Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

For one well-observed Type II-P supernova, pre-explosion, shock-cooling, and nebular mass estimates disagree—and the paper argues the fault lies in models and calibration, not in the data.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The progenitor mass of SN 2022acko inferred from pre-explosion images (7.5 Msun) disagrees with masses from light-curve and spectral modeling (9-15 Msun), with the tension likely caused by model and calibration systematics.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Valuable dataset paper for SN 2022acko, but the central mass-tension claim rests on a two-band SED that does not uniquely exclude the higher masses. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.04707 v1 pith:6NG7USZC submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

SN 2022acko and the Properties of its Red Supergiant Progenitor: Direct Detection, Light Curves, and Nebular Spectroscopy

Gabriel Teixeira , Charlie D. Kilpatrick , Cl\'ecio R. Bom , Andr\'e Santos , Phelipe Darc , Katie Auchettl , \'Alvaro \'Alvarez-Candal , Ryan J. Foley
show 7 more authors
Pedro K. Humire Anthony L. Piro Cesar Rojas-Bravo Claudia Mendes de Oliveira Antonio Kanaan Tiago Ribeiro William Schoenell
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords Type II-P supernovared supergiant progenitorpre-explosion imagingshock coolingnebular spectroscopyprogenitor massSN 2022ackoNGC 1300
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

SN 2022acko is a Type II-P supernova in NGC 1300 with an unusually complete dataset: pre-explosion imaging, UV/optical/IR light curves spanning 350 days, and nebular spectra out to 612 days. The paper uses these data to estimate the progenitor's initial mass three independent ways—pre-explosion SED fitting (~7.5 Msun), shock-cooling modeling (~9–10 Msun), and nebular spectroscopy (9–15 Msun)—and finds the estimates do not agree. Its central claim is that the disagreement is not a symptom of missing data but of modeling limitations and flux-calibration systematics, particularly a ~45% uncertainty in rescaling the nebular spectra. If correct, the true progenitor mass of SN 2022acko probably lies near the low end, 7.5–10 Msun, and the long-standing 'red supergiant problem' may be aggravated by systematic biases in one or more methods rather than by a real shortage of massive SN II-P progenitors.

Core claim

The paper establishes that for a well-observed Type II-P supernova, three standard mass diagnostics cannot be brought into agreement by adding more photometry or spectra. The pre-explosion counterpart, detected at ~14σ in HST F814W and in F160W but not in bluer or IRAC bands, is best fit by a red supergiant SED with log(L/Lsun) ≈ 4.3, corresponding to ~7.5±0.5 Msun. Shock-cooling fits to the first days of the light curve, using the MSW23 model, favor a radius of ~580 Rsun and a mass of 9–10 Msun. Nebular spectra at 275, 396, and 612 days match different model masses depending on the model grid and epoch, bracketing 9–15 Msun. Attributing the spread to modeling and calibration systematics—not

What carries the argument

The argument hinges on comparing three independent mass estimators for the same supernova. The pre-explosion estimator fits a MARCS red-supergiant SED grid (with wind opacity and a cool dust component) to two HST photometric detections plus multi-band upper limits. The shock-cooling estimator applies the MSW23 analytic model—a modified version of the SW17 model that adds UV line blanketing—to the early light curve, with a prior enforcing a physical ejecta/envelope mass ratio. The nebular estimator scales NLTE radiative-transfer spectra (Jerkstrand et al. 2014/2018; Dessart et al. 2021) by the measured 56Ni mass, distance, and decay epoch, then compares the [Oi] doublet region by eye. The key

Load-bearing premise

The 7.5 Msun pre-explosion mass assumes the detected F814W/F160W source is a single, unblended red supergiant whose spectrum is captured by the MARCS+wind model; if the source is blended, hosts an unresolved companion, or sits behind local dust, that low-mass estimate collapses and the tension across methods may vanish.

