry caveats in Section 4. The main limitation is that quantitative takeover predictions rest on 1-D self-similar and thin-shell assumptions after FS1–RS collision, which the paper itself notes are incomplete relative to existing hydrodynamics.

major comments (3)
  1. Sections 2.2–2.4, 3.1, and 3.5 (Eqs. 26–28, 36–42; Fig. 9): The central takeover claim—that FS1 cleanly breaks out of FS2 and thereafter dominates unshocked-CSM interaction—rests on continued use of Chevalier (1982) self-similar CSI profiles and an isobaric thin-shell PWB after the FS1–RS collision, justified mainly by Ppwb/Pcsi ≳ 1. The manuscript itself cites hydro results showing flatter CSI structure, possible compression/reverberation, and FS1–CD1 separation/blowout (footnote 3; Blondin et al. 2001; Suzuki & Maeda 2017). Please either (i) restrict the quantitative scalings for tb, Rb, and Hb to order-of-magnitude estimates with explicit failure criteria, or (ii) add a focused comparison/discussion against published hydro runs showing when clean takeover remains valid. Without this, the luminous hybrid peaks and post-peak-bump formulae are not yet on firm dynamical footing.
  2. Section 3.3, Figure 6, and Table 2: The text states that the hybrid model can “broadly reproduce” SN 2015bn, SN 2018gft, and SN 2020auv, but the comparisons use hand-chosen parameters with fixed Esn = 10^51 erg, no formal fits, no uncertainties, and no degeneracy exploration (e.g., magnetar-only vs hybrid vs pure CSI). Please reframe these as illustrative morphology demonstrations, quantify which features require the hybrid coupling (vs independent magnetar+CSI sum), and state which observables would falsify the takeover picture. As written, the observational support for the synergistic claim is overstated relative to the evidence shown.
  3. Section 3.2 and Eqs. (13)–(17), (29)–(30): After FS1 enters the CSM, emission is treated as quasi-blackbody until τus < 2/3, with diffusion times averaged under simplified density profiles. Footnote 4 already notes tension with radiation-mediated-shock criteria and possible non-thermal/transmitted spectra. Because the peak luminosity and post-peak decline shape are attributed to FS1 shock heating plus cooling, please clarify how sensitive the claimed asymmetric declines and FS1-dominated peaks are to this thermalization cutoff, and whether the late Lpwn,th component remains robust if FS1 becomes optically thin earlier.
minor comments (6)
  1. Figure 1 caption: “Nano Banana Pro” is an unusual attribution for a scientific schematic; either remove the tool credit or replace with a conventional author-drawn figure statement.
  2. Table 1 is helpful; consider adding tb and tpb cross-references next to the equations where they are first used so readers can navigate the multi-stage analysis more easily.
  3. Equation (35) and surrounding text: the non-monotonic peak-time behavior with Rcsm is interesting but dense; a short sentence stating the Mcsm ≪ Mthin vs Mcsm ≳ Mthin regimes would help non-specialists.
  4. Section 3.4 / footnote 5: the post-peak-bump discussion correctly flags 1-D limitations; consider moving a one-sentence version of that caveat into the main text near Figure 7.
  5. References: several 2025–2026 entries are fine for a draft, but ensure all arXiv-only items are consistently formatted before final submission.
  6. Notation: κγ is introduced with a broad range (0.01–0.1 cm2 g−1); a brief note on which Table 2 choices affect only late-time tails (not peak morphology) would reduce reader confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: dynamics and scalings are derived from conservation laws plus standard self-similar solutions; only the three illustrative light-curve matches are parameter-tuned.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Figure 6, Table 2]
    "For illustrative purposes, we apply our model to the nearby event SN 2015bn ... and two events (SN 2018gft and SN 2020auv ...). Figure 6 compares the resulting model multi-band light curves with the observations, and the corresponding parameters are listed in Table 2. In this comparison, we do not attempt to place stringent constraints on individual parameter values. Instead, we adopt a typical CCSN kinetic energy of 10^51 erg ..."

