Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 101 references

Twin peaks: SN 2021uvy and SN 2022hgk in the landscape of double-peaked stripped envelope supernovae

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across a twelve-object sample of double-peaked stripped-envelope supernovae, the absolute magnitudes of the two peaks are correlated, and the paper proposes a two-parameter phase space, ΔM21 versus Δt21, for identifying what powers each…

desk verdict A genuinely useful two-object study plus a homogeneous 12-object sample, but the peak-brightness correlation is not yet secure because the selection function is unmodeled. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03822 v1 pith:DLZZRUGR submitted 2025-07-04 astro-ph.HE

Yashvi Sharma , Jesper Sollerman , William Meynardie , Christoffer Fremling , Kaustav K. Das , Gene Yun , Shrinivas R. Kulkarni , Steve Schulze
show 20 more authors
Jacob Wise Seán. J. Brennan Thomas G. Brink Michael W. Coughlin Richard Dekany Matthew J. Graham K. R. Hinds Viraj Karambelkar Mansi M. Kasliwal Maggie L. Li Kira Nolan Daniel A. Perley Josiah N. Purdum Sam Rose Ben Rusholme Tawny Sit Anastasios Tzanidakis Avery Wold Lin Yan Yuhan Yao
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovae:generalstripped-envelopesupernovaedouble-peakedlightcurvesSN2021uvy2022hgksupernovapoweringmechanismsmagnetarenergyinjectiondouble-nickeldistribution
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

Double-peaked stripped-envelope supernovae—exploding stars that brighten twice—have usually been analyzed one at a time, each with its own ad hoc power source. This paper treats them as a class, adding two well-observed objects (SN 2021uvy and SN 2022hgk) to a sample of ten published events and measuring the same light-curve parameters for all of them. Its central finding is that the absolute magnitudes of the first and second peaks are correlated (p ≈ 0.005 in the main analysis), so a brighter first peak tends to be followed by a brighter second peak. It also argues that no single mechanism powers the whole class, but that the combination of the magnitude difference between peaks and the rest-frame time between them splits the sample into subgroups consistent with double-nickel distribution, magnetar spin-down, circumstellar interaction, and fallback accretion.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is the two-parameter phase space ΔM21–Δt21: ΔM21 = M2pk − M1pk is the difference in absolute magnitudes between the second and first peaks, and Δt21 is the rest-frame time between them, both measured from light curves interpolated with Gaussian-process regression and treated as point estimates. Because different powering mechanisms impose different constraints on these two observables—for example, double-nickel models cannot produce long or highly luminous peaks, and CSM-interaction models require Δt21 ≲ 100 days with a second peak no fainter than the breakout luminosity—the location of an object in this plane is used to narrow down its possible energy source.

What would settle it

Recompute the peak-magnitude correlation treating the lower limits in Table 2 as censored data (survival analysis), or assemble a larger sample with complete photometric coverage of both peaks; if the correlation disappears or drops below significance, the claimed link is not established. A well-observed event with a bright first peak and a much fainter second peak than the correlation predicts would also directly test the relation's universality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's load-bearing claim is that, across its sample of double-peaked stripped-envelope supernovae, the first and second light-curve peaks are not independent: their peak absolute magnitudes correlate with p ≈ 0.005, extending a correlation previously seen in shock-cooling doubles. No single powering mechanism fits all twelve objects, but the sample separates into subgroups—one comprising SNe 2005bf, PTF11mnb, 2019cad, and 2022hgk that matches the double-nickel distribution; a luminous duo (SN 2019stc and SN 2021uvy) whose first peaks suggest a magnetar-plus-radioactivity mix but whose second peaks diverge; a CSM-interacting set (SNe 2018ijp, 2019oys, 2020acct, 2022xxf); the accretion-powered SN 2022jli; and the widely separated pair SNe 2023aew and 2023plg. The paper introduces a phase space of ΔM21 (second minus first peak magnitude) against Δt21 (rest-frame time between peaks) as a way to map these subgroups and to flag which powering mechanisms are viable.

