Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Shock breakout from mildly relativistic ejecta in a dense wind: the case of EP260321a/SN~2026gzf

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read EP260321a's prompt X-ray light curve is best explained as shock breakout emission from a supernova shock emerging from a dense wind, yielding a wind density A*≈120 and a CSM mass of about 10⁻⁵ M☉.

desk verdict Credible wind-SBO interpretation of EP260321a; qualitative picture holds, but the headline parameter values are hostage to the assumed outer ejecta slope n=5. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24045 v1 pith:7OKBGKHG submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.HE

Akihiro Suzuki , Keiichi Maeda , Toshikazu Shigeyama This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords shockbreakoutcircumstellarmediumwinddensitystripped-envelopesupernovaX-raytransientEP260321aSN2026gzfmassloss
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

This paper aims to establish that the rapidly rising, long-lasting X-ray burst EP260321a is the shock breakout of a supernova into a dense, wind-like circumstellar medium, rather than a jet or more exotic engine. Using a semi-analytic thin-shell model that tracks the interaction of mildly relativistic ejecta with an r⁻² wind, the authors reproduce the observed luminosity, duration, and decline of the prompt X-ray emission. They infer a high-velocity envelope with kinetic energy ~3.5×10⁴⁹ erg, a wind density parameter A*≈120 (mass-loss rate ~1.2×10⁻³ M☉ yr⁻¹ for a 1000 km/s wind), and an outer CSM radius ~350 R☉, corresponding to a small CSM mass ~10⁻⁵ M☉. The importance is that such breakout observations could offer a sensitive probe of mass loss from stripped-envelope supernova progenitors in the final days before core collapse.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the thin-shell approximation: the shocked ejecta and shocked CSM are treated as a single geometrically thin shell whose mass and momentum evolve under conservation equations, with relativistic kinematics. The ejecta is described by a broken power law in four-velocity with outer slope n=5, and the CSM by a steady wind profile truncated at an outer radius R_out. Radiation is followed via diffusion with an effective opacity of 0.2 cm² g⁻¹, and the emergent light curve includes equal-arrival-time-surface corrections. This machinery determines how the shell radius, velocity, optical depth, and temperature evolve, and connects these to the observable light curve.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the ejecta's outer density slope from early optical spectra of SN 2026gzf would settle the quantitative claims: if the slope is ~6.1–6.4 rather than 5, the inferred A*, mass-loss rate, and CSM mass would shift substantially, ruling out the specific values E_rel≈3.5×10⁴⁹ erg, A*≈120, and M_CSM≈10⁻⁵ M☉ even if the qualitative wind-breakout scenario remains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed X-ray transient EP260321a is naturally explained as shock breakout occurring within a dense circumstellar wind. In this picture, a supernova shock driven by mildly relativistic ejecta (maximum Lorentz factor ~1.5, kinetic energy ~3.5×10⁴⁹ erg) becomes radiative as it plows through an r⁻² density profile with A*≈120, and the light curve's rise and decline track the shell's deceleration inside the wind and its emergence from the wind's outer boundary at ~350 R☉. The model reproduces the overall luminosity, burst duration, and late-time decline, and yields a CSM mass of about 10⁻⁵ M☉. The paper further argues that such wind-breakout events occupy a