What would settle it

Three observations would settle the central claim: (1) post-explosion HST imaging a few years after SN 2022acko that shows whether the pre-explosion F814W/F160W source has disappeared—if it persists, the association fails; (2) JWST NIRCam/MIRI photometry of the site that measures the full SED and tests whether log(L/Lsun) exceeds ~4.5, ruling out the 7.5 Msun interpretation; (3) a shock-cooling fit using photometry that begins within hours of explosion, which would remove the ~1.5-day gap that inflates the inferred radius by ~100 Rsun.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, future SN II-P studies should treat pre-explosion, shock-cooling, and nebular mass estimates as systematically uncertain at the ~2–5 Msun level even when the dataset is rich.
  • The shock-cooling radius (and mass) of SN 2022acko itself may be overestimated, since the first detection came ~1.5 days post-explosion; the true radius could be closer to the lower RSG range.
  • The pre-explosion counterpart should be confirmed as the actual progenitor by detecting its disappearance in post-explosion HST imaging; a surviving source would invalidate the association rather than the mass tension.
  • The 56Ni mass of 0.014±0.004 Msun, the 116-day plateau, and the gamma-ray leakage timescale t1≈396 d together favor the low-mass end, consistent with the paper's 7.5–10 Msun conclusion.
  • The 'red supergiant problem' may be partly a systematic artifact: pre-explosion SED fits that miss infrared flux (or shock-cooling fits that miss early data) can each bias mass estimates low or high.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 2380 K blackbody temperature is taken literally, the pre-explosion source's SED is not a bare RSG photosphere; a plausible reading is that dust or an unresolved companion contaminates F814W/F160W, which would make the true progenitor more massive and reduce the tension without invoking model failure.
  • The SN 2021yja gap test, although approximate, suggests a testable prediction: other SNe II-P with first detections later than ~24 hours post-explosion will show systematically inflated shock-cooling radii, which can be checked against a sample with both early and late discoveries.
  • The paper's conclusion implies that the next leap in progenitor-mass measurements will come from improving flux calibration of nebular spectra (the scaling factor's ~45% uncertainty) and from shock-cooling models that self-consistently treat early UV emission, rather than from more photometric bands.
  • A direct test of the 7.5 Msun scenario: obtain JWST NIRCam/MIRI photometry of the pre-explosion site's surviving emission (if any) to measure the full RSG SED; a luminosity above log(L/Lsun)≈4.5 would rule out the low mass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multiwavelength dataset for the Type II-P SN 2022acko in NGC 1300, comprising pre-explosion HST/Spitzer imaging, optical/UV photometry over the first 350 days, late-time Keck spectroscopy at 275, 396, and 612 days, and a high-resolution GSAOI image for astrometric alignment. The authors detect a single pre-explosion counterpart in F814W and F160W and, using a blackbody/MARCS+wind fit, infer a low-luminosity RSG of about 7.5 Msun. From the early light curve they fit shock-cooling models (MSW23, SW17) and obtain a radius near 580 Rsun, translating to 9-10 Msun; the bolometric light curve and the radioactive tail give MNi = 0.014 Msun; and the nebular spectra are compared to Jerkstrand et al. and Dessart et al. models, suggesting 9-15 Msun. The paper argues that the discrepancies among these mass estimates arise from modeling limitations and flux-calibration systematics rather than from insufficient data, and that the true mass is probably in the lower range 7.5-10 Msun. The analysis is accompanied by explicit discussion of many caveats, including the two-band nature of the direct detection, the manual f_rho*M lower bound in the SC fit, the inconsistency of the SC explosion epoch with the last nondetection, and the 45% flux-calibration uncertainty in the nebular comparison.