Load-bearing premise

The correlation and phase-space groupings assume that the measured peak brightnesses and peak-to-peak times are accurate point values, even though several are only lower limits; if faint second peaks are systematically missed by the surveys, the reported correlation could be a selection artifact rather than a physical property.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future double-peaked SESNe can be placed in the ΔM21–Δt21 plane to immediately identify the most plausible powering mechanism before detailed modeling.
  • A model for any single event must also explain why the two peak brightnesses are correlated, since the correlation suggests a common factor (likely explosion energy) setting both peaks.
  • The roughly 2.5% rate of clearly double-peaked objects among Type Ibc supernovae means these events are a rare but recurring channel, not isolated freaks.
  • The temperature rise seen during SN 2021uvy's second peak is a concrete observable prediction of the magnetar thermal-injection scenario, and similar temperature monitoring can test that mechanism in other objects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the correlation holds in a larger sample, it suggests an energy-ordering relation: both peak luminosities scale with the same underlying explosion energy, and strong deviations from the relation would flag exotic power sources.
  • The ΔM21–Δt21 plane can be used as a quick classifier: short delay with a brighter second peak points to double-nickel ejecta, long delay with a comparable or brighter first peak points to magnetar or circumstellar interaction—this assignment is testable on the next few well-observed events.
  • The overlap between the double-nickel group and the previously studied shock-cooling doubles in this plane hints that the peak-brightness correlation may be a general property of double-peaked stripped-envelope explosions, independent of what creates the first peak.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a detailed photometric and spectroscopic study of two double-peaked stripped-envelope supernovae, SN 2021uvy and SN 2022hgk, and places them in a 12-object sample of double-peaked SESNe drawn mainly from the ZTF archive. The authors estimate light-curve parameters for the sample, report a correlation between the absolute magnitudes of the first and second peaks (p = 0.005 in Section 4.1, with the abstract quoting p ≈ 0.025), and propose a phase space of peak magnitude difference versus peak-to-peak duration as a way to distinguish candidate powering mechanisms. They argue that SN 2021uvy's second peak is consistent with delayed magnetar-like energy injection and that SN 2022hgk belongs to the double-nickel group exemplified by SN 2005bf, while emphasizing that no single powering mechanism explains the whole class.

Significance. If the reported peak-brightness correlation is genuine, it would provide an organizing property for a heterogeneous and rare class of transients, and the proposed phase space could guide future modeling. The paper also contributes valuable homogeneous ZTF photometry and previously unpublished spectra for several objects, and it makes the data publicly available through Zenodo and WISeREP. The careful use of consistent analysis tools (Superbol, Gaussian-process interpolation, MCMC rise fitting) is a strength. However, the headline statistical claim is currently not robust to the survey selection function, and the paper's own lower limits are treated as exact in one of the supporting figures; these issues must be addressed before the correlation can be accepted as a physical result.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Figure 7 (left)] The p-value = 0.005 for the M2pk–M1pk correlation is computed on the raw 12-object sample without modeling the ZTF selection function. Because the sample is flux-limited and spans z = 0.0034–0.1178 (Table 1), requiring both peaks to be detected imposes a distance-dependent joint truncation on M1pk and M2pk; this can produce a spurious positive correlation even when the two absolute magnitudes are independent. Please add a selection-corrected test (e.g., a survival-analysis Kendall tau, a partial correlation controlling for distance modulus, or a simulation of the null hypothesis that applies the same truncation) and report whether the correlation survives.
  2. [Table 2 / §4.1, Figure 7 (right)] In the right panel of Figure 7, the lower limits on ΔM21 (SN 2019oys: > 0.6; SN 2022jli: > −0.2; SN 2023plg: > −1.5) are plotted as exact values, and these points contribute to the claimed grouping of the double-nickel and other subclasses. This censoring should be shown with arrows and be reflected in any statement about phase-space separation, otherwise the visual grouping is not quantitatively supported. Note that this censoring affects the right panel and the phase-space proposal rather than the left-panel p-value, because ΔM21 is not used in that correlation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. §4.1] The abstract reports p ≈ 0.025 for the peak-magnitude correlation, while Section 4.1 and Figure 7 report p-value = 0.005; please reconcile these values and state the exact test used.
  2. [Table 2] The table uses '-' for unmeasured rise times (e.g., SN 2019oys t1_rise); please add a footnote explaining that these entries mean the quantity could not be constrained, rather than leaving them undefined.
  3. [Figure 3] The caption says the light curves are shifted vertically for clarity, but the y-axis tick labels are omitted; adding axis labels or a legend would help the reader compare the objects.
  4. [§3.2] The definition of ΔM21 and Δt21 is given in the text but not in the Table 2 caption; please state the definitions explicitly there for self-containedness.
  5. [§4.2] Some paragraphs are long and could be split for readability, particularly the discussion of CSM interaction and the paragraph on SN 2023aew in Section 4.2.3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline peak-brightness correlation is an empirical measurement, not a fitted prediction or a self-citation-derived claim.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is the observed correlation between first- and second-peak absolute magnitudes (p = 0.005, §4.1), computed from the light-curve parameters in Table 2. These parameters are measured from photometry via Gaussian-process interpolation and HAFFET; the paper does not fit a model to the target quantity and then re-predict it. The ΔM21–Δt21 phase space (§4.1) is descriptive, not derived from the mechanisms it is used to contextualize. Self-citations to Das et al. (2024) and Sharma et al. (2024) provide comparison data, previously published objects, and prior context, but the quoted p-value is computed from the paper's own sample and does not logically depend on those citations. Potential concerns about lower limits in Table 2 (e.g., SN 2019oys ΔM21 > 0.6, SN 2023plg ΔM21 > −1.5) or distance-dependent selection are statistical validity issues rather than cases where a conclusion is identical to an input by construction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported to force the result, so no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main inferential burden is observational: assuming the photometry, distances, and peak identifications are correct, and that the sample is representative. The analytic mass estimates in Sec 3.2 use published prescriptions (Khatami & Kasen 2019) and are not used for the headline correlation.