Load-bearing premise

The assumed outer density slope of the ejecta (n=5); the shell's breakout velocity and hence the inferred wind density and CSM mass depend sensitively on this slope, and steeper slopes (n≈6.1–6.4) from spectral fits remain viable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the wind-breakout interpretation is correct, EP260321a implies that its stripped-envelope progenitor lost mass at ~10⁻³ M☉ yr⁻¹ just ~3 days before core collapse (for a 1000 km/s wind), placing the enhanced mass loss in the silicon-burning phase.
  • The small inferred CSM mass (~10⁻⁵ M☉) means even modest mass loss can produce detectable X-ray breakouts, expanding the predicted discovery space of wide-field X-ray surveys.
  • The model places EP260321a between SN 2008D and the low-luminosity GRB population in the radiated-energy vs. burst-duration plane, suggesting a continuum of breakout events rather than distinct physical classes.
  • The inferred breakout velocity of ~0.3–0.4c implies that early optical spectra of SN 2026gzf may reveal high-velocity ejecta components faster than the ~0.1c measured later, providing a test of the model's ejecta structure.
  • The required energy to unbind the inferred CSM is far below the wave-heating energy available during late nuclear burning, so the derived mass-loss rate offers a direct constraint on the efficiency of wave-driven mass loss in stripped-envelope stars.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the outer ejecta density slope is steeper than n=5 (as some spectral fits suggest n≈6.1–6.4), the breakout velocity drops and the required CSM mass rises substantially; the qualitative wind-breakout picture would survive, but the quantitative constraints on mass loss and ejecta energy would need revision.
  • The model assumes spherical symmetry; the observed delayed sharp peak could be a signature of aspherical breakout or a shell-like CSM, and multidimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of this event would clarify whether such deviations are required.
  • The small blackbody radius inferred from X-ray spectra, compared with the large model shell radius, suggests that single-temperature blackbody fits underestimate the true emitting area; non-LTE spectral synthesis of breakout emission would be needed to extract reliable physical parameters from future events.
  • A testable extension: if the wind is as dense and extended as inferred, early ultraviolet observations of similar events should reveal a bright UV counterpart peaking before the X-rays, providing an independent check on the CSM configuration.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies a semi-analytic, relativistic thin-shell shock-breakout model, developed in the authors' previous work, to the fast X-ray transient EP260321a/SN 2026gzf. It argues that the observed X-ray light curve is consistent with a shock breakout occurring in a dense, wind-like CSM, and infers a high-velocity ejecta energy E_rel ~ 3.5e49 erg, a CSM density parameter A* ~ 120, an outer radius R_out ~ 350 R_sun, a mass-loss rate Mdot ~ 1.2e-3 (v_w/1e3 km/s) M_sun/yr, and a CSM mass M_CSM ~ 1e-5 M_sun. The paper also discusses the spectral tension (LTE temperatures lower than observed blackbody temperatures), the dependence of the inferred CSM mass on the assumed outer ejecta density slope, and the broader context of SBO and llGRB populations.

Significance. If the wind-breakout interpretation is correct, EP260321a would be an important addition to the small sample of X-ray shock breakouts, bridging ordinary SBOs such as SN 2008D and low-luminosity GRBs. The paper's model is anchored in a formalism previously validated against relativistic hydrodynamic simulations, and the parameter-grid study (Fig. 3) provides a useful phenomenological framework. The authors are also candid about several limitations, including the non-LTE spectral problem and the sensitivity of the CSM mass to the outer density slope. However, the central quantitative claims rest on a by-eye fit and on an assumed outer ejecta slope n=5 that the cited spectral models do not uniquely support, so the headline values are less secure than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3.2 and Eq. (1)] The abstract and Section 5 state that the observed emission 'requires' Mdot~1.2e-3 M_sun/yr and M_CSM~1e-5 M_sun, but Section 4.3.2 explicitly acknowledges that the CSM mass depends sensitively on the assumed outer density slope n, and that alternative slopes cannot be ruled out. The independent spectral models cited by the authors favor n~6.1-6.4, while the fiducial model adopts n=5. A steeper slope lowers the breakout velocity and shifts A*, Mdot, and M_CSM upward by an order of magnitude in the extreme n~10 case discussed in the text. This is load-bearing because the mass-loss rate and CSM mass are headline results. Please provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis to n (and to Gamma_max) or soften the abstract/summary claims accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Figure 2] The light-curve comparison is qualitative: no error bars are shown on the synthetic curves, no fit statistic is given, and the observed WXT rise is visibly sharper than the model, as admitted in Section 4.1. Given that the parameters E_rel, A*, R_out are tuned to this light curve, the statements 'remarkable agreement' and 'naturally accounts for the overall evolution' overstate the evidence. A quantitative comparison (e.g., chi-square or residual plot) and an explicit discussion of how the rise discrepancy affects the inferred parameter ranges are needed to support the central claim.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Figure 1] The model's LTE equilibrium temperature remains below ~1e6 K during the epochs that dominate the observed X-ray emission, while the observed blackbody temperature is kT~100-140 eV (~1.2-1.6e6 K). The authors correctly note this as a non-LTE issue, but the paper then uses the observed Planck spectrum to convert 0.4-2 keV fluxes into bolometric fluxes. If non-LTE effects alter the spectral shape, the bolometric correction itself could be biased, which would affect the light-curve comparison and inferred energetics. Please justify that the bolometric light curve is robust to non-LTE spectral formation, or model the X-ray band explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'scatering', 'forard', 'Lorenz', 'systhetic', 'Feiive-locities' in Sections 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and 4.1. A careful proofread is recommended.
  2. [Figure 3] The caption states that A* varies from 1 to 10^3, but individual model lines are not labeled with A* values, making it difficult to read the parameter grids. Adding labels or a color bar would help.
  3. [Section 2.1] The notation 'Gamma_br beta_br' is used both for the break four-velocity and as a product in Eq. (1). Please clarify the notation and state explicitly that the break is at four-velocity 0.1.
  4. [Section 3.4.1] The comparison between E_rad/t_burst and E_iso/T90 is acknowledged to be approximate, but the text could explicitly note that bolometric corrections for GRBs and X-ray transients differ, so the population separation in Figure 3 is only indicative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model parameters are fit to the observed light curve, and the paper's quantitative statements are explicit model-dependent inferences, not disguised predictions.