Significance. If the paper's central claim were established, it would be a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion of the red supergiant problem: for a well-observed SN II-P, the comparison of direct, shock-cooling, and nebular mass indicators could demonstrate that systematic model errors and calibration uncertainties dominate over data quality. The observational dataset is genuinely comprehensive and will be useful to the community even independently of the interpretive claims. The authors are explicit about many limitations and make their new photometry available in an appendix. However, the central claim is currently under-supported because the low-mass anchor from the pre-explosion SED is not uniquely determined by the data and the SC/near-nebular mass estimates rest on partially entangled models. The paper's honest caveats are a strength, but they also highlight that the conclusion goes beyond what the current evidence can establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 3] The direct mass estimate of 7.5 Msun is the load-bearing low-mass anchor, and it is not data-dominated. The two detections (F814W, F160W) plus upper limits cannot uniquely constrain the five-parameter model (L, Teff, tau_V, T_dust, plus distance-dependent normalization). The pure blackbody solution at 2380 K is acknowledged in the text to be unphysical for an RSG, so the 7.5 Msun value is carried entirely by the MARCS+wind prescription. The paper itself states that the maximum luminosity allowed at 1-sigma is log(L/Lsun) ~ 4.5, which on the same Choi et al. (2016) tracks corresponds to roughly 9-10 Msun, i.e., the photometry does not exclude the shock-cooling mass. Until the counterpart disappearance is confirmed (Section 3.1 gives a 1.3% chance-coincidence probability) or additional photometric bands are obtained, the claimed tension rests on an unconfirmed and underdetermined identific
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 2] Two problems in the shock-cooling fit directly affect the radius-derived mass. First, the best-fit explosion epoch is t0 = 59917.44 +/- 0.06 MJD, which is ~0.7 day after the last nondetection at MJD 59918.17 reported by Bostroem et al. (2023); this is physically inconsistent and biases the early-time fit. Second, the MCMC likelihood imposes the ad hoc prior f_rho*M / Menv > 0.1, and the best-fit f_rho*M = 0.21 Msun sits right at the boundary of 0.1 * Menv = 0.20 Msun. The authors note that f_rho*M trends toward the lower bound in initial, unconstrained fits. Since the derived R ~ 580 Rsun and the resulting 9-10 Msun mass come from this model, the systematic floor of the SC method needs to be addressed before the claimed tension can be used to support the central conclusion.
  3. [Sections 4.2-4.3, Eq. (4)] The nebular mass estimates are partially circular. The SED templates used with extrabol to build the late-time bolometric light curve (Section 4.2) are drawn from the same Jerkstrand et al. (2018, 2014) and Dessart et al. (2021) grids that are then visually compared to the observed nebular spectra (Section 4.3). Moreover, the model spectra are rescaled by Eq. (4) using the MNi derived from the same bolometric light curve, so the nebular mass scale is entangled with the light-curve fitting. The paper acknowledges a ~45% relative uncertainty from the scaling factor and states that the trustworthiness of the comparison is compromised by flux-calibration uncertainties. Given that the spectral comparison is visual rather than a quantitative fit and yields inconsistent masses between models and epochs, the 9-15 Msun range is not robust enough to be used as the high-mass side of the claimed ten
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and formatting: 'blackboy' in the Figure 7 caption; 'aknowledges' in the acknowledgments; duplicate Van Dyk et al. (2023) entries in the references; 'T able' in tables; inconsistent plateau duration ('116 days' in the abstract vs. 117.7 d in Section 4.2); t1 values differ between text (396 +/- 7 d) and Table 3 (384 +/- 11 d).
  2. [Section 6] The summary states 'Using Spitzer and HST pre-explosion imaging ... we fit a red supergiant SED' but the Spitzer data are only upper limits, not detections. Please clarify that only F814W and F160W are detections and that the Spitzer limits are used as constraints.
  3. [Appendix B] The appendix explicitly says the SN 2021yja experiment 'does not have any effect on the conclusions drawn in the main text,' yet the main-text discussion (Section 5) uses it to argue that SC radii could be overestimated if early data are missing. Either integrate this test into the quantitative discussion or remove the disclaimer.
  4. [Section 4.2] The transition from blackbody to nebular SED is defined by a Fermi-Dirac weighting with ts = 130 d and Delta t = 30 d. The choice of these values and their sensitivity to the derived MNi is not discussed; a short robustness test would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Partial circularity: the late-time bolometric light curve and the nebular spectral fit share the same Jerkstrand/Dessart model grid, entangling the MNi normalization with the spectral mass estimate.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Bolometric light curve and nickel mass) and Section 4.3 (Nebular spectroscopy analysis), Eq. (4)]
    "We use theoretical nebular spectra from Jerkstrand et al. (2018, 2014) and Dessart et al. (2021) as SED templates. Specifically, the extrabol routine compares the observed photometry to each model spectrum in the 9–29 M⊙ grid, scaling the spectra to match the photometric fluxes. The model providing the best overall match to the photometry is then adopted as the reference SED shape, which is kept fixed while rescaling its normalization to match each photometric epoch."

    The MNi used to normalize the nebular models in Section 4.3 is not an independent observable: it is derived from the bolometric light curve whose late-time SED shape is fixed by the best-matching template in the same 9–29 M⊙ Jerkstrand/Dessart grids. Equation (4) then rescales every synthetic spectrum by s0 = MNi/MNi,0, so the nebular spectral mass estimates inherit the template choice used to build the bolometric light curve. The paper's assertion that this approach 'is independent of the direct comparison between the observed nebular spectra and models described in Section 4.3' is therefore incomplete: the same model grid supplies both the SED shape for the luminosity/MNi measurement and the spectral templates for the mass inference, so the two 'independent' mass indicators are partially