free parameters (2)
  • Explosion epoch, SN 2021uvy = MJD 59398.21 ± 2.50
    Fitted from an exponential rise to the first peak (Sec 3.2); affects reported rise times but is not used in the peak-magnitude correlation.
  • Explosion epoch, SN 2022hgk = MJD 59673.80 ± 4.60
    Fitted from a power-law rise (Sec 3.2); same caveat as above.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Host extinction is negligible for SN 2021uvy and SN 2022hgk
    Sec 2.2: absence of Na ID absorption and faint host galaxy lead the authors to set host E(B-V)=0; if patchy host dust exists, absolute magnitudes and the correlation could shift.
  • domain assumption The identified peaks are intrinsic to a single explosion, not unrelated events or contamination
    Sec 3.1: the sample retains objects with 'clearly double-peaked' light curves and relies on prior literature arguments against coincidental alignments; no per-object proof is given.
  • standard math GP regression and scipy find_peaks recover the true peaks from sparse ZTF light curves
    Sec 3.1: interpolation and peak finding are used to define the sample and estimate parameters; cadence gaps can alias peaks, mitigated only by visual vetting.
  • domain assumption Standard cosmology and extinction law (Planck 2020, Fitzpatrick 1999, Schlafly & Finkbeiner 2011)
    Used for all distance moduli, absolute magnitudes, and K-corrections in Sec 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Twin peaks: SN 2021uvy and SN 2022hgk in the landscape of double-peaked stripped envelope supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLZZRUGR

@misc{pith2026250703822,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Twin peaks: SN 2021uvy and SN 2022hgk in the landscape of double-peaked stripped envelope supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLZZRUGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03822}
}
abstract