full rationale

The paper applies a previously developed and hydrodynamically validated thin-shell SBO model (Suzuki et al. 2017, 2019) to a new transient. The parameters E_rel, A*, R_out, and Gamma_max are free and are varied to reproduce the WXT/FXT light curve (Section 3); the narrative correctly describes this as modeling/fitting ('the model parameters are set to ... which are later shown to reproduce the observed light curve'). The E_rad–t_burst diagram (Section 3.4) is not used as an independent prediction test; it is a parameter-estimation diagnostic, and the observed point is derived from the same light curve, so no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The n=5 outer-slope choice is justified by external simulations and spectral modeling (with some self-citations), but the paper explicitly quantifies the sensitivity of M_CSM to this assumption and cites independent spectral fits favoring n≈6.1–6.4 (Section 4.3.2), so the claim is conditional rather than circular. The spectral LTE temperature discrepancy (Section 4.2) is an actual falsifiable mismatch, the opposite of circularity. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained and the quoted parameters are best-fit values with stated caveats.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central parameter constraints are obtained by tuning six quantities (Γmax, E_rel, A*, R_out, n, and the v_w scale) to match a single bolometric light curve. The model structure itself is externally anchored to prior work and hydrodynamics, and no new physical entities are introduced. The dominant fragility is the adopted outer density slope n=5 and the spherical wind assumption.