full rationale

The paper's central mass estimates are mostly externally grounded: the shock-cooling analysis uses the SW17/MSW23 models and MESA tracks, the pre-explosion SED fitting uses MARCS models, and the nebular templates come from published Jerkstrand/Dessart grids. The SC and pre-explosion estimates are independent of each other and do not reduce to any single fitted parameter. The main circularity is the reuse of the same nebular model grid in Section 4.2 (to build the late-time bolometric light curve and derive MNi) and in Section 4.3 (to scale the synthetic spectra with that MNi via Eq. 4). This makes the nebular spectral mass estimate partially dependent on the SED template chosen from the same grid, contrary to the paper's claim of independence. However, the nebular mass inference still relies on emission-line shapes and ratios, and the SC and pre-explosion channels do not share this loop. The conclusion that the mass tension is due to modeling limitations and flux calibration is an interpretation of external-model deficiencies rather than a reduction to the paper's own inputs. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern is present. Overall, the circularity is partial and localized, so the score is 4 rather than higher.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

The three mass branches each depend on fitted parameters. SC mass depends on R (model-dependent, with inconsistent t0 and a saturated boundary constraint). Direct mass depends on a two-band SED fit. Nebular mass depends on model-grid comparisons scaled by the same SN's MNi. The central claim about model-induced tension is supported by these dependencies, but no single parameter is definitionally forced.

free parameters (10)
  • R (progenitor radius, MSW23) = 580+20-20 Rsun
    Fitted to early shock-cooling light curve; converted to 9-10 Msun via MESA tracks. SW17 gives 1000 Rsun, so the mass inference is model-sensitive.
  • Menv (hydrogen envelope mass) = 2.0+0.4-0.3 Msun
    Fitted in same MSW23 model; also used in the manual f_rho*M/Menv constraint.
  • f_rho*M (effective ejecta mass) = 0.21+0.04-0.03 Msun
    Fitted but pinned by the manual lower bound f_rho*M/Menv > 0.1; best fit sits at the boundary.
  • vs* (shock velocity) = 1.12+0.06-0.06 x 10^3 km/s
    MSW23 fit parameter; differs from SW17 (0.7), affecting the early LC shape.
  • t0 (explosion epoch) = 59917.44+0.06-0.06 MJD
    Fitted; inconsistent with last ATLAS nondetection at 59918.17 MJD.
  • sigma (intrinsic scatter) = 6.8+0.1-0.1
    Added to the likelihood to inflate error bars; large value indicates model-data mismatch.
  • MNi (nickel mass) = 0.0145 +/- 0.0003 Msun (fit), 0.014 +/- 0.004 including distance systematics
    Fitted to the bolometric tail via Eq. 3 with gamma-ray leakage; distance range gives 0.007-0.022 Msun.
  • t1 (gamma-ray trapping timescale) = 396 +/- 7 d (Section 4.2) or 384 +/- 11 d (Table 3)
    Fitted in Eq. 3; longer than comparison events, implying a high ejecta mass.
  • Pre-explosion SED parameters (Teff, log L) = Teff=2380 K, log(L/Lsun)=4.27 (blackbody); MARCS fit log L=4.3
    Fit to two photometric points; the blackbody is cooler than realistic RSGs, so the 7.5 Msun mass is fragile.
  • Plateau fit parameters (A0, TPT, W0, P0, M0) = TPT=117.7+/-0.6 d etc.
    Valenti+2016 parametric fit to bolometric LC; TPT=116-117 d used to claim massive H envelope.
axioms (9)
  • standard math Shock-cooling models SW17 and MSW23 are valid over the fitted time window (t < t_model_max).
    Section 4.1 uses these analytical models to infer R and velocity from early LC.
  • standard math MESA/MIST tracks map terminal radius and luminosity to MZAMS at [Fe/H]=-0.22.
    Section 4.1 and Figure 6 convert R=580 Rsun to 9-10 Msun.
  • standard math Nebular NLTE models (Jerkstrand+ 2014, 2018; Dessart+ 2021) reproduce line fluxes and shapes of SN II-P nebular spectra.
    Section 4.3 uses these grids to estimate progenitor mass from [O I] and other lines.
  • domain assumption No host-galaxy extinction toward SN 2022acko; only Milky Way extinction is applied.
    Section 3.2 states this assumption based on lack of apparent host extinction in light curves and spectra.
  • domain assumption The pre-explosion counterpart is a single, unblended RSG (plus optional CSM dust) and is physically associated with the SN.
    Section 3.2; chance coincidence is 1.3%, and only two bands are detected.
  • domain assumption Late-time bolometric luminosity is powered by 56Co decay with gamma-ray leakage parameterized by fleak = 1 - 0.965 exp(-(t/t1)^2).
    Section 4.2, Eq. 3; used to derive MNi.
  • ad hoc to paper MCMC discards samples with f_rho*M/Menv < 0.1 to enforce physical plausibility.
    Section 4.1; the best fit trends to this boundary, so R may be biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Bolometric light curve uses a Fermi-Dirac transition (Eq. 1-2) from blackbody to nebular SED with ts=130 d, Delta t=30 d.
    Section 4.2; these timescales are chosen, not derived from physics.
  • ad hoc to paper Nebular spectral models are rescaled by s0 = (MNi/MNi,0)(dL,0/dL)^2 exp(-lambda_Co delta t), using the MNi derived from the same SN's bolometric tail.
    Section 4.3, Eq. 4; introduces ~45% systematic uncertainty and partially links the spectral mass estimate to the bolometric inference.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SN 2022acko and the Properties of its Red Supergiant Progenitor: Direct Detection, Light Curves, and Nebular Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NG7USZC