In recent years, a class of stripped-envelope supernovae (SESNe) showing two distinct light-curve peaks has emerged, where the first peak cannot be attributed to shock cooling emission. Such peculiar SNe are often studied individually, explained by a combination of powering mechanisms, but are rarely discussed broadly as a group. In this paper, we attempt to form a picture of the landscape of double-peaked SESNe and their powering mechanisms by adding two more objects -- SN 2021uvy and SN 2022hgk. SN 2021uvy is a broad, luminous SN Ib with an unusually long first peak rise and constant color evolution with rising photospheric temperature during the second peak. Though its first peak resembles SN 2019stc, their second peaks differ, making SN 2021uvy unique. SN 2022hgk shows photometric similarity to SN 2019cad and spectroscopic similarity to SN 2005bf, both proposed to be powered by a double-nickel distribution in their ejecta. We analyze their light curves and colors, compare them with a sample of double-peaked SESNe from the ZTF archive, and analyze the light curve parameters of the sample. We observe a correlation (p-value~0.025) between the peak absolute magnitudes of the first and second peaks. No single definitive powering mechanism applies to the whole sample, as it shows variety in the photometric and spectroscopic properties. However, sub-groups of similarity exist that can be explained by mechanisms like the double-nickel distribution, magnetar central engine, interaction, and fallback accretion. We also map out the duration between the peaks ($\Delta t^{21}$) vs the difference between peak absolute magnitudes ($\Delta M^{21}$) as a phase-space that could potentially delineate the most promising powering mechanisms for the double-peaked SESNe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03822 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light (top) and color (bottom) curves of SN 2021uvy (left) and SN 2022hgk (right). The 5σ detections are shown with solid markers and 3σ upper limits with transparent markers. All photometry is corrected for MW extinction. Absolute magnitudes are K-corrected (by adding −2.5log10(1 +z)) and obtained using Planck Collaboration et al. (2020) cosmology. The 56Co decay rate (radioactive power) is shown with a dotted gray… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral sequences of SN 2021uvy (left and center) covering epochs from −15 to 384 rest-frame days since its first peak and of SN 2022hgk (right) covering epochs from 17 to 95 rest-frame days since its first peak. Some characteristic spectral lines are marked with vertical gray dashed lines. Spectra are smoothed with a median filter of window size 5. 2011), SciPy (Virtanen et al. 2020), and Mat￾plotlib (Hunter 2007)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Light curves (r-band) of our sample of double￾peaked SESNe, shifted vertically for clarity and with their first peaks aligned. Also shown for comparison are SN 2005bf and PTF11mnb (dashdot lines). All absolute magnitudes have been calculated using the same cosmology. et al. 2018). We obtained the light curves of SNe in our sample following §2.2 and binned them into 3-day bins. The absolute magnitudes of all SNe show… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the bolometric luminosity (top), blackbody temperature (second), blackbody radius (third), and g − r color (bottom) with time of SN 2021uvy (black circles) and SN 2022hgk (blue squares). Shown for compar￾ison are SN 2019cad (red), SN 2019stc (magenta), PS1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left First-peak spectra of SN 2021uvy (black) compared with those of SNe 2019stc (magenta), 2020acct (brown), and PS1-14bj (green), with phases reported with respect to the first peak. Similar to normal SESNe, the first-peak spectra of SNe 2019stc, 2021uvy and PS1-14bj…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top Comparison of nebular spectra of SN 2021uvy (black) with SNe 2019stc (magenta), 2020acct (brown), 2022xxf (cornflowerblue) and 2023aew (gold). Bottom Comparison of nebular spectra of SN 2022hgk (blue) with SNe 2005bf (purple) and 2019cad (red). All spectral phases …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left Peak absolute magnitudes of the second peak vs. the first peak for the double-peaked SESN sample, and the shock-cooling powered double-peaked SESNe presented in Das et al. (2024). There appears to be a correlation between the peak magnitudes, which is strongest fo…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Woosley, S

    Angus, C. R., Woosley, S. E., Foley, R. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9264

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9264 2024

  2. [2]

    C., Sahu, D

    Anupama, G. C., Sahu, D. K., Deng, J., et al. 2005, ApJL, 631, L125, doi: 10.1086/497336

    doi:10.1086/497336 2005

  3. [3]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785, doi: 10.1086/159681 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  4. [4]

    2016, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    Barbary, K. 2016, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 2016

  5. [5]

    1967, Phys

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.18.379 1967

  6. [6]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 1251, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1811

    Barmentloo, S., Jerkstrand, A., Iwamoto, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1251, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1811

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1811 2024

  7. [7]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004

    2015

  8. [8]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Barlow, T., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 068003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a 2019

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    2012, in Proc

    Ben-Ami, S., Konidaris, N., Quimby, R., et al. 2012, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, 844686, doi: 10.1117/12.926317

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., Benvenuto, O

    Bersten, M. C., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., Benvenuto, O. G., & Nomoto, K. 2013, ApJ, 767, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/143