    Parameters (M_ej, M_csm, R_csm, L_sd,i, t_sd, κ_γ) are chosen so that the hybrid light curves match the three observed events. Those particular morphologies are therefore partly forced by the fit rather than predicted from independent first principles. The general multi-stage dynamics and analytic scalings remain independent of these three fits, so the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing for the paper’s central claim.

full rationale

The hybrid model is constructed from magnetar spin-down (Eq. 1), broken-power-law ejecta and wind-like CSM densities (Eqs. 2–3), energy/momentum balance for the PWB and CSI regions (Eqs. 4–8, 20–25), radiation-pressure isobaric thin-shell approximations, and Chevalier (1982) self-similar profiles (Eqs. 26–28). Analytic breakout times, radii, pressure ratios and heating rates (Eqs. 36–44, Figs. 8–9) follow directly from those inputs and asymptotic power-law solutions; they are not fitted to the SLSN light curves they later illustrate. Multi-band comparisons for SN 2015bn, SN 2018gft and SN 2020auv (Fig. 6, Table 2) do choose parameters to reproduce observed morphologies, so those particular curves are partly fitted rather than a priori predictions. That is ordinary model illustration, not a circular derivation of the central claim that magnetar-driven FS1 can overtake CSI and power diverse light-curve shapes while reducing extreme E_sn or nickel requirements. Self-citations (Yu et al. 2015, 2017; Liu et al.) supply context or prior magnetar-only results and are not used as uniqueness theorems that force the hybrid construction. The paper’s own caveats about 1-D self-similarity after FS1–RS collision (footnote 3, Sec. 3.5) are correctness/hydrodynamic limitations, not circularity. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing fitting of three example light curves.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard supernova hydrodynamics plus a set of free magnetar/ejecta/CSM parameters that are chosen by hand to illustrate light curves. No new particles or forces are introduced; the load-bearing modeling choices are the spherical power-law profiles, radiation-dominated isobaric PWB, self-similar CSI, and diffusion approximations.

free parameters (6)
  • Lsd,i (initial magnetar spin-down luminosity)
    Set by hand for fiducial runs (10^47 erg s^-1) and for three SN fits (Table 2); controls peak heating and breakout timing.
  • tsd (magnetar spin-down timescale)
    Free parameter (10^5–10^6 s range) that sets energy-injection history and whether breakout occurs before or after spin-down.
  • Mej, Esn (ejecta mass and initial kinetic energy)
    Chosen as typical CCSN values (∼10 M⊙, 10^51 erg) rather than fitted; still free inputs that set vt and the Em/Esn ratio.
  • Mcsm, Rcsm (CSM mass and outer radius)
    Varied across grids (Figs. 5, 7) and tuned per SN (Table 2); directly control interaction luminosity and photospheric radius.
  • κ, κγ (optical and gamma-ray opacities)
    Fixed at 0.2 cm^2 g^-1 and 0.01–0.1 cm^2 g^-1; control diffusion timescales and thermalization fraction of PWN emission.
  • δ, n, s (density power-law indices)
    Fiducial δ=0, n=10, s=2 adopted; change the self-similar exponents α, β and therefore all analytic scalings.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Magnetar spin-down luminosity follows the standard magnetic-dipole form Lsd ∝ (1 + t/tsd)^-2 with Em = 2×10^52 P_i,-3^-2 erg.
    Section 2.1, Eq. (1); standard in SLSN magnetar literature.
  • domain assumption Ejecta density is a broken power law (flat core + steep envelope) and CSM is a steady wind ρ ∝ r^-s with s=2.
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (2)–(3); Chevalier & Soker / Matzner & McKee profiles.
  • ad hoc to paper PWB is isobaric and radiation-dominated; FS1 shell is thin; CSI region obeys Chevalier (1982) self-similar profiles even after FS1 collision.
    Sections 2.2–2.4; the post-collision validity is an extra modeling choice not guaranteed by the cited hydro papers.
  • domain assumption Photon diffusion timescales are given by the optical-depth integrals (Eqs. 14–17, 30) with constant opacity, and emission is quasi-blackbody until τus < 2/3.
    Section 2.3; standard diffusion approximation used in SLSN light-curve codes.
  • domain assumption PWN high-energy radiation is thermalized with an effective κγ and light-crossing time inside the bubble.
    Section 2.3; analogous to 56Ni γ-ray leakage prescriptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Magnetar Engine and Circumstellar Medium Interaction: Synergistic Effects in Producing Superluminous Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KEXNDJ4J

@misc{pith2026260708216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Magnetar Engine and Circumstellar Medium Interaction: Synergistic Effects in Producing Superluminous Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KEXNDJ4J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08216}
}
read the original abstract