free parameters (6)
  • Γmax (maximum Lorentz factor of outer ejecta) = 1.5
    Free parameter in §2.1; chosen by light-curve rise (§3.3.1), but models with Γmax=3.0 or 5.0 with adjusted E_rel and A* are described as similarly good.
  • E_rel (initial kinetic energy of high-velocity ejecta) = 3.5×10^49 erg
    Free parameter in §2.1, Eq. (2); controls the overall luminosity scale (§3.3.2).
  • A* (CSM density parameter) = 120
    Free parameter in §2.1, Eq. (3); controls rise and duration through optical depth (§3.3.3).
  • R_out (CSM outer radius) = 350 R_sun
    Free parameter in §2.1; sets the decline epoch when the shock emerges (§3.3.3).
  • n (outer ejecta density slope) = 5
    Chosen by hand in §2.1; the inferred CSM mass depends sensitively on it (§4.3.2), so it is effectively a fitted/adopted parameter.
  • v_w (wind velocity scale) = 10^3 km/s (assumed)
    The reported M_dot scales linearly with v_w; the model does not constrain v_w independently.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Homologous expansion with a broken power-law density profile in four-velocity (Eq. 1).
    Standard for SN ejecta, but the break velocity is fixed at Γβ=0.1 based on optical line velocities, and the profile shape is not tested.
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry of ejecta and CSM.
    Adopted throughout; Section 4.1 explicitly discusses possible departures from spherical symmetry as an alternative explanation for the delayed peak.
  • domain assumption Thin-shell approximation is valid for the shocked ejecta+CSM layer.
    Carried from Suzuki et al. 2017, where it was tested against relativistic hydrodynamic simulations; not re-validated here.
  • domain assumption Wind-like CSM with ρ_w = A r^-2 truncated at R_out.
    A simple steady-wind prescription; Section 4.1 admits shell-like or more complex CSM structures are possible and would change the light curve.
  • domain assumption Constant effective opacity κ_eff = 0.2 cm²/g.
    Electron-scattering opacity for fully ionized, hydrogen-free material; bound-free and line opacity ignored.
  • domain assumption Shock energy is immediately thermalized and escapes via diffusion; LTE is assumed for radiation temperature.
    Used for bolometric light-curve calculation; Section 4.2 states LTE is insufficient for the observed X-ray spectra, requiring non-LTE effects.
  • domain assumption The massive slow ejecta below β≈0.1 contributes negligibly to the SBO signal.
    Stated in Section 2.1; only the fast outer envelope is modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shock breakout from mildly relativistic ejecta in a dense wind: the case of EP260321a/SN~2026gzf." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7OKBGKHG

@misc{pith2026260724045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shock breakout from mildly relativistic ejecta in a dense wind: the case of EP260321a/SN~2026gzf},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7OKBGKHG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24045}
}
abstract

We present shock breakout (SBO) modeling of the recently discovered X-ray transient EP260321a detected by the \textit{Einstein Probe} mission. Our semi-analytic model, based on our previous work, follows the interaction between a supernova ejecta with a mildly relativistic outer envelope and a dense, wind-like circumstellar medium (CSM) by using a thin-shell approximation that incorporates relativistic effects. We find that the observed properties of the X-ray emission are well explained by the breakout emission powered by a high-velocity envelope with a kinetic energy of $\sim3.5\times10^{49}\,\mathrm{erg}$ (excluding the supernova ejecta) and a dense wind characterized by a mass-loss rate of $\dot{M}\simeq1.2\times 10^{-3}(v_\mathrm{w}/10^3\,\mathrm{km\,s}^{-1})\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, where $v_\mathrm{w}$ is the wind velocity. The observed burst duration requires the dense CSM to extend up to $\sim350\,R_\odot$, corresponding to a CSM mass of $\sim 10^{-5}\,M_\odot$. These results demonstrate that SBO observations provide a sensitive probe of mass loss from stripped-envelope supernova progenitors shortly before core collapse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24045 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal evolution of the shell properties. The shell radius, the velocity, the optical thickness, and the equi￾librium temperature are plotted as a function of the delay time t − Rsh/c from top to bottom. In each panel, two characteristic epochs, corresponding to the optically thick- -to-thin transition and the shock emergence from the CSM outer radius, are indicated by the vertial lines (dashed and dash-dotted). b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Synthetic bolometric light curves compared with observations of EP260321a. In each panel, the bolometric luminosity inferred from WXT and FXT observations are plotted (circles and squares). The fiducial model is presented by a solid line, while models assuming different values of Γmax, Erel, A∗, and Rout (from top to bottom) are presented for highlighting the parameter dependence. fluxes to bolometric fluxes by assu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Theoretical model grids in the radiated energy vs burst duration plane. The uppper left panel shows the isotropic equivalent radiated energies and the burst duration for known GRBs and X-ray transients (Eiso and T90 for GRBs), which include classical GRBs from Swift observations (dots) GRBs associated with SNe (circcles), llGRBs (squares), and X-ray transients (diamond: XRF080107, star: EP260321a). The panel also in… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afsariardchi, N., & Matzner, C. D. 2018, ApJ, 856, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3d4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab3d4 2018