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Walters, R., et al

    Blagorodnova, N., Neill, J. D., Walters, R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 035003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f 17

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Blondin, S., & Tonry, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1024, doi: 10.1086/520494

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Landsman, W., Holland, S

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

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    1984, The Messenger, 38, 9

    Buzzoni, B., Delabre, B., Dekker, H., et al. 1984, The Messenger, 38, 9

    1984

  7. [15]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21381, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21381

    Cartier, R., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21381, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21381

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    B., Fox, D

    Cenko, S. B., Fox, D. B., Moon, D.-S., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 1396, doi: 10.1086/508366

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, Nature, 625, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06787-x

    Chen, P., Gal-Yam, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06787-x

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, in The Extragalactic Explosive Universe: the New Era of Transient Surveys and Data-Driven Discovery, 15, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3478022

    Chen, T.-W. 2019, in The Extragalactic Explosive Universe: the New Era of Transient Surveys and Data-Driven Discovery, 15, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3478022

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Chiba, R., & Moriya, T. J. 2024, ApJ, 973, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c37

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-3171, 1

    Chu, M., Dahiwale, A., & Fremling, C. 2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-3171, 1

    2021

  14. [22]

    N., & Utrobin, V

    Chugai, N. N., & Utrobin, V. P. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L71, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab131

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Bloom, J

    Coughlin, M. W., Bloom, J. S., Nir, G., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Modjaz, M., et al

    Crawford, A., Pritchard, T. A., Modjaz, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03735, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03735

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    K., Kasliwal, M

    Das, K. K., Kasliwal, M. M., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad595f

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    M., et al

    Folatelli, G., Contreras, C., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1039, doi: 10.1086/500531

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2021-2682, 1 —

    Fremling, C. 2021, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2021-2682, 1 —. 2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-932, 1

    2021

  24. [32]

    2016, A&A, 593, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275

    Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Sharma, Y., et al

    Fremling, C., Miller, A. A., Sharma, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8943

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670, doi: 10.1038/27150

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf5e3

    Gomez, S., Berger, E., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf5e3

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    Hosseinzadeh, G. 2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c Guti´ errez, C. P., Bersten, M. C., Orellana, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1009

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b1

    Jin, H., Yoon, S.-C., & Blinnikov, S. 2021, ApJ, 910, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b1

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, A&A, 689, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449420

    Kangas, T., Kuncarayakti, H., Nagao, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449420

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, A&A, 678, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245231

    Karamehmetoglu, E., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245231

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Cannella, C., Bagdasaryan, A., et al

    Kasliwal, M. M., Cannella, C., Bagdasaryan, A., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 038003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aafbc2

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2019, ApJ, 878, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f09 —. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Rigault, M., Neill, J

    Kim, Y. L., Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 024505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac50a0

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    C., et al

    Kuncarayakti, H., Maeda, K., Bersten, M. C., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425604

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, A&A, 678, A209, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346526

    Kuncarayakti, H., Sollerman, J., Izzo, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A209, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346526

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Blinnikov, S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    A., et al

    Lunnan, R., Yan, L., Perley, D. A., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 218, 1

    2021

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1069, doi: 10.1086/520054

    Maeda, K., Tanaka, M., Nomoto, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1069, doi: 10.1086/520054

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac —. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.16279 18

    2019 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    A., Gerardy, C

    Milisavljevic, D., Fesen, R. A., Gerardy, C. L., Kirshner, R. P., & Challis, P. 2010, ApJ, 709, 1343, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1343

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1972

    Morales-Garoffolo, A., Elias-Rosa, N., Bersten, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1972

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    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

  48. [56]

    Nakar, E., & Piro, A. L. 2014, ApJ, 788, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/193

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    Nicholl, M. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1982, PASP, 94, 586, doi: 10.1086/131027

    1982 doi

  51. [59]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562

    1995 doi

  52. [60]

    Orellana, M., & Bersten, M. C. 2022, A&A, 667, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244124

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2001, ApJ, 555, 900, doi: 10.1086/321526

    Patat, F., Cappellaro, E., Danziger, J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 900, doi: 10.1086/321526