@misc{pith2026250904707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SN 2022acko and the Properties of its Red Supergiant Progenitor: Direct Detection, Light Curves, and Nebular Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NG7USZC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04707}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present ultraviolet, optical, and infrared observations of the Type II-P supernova SN 2022acko in NGC 1300, located at a distance of 19.0 +/- 2.9 Mpc. Our dataset spans 1-350 days post-explosion in photometry, complemented by late-time optical spectroscopy covering 200-600 days, and includes deep pre-explosion imaging. We use this extensive multiwavelength dataset for both direct and indirect constraints on the progenitor system. Using the early-time photometry and shock-cooling models, we infer that SN 2022acko likely originated from a red supergiant with a radius of R ~ 580 solar radii and an initial mass of M ~ 9-10 solar masses. From the radioactive decay tail, we infer a synthesized Ni56 mass of 0.014 +/- 0.004 solar masses. We further model nebular-phase spectra using radiative transfer models and nucleosynthesis yields for core-collapse supernovae, which suggest a progenitor initial mass in the range of 10-15 solar masses. Meanwhile, blackbody fitting of the detected pre-explosion counterpart in the F814W and F160W bands indicates a red supergiant with a lower initial mass of approximately 7.5 solar masses. The light curve exhibits a 116 days plateau, indicative of a massive hydrogen-rich envelope, inconsistent with the pre-explosion analysis. We investigated the discrepancy between direct and indirect progenitor mass estimates, focusing on the roles of binary interaction, early-time modeling limitations, and systematic uncertainties in spectral calibration. Our results indicate that the tension among mass estimates likely arises from modeling limitations and flux calibration uncertainties rather than from insufficient data, highlighting the need for more physically realistic models and a deeper understanding of systematic effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04707 by \'Alvaro \'Alvarez-Candal, Andr\'e Santos, Anthony L. Piro, Antonio Kanaan, Cesar Rojas-Bravo, Charlie D. Kilpatrick, Claudia Mendes de Oliveira, Cl\'ecio R. Bom, Gabriel Teixeira, Katie Auchettl, Pedro K. Humire, Phelipe Darc, Ryan J. Foley, Tiago Ribeiro, William Schoenell.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Apparent and absolute magnitudes of SN 2022acko over the first 350 days of observation. The left panel highlights the early-time evolution (first 20 days), while the right panel displays the later phases. Apparent magnitudes are shown on the left y-axis, and the corresponding absolute magnitudes are overlaid on the right y-axis. The y-axes labels and the legend include offset values for a better visual rep… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The site of SN 2022acko from 1 January 2023 as observed in high-resolution GSAOI H-band imaging (left) compared with the same site in pre-explosion ACS F814W imaging from 26 September 2004 (right). We identify a sin￾gle, unblended, point-like source in the pre-explosion emis￾sion (shown at the position of the red crosshairs) that is astrometrically consistent with the supernova. [h] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Photometry of the SN 2022acko pre-explosion counterpart in HST F814W and F160W (red circles) as de￾scribed in Section 2.1. Upper limits from other HST and Spitzer bands are shown in pink. We fit these data using two models described in Section 3.2; a pure blackbody with a temperature of 2380 K and luminosity of log(L/ L⊙) = 4.27 and a more realistic MARCS RSG with added circumstellar reddening from a shell… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel: Best-fit models from MSW23 (solid lines) and SW17 (dashed lines) compared to the observed early-time light curve. Lower panels: Residuals (biases) be￾tween the models and the observed data, shown as a function of MJD. Points represent the mean residuals within MJD bins. All models are plotted only within their respective va￾lidity time ranges. parameters. Therefore, the disagreement between th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Corner plots for the best-fit parameters of SN 2022acko obtained from model MSW23 (left) and model SW17 (right). 8 10 12 14 MZAMS (M ) 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 L o g ( R / R ) Final Age diagram Final Age - MIST models Nebular Spectra Progenitor Constraints Shock Cooling Log(R/R ) 4.45 4.50 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.70 4.75 4.80 4.85 L o g ( L u m / L ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The terminal radius and luminosity from stars evolution tracks in function of the stars initial masses post-explosion, and optical data with good cadence ex￾tending to the later phases (up to approximately 350 days). We take advantage of this extensive coverage to reconstruct the bolometric luminosity of SN 2022acko. We used the extrabol software (Thornton et al. 2024), a python-based package that employs … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The bolometric luminosity (orange circles) de￾rived using extrabol for SN 2022acko. We also displays the parametric light curve model from Valenti et al. 2016 fitted in our results (solid blue line) for MJD > 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SN 2022acko Keck spectra (grey lines) from September 2023 (a), January 2024 (b), and August 2024 (c) at 275, 396, and 612 days from rest frame explosion date, respectively. We compare both spectra with nebular models from Jerkstrand et al. (2018) and (Jerkstrand et al. 2014) (upper pannels), and Dessart et al. (2021) (lower pan￾nels). Within each panel, we show an inset zoomed in on the [Oi] λλ6300, 6364 l… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Posterior estimation for the MSW23 model over the early light curve of SN 2021yja. The blue distributions represent the results using the full multi-band light curve from Hosseinzadeh et al. (2022). ZThe golden distributions correspond to the estimation where the first day of observa￾tion was omitted from the light curve. Bertin, E. 2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together, Astrophysics … view at source ↗