Superluminous supernovae (SLSNe) are often modeled as being powered either by a central engine or by strong interaction with dense circumstellar material (CSM). These two mechanisms may be dynamically coupled if the ejecta interact with dense CSM while being energized by a newborn magnetar. We develop a semi-analytical hybrid model that follows the coupled dynamics, energy conversion, and radiative output of such systems. A rapidly rotating magnetar injects energy through a relativistic wind, inflating a hot bubble inside the expanding ejecta. Part of the injected energy is stored as radiation, while the rest is converted into bulk kinetic energy of the swept-up ejecta. At the same time, the outer ejecta collide with the surrounding CSM and form a circumstellar interaction (CSI) region. As the shock driven by the magnetar accelerates through the ejecta, it can catch up with the CSI region and take over the subsequent interaction with the unshocked CSM. The emergent light curves are therefore governed by the coupled effects of magnetar energy injection, shock heating, and radiative diffusion. We show that this hybrid model can produce diverse SLSN light-curve morphologies, including luminous interaction-powered peaks, asymmetric post-peak declines, and late-time emission sustained by delayed leakage of magnetar-powered radiation. The model provides a plausible way to reduce the extreme nickel-mass or initial explosion-energy requirements often encountered in purely radioactive or purely interaction-powered interpretations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the dynamical evolution of our hybrid model, from the early coexistence of the PWB and CSI region to the later breakout of FS1 into the CSM. The black solid line shows the density profiles inspired by Chevalier (1982) and Jun (1998). The color rendering is assisted by Nano Banana Pro, based on an author-drawn draft. 2.1. Physical inputs Following the central-engine interpretation commonly i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolutions of different radii. Different back￾ground colors indicate that FS1 is moving in different re￾gions. where Lcsi ≈ Ucsi td,csi (29) is the emission luminosity of the CSI region. In view of the CSI region being a thin shell, its photon diffusion time is shorter than that ahead of FS2, and hence we adopt td,csi ≃ Z Rph Rfs2 κρcsm(r ′ )d(r ′ − Rfs2) 2 c . (30) 3. RESULTS AND ANALYSES 3.1. Dynamics For a fiduci… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The bolometric luminosities of different compo￾nents, where the dashed orange line shows the CSI emission in the model without a magnetar. upstream optical depth satisfies τus > c/vfs1, FS1 re￾mains radiation mediated and efficiently traps the ther￾mal photons. When the optical depth drops below τus < c/vfs1, photons begin to escape from FS1 and diffuse through the CSM, enhancing the radiative losses from the PWB an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the accumulated energies of differ￾ent components (top), instantaneous heating rate (middle), and effective emission temperature (bottom). Different back￾ground colors indicate the region in which FS1 is moving. For comparison, the dashed orange line shows…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the multi-band light curves of SN 2015bn, SN 2018gft and SN 2020auv with model light curves, where the data are taken from the Catalog of Type I SLSNe a (Gomez et al. 2024). a https://github.com/gmzsebastian/SLSNe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bolometric luminosity evolution for a parameter set that produces a post-peak bump. Different background colors indicate the region in which FS1 is moving. converted into internal energy and subsequently radi￾ated. To clarify how the dynamical and emission behav￾iors d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Different breakout regions of FS1 from FS2, il￾lustrating whether the breakout occurs in the inner core or outer envelope of the SN ejecta and whether the magnetar has spun down at the time of breakout. The region above the dashed-dot line implies that FS1 cannot break…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Variations of the breakout time tb, radius Rb, Ppwb/Pcsi, and the heating rate Hb in the Em/Esn − tsd/tc parameter space. The left and bottom axes show the plane spanned by Em/Esn and tsd/tc, while the top and right axes indicate the corresponding values of Esn and tc …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 125 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 2674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1113

    Aamer, A., Nicholl, M., Gomez, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1113

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1113 2025

  2. [2]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785, doi: 10.1086/159681

    work page doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  3. [3]

    Torres, D. F. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2956 —. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 2451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad134

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2956 2020

  4. [4]

    Bandiera, R., Bucciantini, N., Olmi, B., & Torres, D. F. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2387

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2387

  5. [5]

    1967, PhRvL, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, PhRvL, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.18.379 1967

  6. [6]

    M., & Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., & Chevalier, R. A. 2017, ApJ, 845, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8267