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace595

    Pellegrino, C., Hiramatsu, D., Arcavi, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace595

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-1362, 1

    Perley, D., Chu, M., Dahiwale, A., & Fremling, C. 2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-1362, 1

    2022

  56. [64]

    Perley, D. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 084503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    S., Steele, I

    Piascik, A. S., Steele, I. A., Bates, S. D., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, 91478H, doi: 10.1117/12.2055117

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    Piro, A. L. 2015, ApJL, 808, L51, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L51

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y

    Piro, A. L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y. 2021, ApJ, 909, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2b1 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    J., et al

    Poidevin, F., Perez-Fournon, I., Angel, C. J., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-2800, 1

    2021

  62. [70]

    J., Maguire, K., Siebenaler, L., & Jerkstrand, A

    Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Siebenaler, L., & Jerkstrand, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1657

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    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

  64. [72]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 131, doi: 10.1086/149318

    Rakavy, G., Shaviv, G., & Zinamon, Z. 1967, ApJ, 150, 131, doi: 10.1086/149318

    1967 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Jegou Du Laz, T., et al

    Rehemtulla, N., Miller, A. A., Jegou Du Laz, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5666

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-2795, 1

    Yaron, O. 2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-2795, 1

    2021

  68. [76]

    D., Blagorodnova, N., et al

    Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., Blagorodnova, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935344

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3612, doi: 10.21105/joss.03612 Rodr ´ ıguez,´O., Nakar, E., & Maoz, D

    Roberson, M., Fremling, C., & Kasliwal, M. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3612, doi: 10.21105/joss.03612 Rodr ´ ıguez,´O., Nakar, E., & Maoz, D. 2024, Nature, 628, 733, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07262-x

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

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

    2005 doi

  71. [79]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  72. [80]

    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

  73. [81]

    R., et al

    Sharma, Y., Sollerman, J., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3758

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    V., Silverman, J

    Shivvers, I., Filippenko, A. V., Silverman, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2719

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Valenti, S., Fraser, M., et al

    Smartt, S. J., Valenti, S., Fraser, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425237

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    2020 doi

  77. [85]

    2022, A&A, 657, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142049

    Sollerman, J., Yang, S., Perley, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142049

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    T., Challis, P., et al

    Sollerman, J., Holland, S. T., Challis, P., et al. 2002, A&A, 386, 944, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020326

    2002 doi

  79. [87]

    2020, A&A, 643, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038960

    Sollerman, J., Fransson, C., Barbarino, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038960

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    2022, ApJL, 926, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4e99

    Soraisam, M., Matheson, T., Lee, C.-H., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4e99

    2022 doi

  81. [89]

    A., Smith, R

    Steele, I. A., Smith, R. J., Rees, P. C., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5489, Ground-based Telescopes, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., 679–692, doi: 10.1117/12.551456

    2004 doi

  82. [90]

    2015, A&A, 574, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423915

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Leloudas, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423915

    2015 doi

  83. [91]

    2016, A&A, 592, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628703

    Taddia, F., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628703

    2016 doi

  84. [92]

    2018, A&A, 609, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629874 19

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629874 19

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 119, doi: 10.33232/001c.127610

    Takei, Y., & Tsuna, D. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 119, doi: 10.33232/001c.127610

    2024 doi

  86. [94]

    2021, A&A, 650, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039068

    Tartaglia, L., Sollerman, J., Barbarino, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039068

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 677, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15003.x

    Taubenberger, S., Valenti, S., Benetti, S., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 677, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15003.x

    2009

  88. [96]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 van der Walt, S. J., Crellin-Quick, A., & Bloom...

    2018 doi

  89. [97]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  90. [98]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2017 doi

  91. [99]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfcb4

    Yang, S., & Sollerman, J. 2023, ApJS, 269, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfcb4

    2023 doi

  92. [100]

    2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    Yaron, O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    2012 doi

  93. [101]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8 20 APPENDIX A

    Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8 20 APPENDIX A. PHOTOMETRY DATA T able 4.Log of optical photometry of SN 2021uvy and SN 2022hgk of > 5σ significance and corrected for MW extinction (full table available online, DOI:1...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.