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

96 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    3n gz 1:uXBwW<\'&o ]v[ [6f

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

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    S., Lee, J

    Anand, G. S., Lee, J. C., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 3621, 10.1093/mnras/staa3668

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3668 2020

  3. [4]

    2024 b , , 965, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49

    ---. 2024 b , , 965, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49 2024

  4. [5]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Arcavi , I. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer International Publishing), 239, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_39

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_39 2017

  5. [6]

    A., Badenes, C., et al

    Auchettl, K., Lopez, L. A., Badenes, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf395

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf395 2019

  6. [7]

    1979, , 72, 287

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

    1979

  7. [8]

    R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J

    Beasor, E. R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J. E. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3f 2025

  8. [9]

    2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    Bertin , E. 2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    2010

  9. [10]

    2021, A&A, 653, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140525

    Blagorodnova, Nadejda , Klencki, Jakub , Pejcha, Ondřej , et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140525

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140525 2021

  10. [11]

    2014, , 782, 98, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/98

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

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

  11. [12]

    A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 953, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c 2023

  12. [13]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 1031, 10.1086/673168

    doi:10.1086/673168 2013

  13. [14]

    Burrows , A., Hayes , J., & Fryxell , B. A. 1995, , 450, 830, 10.1086/176188

    doi:10.1086/176188 1995

  14. [15]

    M., Stanway, E

    Byrne, C. M., Stanway, E. R., Eldridge, J. J., McSwiney, L., & Townsend, O. T. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 5329, 10.1093/mnras/stac807

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac807 2022

  15. [16]

    J., Hillier, D

    Childress, M. J., Hillier, D. J., Seitenzahl, I., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3816, 10.1093/mnras/stv2173

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2173 2015

  16. [17]

    2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  17. [18]

    Davies , B., & Beasor , E. R. 2018, , 474, 2116, 10.1093/mnras/stx2734

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2734 2018

  18. [19]

    Davies, B., & Beasor, E. R. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 468, 10.1093/mnras/staa174

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa174 2020

  19. [20]

    A., & Beasor, E

    Davies, B., Crowther, P. A., & Beasor, E. R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 3138, 10.1093/mnras/sty1302

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1302 2018

  20. [21]

    J., Sukhbold , T., Woosley , S

    Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., Sukhbold , T., Woosley , S. E., & Janka , H. T. 2021, , 652, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140839

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140839 2021

  21. [22]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin , A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    2016

  22. [23]

    Dyk, S. D. V. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 375, 10.1098/rsta.2016.0277

    arXiv 2017

  23. [24]