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8267 2017

  7. [7]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Chevalier, R. A., & Frierson, D. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806, doi: 10.1086/324042

    work page doi:10.1086/324042 2001

  8. [8]

    M., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 472, 257, doi: 10.1086/178060

    work page doi:10.1086/178060 1996

Show all 125 references
  1. [9]

    M., Del Zanna, L., & Amato, E

    Bucciantini, N., Blondin, J. M., Del Zanna, L., & Amato, E. 2003, A&A, 405, 617, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030624

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    C., & Vinko, J

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., & Vinko, J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/121

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z. L., & Nagy, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/76

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Vinko, J., et al

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/94

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    E., & Sukhbold, T

    Chen, K.-J., Woosley, S. E., & Sukhbold, T. 2016, ApJ, 832, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/73

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    E., & Whalen, D

    Chen, K.-J., Woosley, S. E., & Whalen, D. J. 2020, ApJ, 893, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7db0

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c58

    Chen, M., Kashiyama, K., & Sato, M. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c58

    2026 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Yates, R

    Chen, T.-W., Smartt, S. J., Yates, R. M., et al. 2017a, MNRAS, 470, 3566, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1428

    doi

  9. [17]

    W., Nicholl, M., Smartt, S

    Chen, T. W., Nicholl, M., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2017b, A&A, 602, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630163

    doi

  10. [18]

    H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al

    Chen, Z. H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 943, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca161 —. 2023b, ApJ, 943, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca162

    doi

  11. [19]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.001135 —. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790, doi: 10.1086/160126 —. 1984, ApJ, 280, 797, doi: 10.1086/162053 —. 2005, ApJ, 619, 839, doi: 10.1086/426584 —. 2012, ApJL, 752, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    1977 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Blondin, J

    Chevalier, R. A., Blondin, J. M., & Emmering, R. T. 1992, ApJ, 392, 118, doi: 10.1086/171411

    1992 doi

  13. [21]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2003, in Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. K. Weiler, Vol. 598 (Springer,

    2003

  14. [22]

    Berlin, Heidelberg), 171–194, doi: 10.1007/3-540-45863-8 10

    doi

  15. [23]

    A., & Irwin, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Irwin, C. M. 2011, ApJL, 729, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L6 —. 2012, ApJL, 747, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L17

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    A., & Soker, N

    Chevalier, R. A., & Soker, N. 1989, ApJ, 341, 867, doi: 10.1086/167545

    1989 doi

  17. [25]

    L., & Nicholl, M

    Cleland, C., McGee, S. L., & Nicholl, M. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3559, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2118

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Clocchiatti, A., & Wheeler, J. C. 1997, ApJ, 491, 375, doi: 10.1086/304961

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, A&A, 621, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834535

    Dessart, L. 2019, A&A, 621, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834535

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Dessart, L., Audit, E., & Hillier, D. J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv609

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd848

    Dong, X.-F., Liu, L.-D., Gao, H., & Yang, S. 2023, ApJ, 951, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd848

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9, doi: 10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, A&A, 696, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2025, A&A, 696, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Prust, L

    Farah, J. R., Prust, L. J., Howell, D. A., et al. 2026, Nature, 651, 321, doi: 10.1038/s41586-026-10151-0

    2026 doi

  25. [33]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 16 —

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 16 —. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer, Cham), 195, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 35 —. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 624, doi: 10.1038/nature08579

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Slane, P. O., & Zhang, W. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2051, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2051

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/178

    Ginzburg, S., & Balberg, S. 2012, ApJ, 757, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/178

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd180

    Govreen-Segal, T., Nakar, E., & Levinson, A. 2021, ApJ, 907, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd180

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag464

    Govreen-Segal, T., Nakar, E., & Quataert, E. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag464

    2026 doi

  32. [40]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487

    2002 doi

  33. [41]

    D., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67dd

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Howell, D. A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer, Cham), 431, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 41

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca

    Hsu, B., Hosseinzadeh, G., & Berger, E. 2021, ApJ, 921, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.06402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.06402

    Hu, R.-C., Zhu, J.-P., Qin, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.06402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.06402

    2023 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Hwang, U., & Laming, J. M. 2012, ApJ, 746, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/130

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4

    Inserra, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/128

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    W., et al

    Inserra, C., Nicholl, M., Chen, T. W., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx834

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Gall, E

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Gall, E. E. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3179

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Inserra, C., et al

    Jerkstrand, A., Smartt, S. J., Inserra, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/13