  2. [2]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 083049, doi: 10.1103/4nlw-hgl8

    Ai, S., & Tamborra, I. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 083049, doi: 10.1103/4nlw-hgl8

    work page doi:10.1103/4nlw-hgl8 2026

  3. [3]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/63

    Budnik, R., Katz, B., Sagiv, A., & Waxman, E. 2010, ApJ, 725, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/63

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/63 2010

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Campana, S., Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008, doi: 10.1038/nature04892

    doi:10.1038/nature04892 2006

  5. [5]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10009

    Chen, T.-W., Aryan, A., Yang, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10009. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10009

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    2026, ApJ, 999, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3f1e

    Chen, W.-Y., Chen, K.-J., Maeda, K., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3f1e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3f1e 2026

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de3

    Chen, W.-Y., Chen, K.-J., & Ono, M. 2024, ApJ, 976, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7de3 2024

  8. [8]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790, doi: 10.1086/160126

    doi:10.1086/160126 1982

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2008, ApJL, 683, L135, doi: 10.1086/591522

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Colgate, S. A. 1974, ApJ, 187, 333, doi: 10.1086/152632

    1974 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Pooley, D., Wheeler, J

    Couch, S. M., Pooley, D., Wheeler, J. C., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2011, ApJ, 727, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/104

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Falk, S. W. 1978, ApJL, 225, L133, doi: 10.1086/182810

    1978 doi

  5. [13]

    W., & Arnett, W

    Falk, S. W., & Arnett, W. D. 1973, ApJL, 180, L65, doi: 10.1086/181154

    1973 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty369

    Fuller, J., & Ro, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty369

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1

    Gao, H.-X., Geng, J.-J., Liang, Y.-F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/18

    Ginzburg, S., & Balberg, S. 2014, ApJ, 780, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/18

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Haynie, A., & Piro, A. L. 2021, ApJ, 910, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe938

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

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

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 3502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz270

    Ioka, K., Levinson, A., & Nakar, E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz270

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    M., & Chevalier, R

    Irwin, C. M., & Chevalier, R. A. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1058

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    M., & Hotokezaka, K

    Irwin, C. M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2025a, MNRAS, 542, 1269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1309

    doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Hotokezaka, K

    Irwin, C. M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2025b, MNRAS, 541, L85, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf057 13

    doi

  17. [25]

    M., & Hotokezaka, K

    Irwin, C. M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2025c, MNRAS, 543, 2917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1618

    doi

  18. [26]

    M., Linial, I., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R

    Irwin, C. M., Linial, I., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2705

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 4961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3125

    Ito, H., Levinson, A., & Nakar, E. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3125

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag389

    Ito, H., Levinson, A., Nakar, E., & Nagataki, S. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag389

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & Nagataki, S

    Ito, H., Levinson, A., Stern, B. E., & Nagataki, S. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2722

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    Izzo, L., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Maeda, K., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2010, ApJ, 716, 781, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/781

    Katz, B., Budnik, R., & Waxman, E. 2010, ApJ, 716, 781, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/781

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    I., & Chevalier, R

    Klein, R. I., & Chevalier, R. A. 1978, ApJL, 223, L109, doi: 10.1086/182740

    1978 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Harrison, F

    Kulkarni, S. R., Harrison, F. A., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    2021 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2008, PhRvL, 100, 131101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.131101

    Levinson, A., & Bromberg, O. 2008, PhRvL, 100, 131101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.131101

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    2007, MNRAS, 375, 240, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11286.x

    Li, L.-X. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 240, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11286.x

    2007

  29. [37]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1075

    Maeda, K., Suzuki, A., & Izzo, L. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1075

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    2004, ApJL, 609, L5, doi: 10.1086/422684

    Malesani, D., Tagliaferri, G., Chincarini, G., et al. 2004, ApJL, 609, L5, doi: 10.1086/422684

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Leung, J

    Martin-Carrillo, A., Th¨ one, C. C., Leung, J. K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10002. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10002