    2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 36, e041

    Eldridge, J., Guo, N.-Y., Rodrigues, N., Stanway, E., & Xiao, L. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 36, e041

    2019

  24. [25]

    J., Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., Stanway , E. R., Xiao , L., et al. 2017, , 34, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  25. [26]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 148, Origins, ed. C. E. Woodward , J. M. Shull , & J. Thronson , Harley A., 150, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712352

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9712352 1998

  26. [27]

    M., Phillips , A

    Faber , S. M., Phillips , A. C., Kibrick , R. I., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood , 1657--1669, 10.1117/12.460346

    doi:10.1117/12.460346 2003

  27. [28]

    W., & Arnett, W

    Falk, S. W., & Arnett, W. D. 1973, The Astrophysical Journal, 180, L65, 10.1086/181154

    doi:10.1086/181154 1973

  28. [29]

    J., & Maeda , K

    Fang , Q., Moriya , T. J., & Maeda , K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.14502. 2504.14502

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    2024, A&A, 687, L20, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450440

    Ferrari, Lucía , Folatelli, Gastón , Ertini, Keila , Kuncarayakti, Hanindyo , & Andrews, Jennifer E. 2024, A&A, 687, L20, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450440

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450440 2024

  30. [31]

    Filippenko , A. V. 1997, , 35, 309, 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 1997

  31. [32]

    L., Belczynski , K., Wiktorowicz , G., et al

    Fryer , C. L., Belczynski , K., Wiktorowicz , G., et al. 2012, , 749, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/91 2012

  32. [33]

    M., et al

    Galbany , L., Hamuy , M., Phillips , M. M., et al. 2016, , 151, 33, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/33

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/33 2016

  33. [34]

    2008, , 486, 951, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson , B., Edvardsson , B., Eriksson , K., et al. 2008, , 486, 951, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 2008

  34. [35]

    2003, , 582, 905, 10.1086/344689

    Hamuy , M. 2003, , 582, 905, 10.1086/344689

    doi:10.1086/344689 2003

  35. [36]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 288, 10.1086/375341

    doi:10.1086/375341 2003

  36. [37]

    A., & Gomez, S

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Bostroem, K. A., & Gomez, S. 2023 a , Light Curve Fitting, v0.9.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.8049154

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.8049154 2023

  37. [38]

    D., Dong, Y., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Kilpatrick, C. D., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75f0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75f0 2022

  38. [39]

    2023 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 953, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace4c4

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Farah, J., Shrestha, M., et al. 2023 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 953, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace4c4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace4c4 2023

  39. [40]

    M., & Davidson , K

    Humphreys , R. M., & Davidson , K. 1979, , 232, 409, 10.1086/157301

    doi:10.1086/157301 1979

  40. [41]

    E., Sand , D

    Jencson , J. E., Sand , D. J., Andrews , J. E., et al. 2022, , 930, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac626c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac626c 2022

  41. [42]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Jerkstrand , A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer International Publishing), 795, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_29

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_29 2017

  42. [43]

    T., et al

    Jerkstrand , A., Ertl , T., Janka , H. T., et al. 2018, , 475, 277, 10.1093/mnras/stx2877

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2877 2018

  43. [44]

    J., Fraser , M., et al

    Jerkstrand , A., Smartt , S. J., Fraser , M., et al. 2014, , 439, 3694, 10.1093/mnras/stu221

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu221 2014

  44. [45]

    , Fransson, C

    Jerkstrand, A. , Fransson, C. , Maguire, K. , et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219528

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219528 2012

  45. [46]

    Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 2205, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2205

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/2205 2009

  46. [47]

    J., & Nakamura , K

    Katsuda , S., Takiwaki , T., Tominaga , N., Moriya , T. J., & Nakamura , K. 2018, , 863, 127, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d8 2018

  47. [48]

    Kilpatrick , C. D. 2021, charliekilpatrick/hst123: hst123 , v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.5573941

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5573941 2021

  48. [49]

    D., & Rubin , D

    Kilpatrick , C. D., & Rubin , D. 2023, charliekilpatrick/forwardmodel: forwardmodel , v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.8060639

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8060639 2023

  49. [50]

    D., Izzo, L., Bentley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Izzo, L., Bentley, R. O., et al. 2023 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2161

    2023

  50. [51]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Jacobson-Galán, W. V., et al. 2023 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace4ca

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace4ca 2023

  51. [52]