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    1998, ApJ, 499, 282, doi: 10.1086/305627

    Jun, B.-I. 1998, ApJ, 499, 282, doi: 10.1086/305627

    1998 doi

  45. [53]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    D., & Bildsten, L

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B. D., & Bildsten, L. 2016, ApJ, 821, 36, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/36

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    E., & Heger, A

    Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2011, ApJ, 734, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/102

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0 K¨ onyves-T´ oth, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae04 K¨ onyves-T´ oth, R., & Vink´ o, J. 2021, ApJ, 909, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c8

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    S., & Olinto, A

    Kotera, K., Phinney, E. S., & Olinto, A. V. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt680

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    M., & Hwang, U

    Laming, J. M., & Hwang, U. 2003, ApJ, 597, 347, doi: 10.1086/378268

    2003 doi

  51. [59]

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

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

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv320

    Leloudas, G., Schulze, S., Kr¨ uhler, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv320

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab718d

    Li, L., Wang, S.-Q., Liu, L.-D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab718d

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.05968, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.05968

    Li, S., Liang, Y.-F., Liao, N.-H., Lei, L., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.05968, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.05968

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2

    Liu, J.-F., Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., & Zhang, B. 2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf042

    Liu, L.-D., Gao, H., Wang, X.-F., & Yang, S. 2021, ApJ, 911, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf042

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    2017a, ApJ, 842, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73d9

    Liu, L.-D., Wang, S.-Q., Wang, L.-J., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 842, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73d9

    doi

  58. [66]

    Liu, Y.-Q., Modjaz, M., & Bianco, F. B. 2017b, ApJ, 845, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f74

    doi

  59. [67]

    2016, ApJ, 831, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/144

    Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/144

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    D., & McKee, C

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

    1999 doi

  61. [69]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2224

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    D., Vurm, I., Hasco¨ et, R., & Beloborodov, A

    Metzger, B. D., Vurm, I., Hasco¨ et, R., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1922

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Blinnikov, S. I., Tominaga, N., et al. 2013a, MNRAS, 428, 1020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts075

    doi

  64. [72]

    J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., et al

    Moriya, T. J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 435, 1520, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1392

    doi

  65. [73]

    J., Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 6210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1352

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/82

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., Kiuchi, K., & Bartos, I. 2015, ApJ, 805, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/82

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    Murase, K., Omand, C. M. B., Coppejans, D. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 44, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2506

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334 17

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334 17

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    J., et al

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2016a, ApJ, 826, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/39

    doi

  70. [78]

    2016b, ApJL, 828, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/2/L18

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2016b, ApJL, 828, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/2/L18

    doi

  71. [79]

    Omand, C. M. B. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag112

    2026 doi

  72. [80]

    Omand, C. M. B., & Jerkstrand, A. 2023, A&A, 673, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245406

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    Omand, C. M. B., & Sarin, N. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3645

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    A., Quimby, R

    Perley, D. A., Quimby, R. M., Yan, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 13, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/13

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al

    Pessi, P. J., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452014

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    J., Ashall, C., James, P

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

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 1214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw365

    Paxton, B. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw365

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    Quataert, E., & Shiode, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    2012 doi

  79. [87]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Quimby, R. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 487, doi: 10.1038/nature10095

    2011 doi

  80. [88]

    M., De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Quimby, R. M., De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac2f

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    1967, ApJ, 148, 803, doi: 10.1086/149204

    Rakavy, G., & Shaviv, G. 1967, ApJ, 148, 803, doi: 10.1086/149204

    1967 doi

  82. [90]

    P., & Chevalier, R

    Reynolds, S. P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1984, ApJ, 278, 630, doi: 10.1086/161831

    1984 doi

  83. [91]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  84. [92]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 1258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2352

    Schulze, S., Kr¨ uhler, T., Leloudas, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2352

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    2024, A&A, 683, A223, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346855

    Schulze, S., Fransson, C., Kozyreva, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A223, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346855

    2024 doi

  86. [94]

    Sedov, L. I. 1959, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics (Academic Press)

    1959

  87. [95]

    H., & Quataert, E

    Shiode, J. H., & Quataert, E. 2014, ApJ, 780, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/96

    2014 doi

  88. [96]

    2017, PASP, 129, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a6

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a6

    2017 doi

  89. [97]

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

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

    2014 doi

  90. [98]