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D., Levin, Y., & Ro, S

    Matzner, C. D., Levin, Y., & Ro, S. 2013, ApJ, 779, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/60

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    D., & McKee, C

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

    1999 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Iwamoto, K., & Nomoto, K

    Mazzali, P. A., Iwamoto, K., & Nomoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 545, 407, doi: 10.1086/317808

    2000 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Valenti, S., Della Valle, M., et al

    Mazzali, P. A., Valenti, S., Della Valle, M., et al. 2008, Science, 321, 1185, doi: 10.1126/science.1158088

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    2012, A&A, 547, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219879

    Melandri, A., Pian, E., Ferrero, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219879

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, ApJ, 702, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/226

    Modjaz, M., Li, W., Butler, N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/226

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    2006, ApJ, 645, 431, doi: 10.1086/504025

    Nakamura, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2006, ApJ, 645, 431, doi: 10.1086/504025

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 904, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2010, ApJ, 725, 904, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    2012, ApJ, 747, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/88 O’Connor, B., Hall, X

    Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2012, ApJ, 747, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/88 O’Connor, B., Hall, X. J., Busmann, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.09992. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09992

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa482

    Ohtani, Y., Suzuki, A., Shigeyama, T., & Tanaka, M. 2018, ApJ, 853, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa482

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Srinivasaragavan, G., Sarin, N., et al

    Rastinejad, J. C., Srinivasaragavan, G., Sarin, N., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10011. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10011

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    2014, A&A, 566, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423387

    Schulze, S., Malesani, D., Cucchiara, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423387

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    2024a, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    doi

  45. [53]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Berger, E., et al. 2004, Nature, 430, 648, doi: 10.1038/nature02757

    2004 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1014, doi: 10.1038/nature05087

    2006 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Berger, E., Page, K

    Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2008, Nature, 453, 469, doi: 10.1038/nature06997

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    M., & Maeda, K

    Suzuki, A., Irwin, C. M., & Maeda, K. 2024, PASJ, 76, 863, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae055

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ad3

    Suzuki, A., & Maeda, K. 2019, ApJ, 880, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ad3

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d8d

    Suzuki, A., & Maeda, K. 2022, ApJ, 925, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d8d

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 92, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/92

    Suzuki, A., Maeda, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2016, ApJ, 825, 92, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/92

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/32

    Suzuki, A., Maeda, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2017, ApJ, 834, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/32

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef85

    Suzuki, A., Maeda, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2019, ApJ, 870, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef85

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    2010, ApJL, 717, L154, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/2/L154

    Suzuki, A., & Shigeyama, T. 2010, ApJL, 717, L154, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/2/L154

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    2014a, ApJ, 788, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/113

    Svirski, G., & Nakar, E. 2014a, ApJ, 788, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/113

    doi

  56. [64]

    2014b, ApJL, 788, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L14

    Svirski, G., & Nakar, E. 2014b, ApJL, 788, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L14

    doi

  57. [65]

    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

  58. [66]

    G., Blinnikov, S

    Tolstov, A. G., Blinnikov, S. I., & Nadyozhin, D. K. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts577

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    2007, ApJ, 659, 1420, doi: 10.1086/512481

    Toma, K., Ioka, K., Sakamoto, T., & Nakamura, T. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1420, doi: 10.1086/512481

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Waxman, E., & Katz, B. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 967, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 33

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    2007, ApJ, 667, 351, doi: 10.1086/520715

    Waxman, E., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Campana, S. 2007, ApJ, 667, 351, doi: 10.1086/520715

    2007 doi

  62. [70]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.18881

    Wen, X., Yang, Y., Lu, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.18881. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18881 14

    2026 arXiv

  63. [71]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    Wu, S., & Fuller, J. 2021, ApJ, 906, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    2008, in 37th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol

    Xu, D., Watson, D., Fynbo, J., et al. 2008, in 37th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol. 37, 3512, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0801.4325

    2008 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y., & Ling, Z. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 86, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 151-1

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10014

    Yuan, W., Huang, Q.-J., Zhu, J.-P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10014. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10014

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.