    M., Graziani, R., et al

    Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H. M., Graziani, R., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 67, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab620e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab620e 2020

  52. [53]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Labrie , K., Allen , C., Hirst , P., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7737, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems III, ed. D. R. Silva , A. B. Peck , & B. T. Soifer , 77371U, 10.1117/12.857370

    work page doi:10.1117/12.857370 2010

  53. [54]

    M., & Massey , P

    Levesque , E. M., & Massey , P. 2020, , 891, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7935

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7935 2020

  54. [55]

    2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-3549, 1

    Li , L., Cai , Y., Zhai , Q., Zhang , J., & Wang , X. 2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-3549, 1

    2022

  55. [56]

    2024, , 270, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1

    Limongi , M., Roberti , L., Chieffi , A., & Nomoto , K. 2024, , 270, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1 2024

  56. [57]

    2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Makovoz , D., & Khan , I. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 81

    2005

  57. [58]

    P., Bersten , M

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142555 2022

  58. [59]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    McGregor , P., Hart , J., Stevanovic , D., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 1033--1044, 10.1117/12.550288

    work page doi:10.1117/12.550288 2004

  59. [60]

    2019, , 489, 241, 10.1093/mnras/stz1985

    Mendes de Oliveira , C., Ribeiro , T., Schoenell , W., et al. 2019, , 489, 241, 10.1093/mnras/stz1985

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1985 2019

  60. [61]

    A., et al

    Meza-Retamal , N., Dong , Y., Bostroem , K. A., et al. 2024, , 971, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d55

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d55 2024

  61. [62]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 2764, 10.1093/mnras/stad899

    Morag, J., Sapir, N., & Waxman, E. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 2764, 10.1093/mnras/stad899

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad899 2023

  62. [63]

    L., Pejcha , O., & Clocchiatti , A

    M \"u ller , T., Prieto , J. L., Pejcha , O., & Clocchiatti , A. 2017, , 841, 127, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72f1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa72f1 2017

  63. [64]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107, 375, 10.1086/133562

    doi:10.1086/133562 1995

  64. [65]

    Popov , D. V. 1993, , 414, 712, 10.1086/173117

    doi:10.1086/173117 1993

  65. [66]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska , J., Hennawi , J., Westfall , K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, 10.21105/joss.02308

    doi:10.21105/joss.02308 2020

  66. [67]

    2014, , 437, 2361, 10.1093/mnras/stt2054

    Rigaut , F., Neichel , B., Boccas , M., et al. 2014, , 437, 2361, 10.1093/mnras/stt2054

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2054 2014

  67. [68]

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

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 2005

  68. [69]

    , Falcón-Barroso, J

    Rosado-Belza, D. , Falcón-Barroso, J. , Knapen, J. H. , et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039530

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039530 2020

  69. [70]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 693, 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/008

    Sahijpal , S. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 693, 10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/008

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/008 2014

  70. [71]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 59

    Santos, A., Kilpatrick, C., Bom, C., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 59

    2024

  71. [72]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa64df

    Sapir, N., & Waxman, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa64df

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa64df 2017

  72. [73]

    S., et al

    Scheuermann, F., Kreckel, K., Anand, G. S., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 6087, 10.1093/mnras/stac110

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac110 2022

  73. [74]

    J., Tully, R

    Shaya, E. J., Tully, R. B., Hoffman, Y., & Pomarède, D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 207, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9525

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9525 2017

  74. [76]

    A., Sand , D

    Shrestha , M., Bostroem , K. A., Sand , D. J., et al. 2024 a , , 972, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6907

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6907 2024

  75. [77]

    2024 b , , 961, 247, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11e1

    Shrestha , M., Pearson , J., Wyatt , S., et al. 2024 b , , 961, 247, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11e1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad11e1 2024

  76. [78]

    Smartt , S. J. 2009, , 47, 63, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737

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

  77. [79]

    Smartt, S. J. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 32, e016, 10.1017/pasa.2015.17

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2015.17 2015

  78. [80]

    2014, , 52, 487, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith , N. 2014, , 52, 487, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 2014

  79. [81]

    J., & Lundqvist , P

    Sollerman , J., Cumming , R. J., & Lundqvist , P. 1998, , 493, 933, 10.1086/305163

    doi:10.1086/305163 1998

  80. [82]

    2021, , 655, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141374

    Sollerman , J., Yang , S., Schulze , S., et al. 2021, , 655, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141374

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141374 2021

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.