    2008, ApJ, 686, 467, doi: 10.1086/591021

    Smith, N., Chornock, R., Li, W., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 467, doi: 10.1086/591021

    2008 doi

  91. [99]

    V., & Chornock, R

    Smith, N., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., & Chornock, R. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x

    2011 doi

  92. [100]

    2007, ApJL, 671, L17, doi: 10.1086/524681

    Smith, N., & McCray, R. 2007, ApJL, 671, L17, doi: 10.1086/524681

    2007 doi

  93. [101]

    Smith, N., & Owocki, S. P. 2006, ApJL, 645, L45, doi: 10.1086/506523

    2006 doi

  94. [102]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/17

    Tolstov, A. 2016, ApJ, 829, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/17

    2016 doi

  95. [103]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 2633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3259 —

    Suzuki, A., & Maeda, K. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3259 —. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty999 —. 2019, ApJ, 880, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ad3 —. 2021, ApJ, 908, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd54c

    2017 doi

  96. [104]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/108

    Svirski, G., Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2012, ApJ, 759, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/108

    2012 doi

  97. [105]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1993, ApJ, 408, 194, doi: 10.1086/172580

    1993 doi

  98. [106]

    K., & McKee, C

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

    1999 doi

  99. [107]

    2008, ApJ, 673, 1014, doi: 10.1086/524767 van der Swaluw, E., Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y

    Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2008, ApJ, 673, 1014, doi: 10.1086/524767 van der Swaluw, E., Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y. A., & T´ oth, G. 2001, A&A, 380, 309, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011437

    2008 doi

  100. [108]

    Vurm, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2021, ApJ, 917, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0826

    2021 doi

  101. [109]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfecc

    Wasserman, T., Sapir, N., Szabo, P., & Waxman, E. 2025, ApJ, 993, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfecc

    2025 doi

  102. [110]

    C., Chatzopoulos, E., Vink´ o, J., & Tuminello, R

    Wheeler, J. C., Chatzopoulos, E., Vink´ o, J., & Tuminello, R. 2017, ApJL, 851, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9d84

    2017 doi

  103. [111]

    C., Yi, I., H¨ oflich, P., & Wang, L

    Wheeler, J. C., Yi, I., H¨ oflich, P., & Wang, L. 2000, ApJ, 537, 810, doi: 10.1086/309055

    2000 doi

  104. [112]

    Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204 —. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2010 doi

  105. [113]

    E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A. 2007, Nature, 450, 390, doi: 10.1038/nature06333

    2007 doi

  106. [114]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/108

    Yan, L., Quimby, R., Ofek, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/108

    2015 doi

  107. [115]

    A., et al

    Yan, L., Lunnan, R., Perley, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8993

    2017 doi

  108. [116]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afe

    Yoon, S.-C., Dessart, L., & Clocchiatti, A. 2017, ApJ, 840, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afe

    2017 doi

  109. [117]

    2019a, ApJL, 877, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f85

    Yu, Y.-W., Chen, A., & Li, X.-D. 2019a, ApJL, 877, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f85

    doi

  110. [118]

    2019b, ApJL, 870, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf960

    Yu, Y.-W., Chen, A., & Wang, B. 2019b, ApJL, 870, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf960

    doi

  111. [119]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1028

    Yu, Y.-W., & Li, S.-Z. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1028

    2017 doi

  112. [120]

    2015, ApJL, 806, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L6

    Yu, Y.-W., Li, S.-Z., & Dai, Z.-G. 2015, ApJL, 806, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L6

    2015 doi

  113. [121]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27 18

    Yu, Y.-W., Zhu, J.-P., Li, S.-Z., L¨ u, H.-J., & Zou, Y.-C. 2017, ApJ, 840, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27 18

    2017 doi

  114. [122]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt794 Zel’dovich, Y

    Yusof, N., Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt794 Zel’dovich, Y. B., & Raizer, Y. P. 1967, Physics of shock waves and high-temperature hydrodynamic phenomena (Academic Press)

    2013 doi

  115. [123]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb3

    Zhang, B., Li, L., Dai, Z.-G., & Zhong, S.-Q. 2025, ApJ, 985, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb3

    2025 doi

  116. [124]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8

    Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8

    2024 doi

  117. [125]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.21759, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.21759

    Zhu, J.-P., & Zhang, B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.21759, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.21759

    2026 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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