Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Early-time millimeter observations of the nearby Type II SN 2024ggi

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep ALMA non-detections of the nearby Type II supernova SN 2024ggi at 8.4, 13.3, and 17.2 days after explosion indicate that its progenitor shed a dense eruptive shell rather than a steady wind.

desk verdict Genuine new ALMA upper limits for SN 2024ggi, but the abstract's mass-loss rate claim rests on unpublished geometry and external spectral input rather than the mm data alone. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11389 v2 pith:QK5GJ2CL submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Maokai Hu , Yiping Ao , Yi Yang , Lei Hu , Fulin Li , Lifan Wang , Xiaofeng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords TypeIIsupernovaecore-collapsecircumstellarmatterALMAmillimeterastronomyradiocontinuumemissionfree-freeabsorptionSN2024ggi
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

SN 2024ggi, a Type II supernova at about 7 Mpc, produced no detectable millimeter radiation when ALMA looked at it 8, 13, and 17 days after the explosion. The paper argues that this silence is itself informative: the 3$\sigma$ upper limit of 0.15 mJy at 230 GHz means the blast wave was still hidden behind a dense shell of gas expelled by the star shortly before death. Comparing the non-detection with two possible pre-explosion mass-loss geometries, the paper rejects a steady stellar wind and favors an eruptive episode with a mass-loss rate near $5\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. That distinction matters because it discriminates between quiet wind-driven mass loss and violent eruptive events in the final years of a massive star's life.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three pieces. First is the free-free optical depth of the unshocked circumstellar gas, $\tau^{\mathrm{FFA}}_\nu = \int \kappa^{\mathrm{FFA}}_\nu n_e n_i\,ds$, with $\kappa^{\mathrm{FFA}}_\nu \propto \nu^{-2.1} T_e^{-1.35}$; at 230 GHz and the assumed electron temperature of $5\times10^4$ K, this is what makes the dense inner shell opaque. Second is a corrected minimum Lorentz factor, $\gamma_{\min} = \frac{p-2}{p-1}\frac{\epsilon_e \mu m_p V_{\mathrm{sh}}^2}{\eta (n_e/n_i) m_e c^2}+1$, which lowers the predicted synchrotron luminosity when the shock is slow and the CSM is dense. Third is the piece-wise Eruptive mass-loss profile of equation (1), with radii $R_0=10^{13}$ cm, $R_1=10^{14}$ cm, $R_2=2\times10^{14}$ cm, $R_3=1.2\times10^{15}$ cm and a pre-eruption floor $\dot{M}_{w,\min}=10^{-6}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. Together these let the authors translate three non-detections into a constraint on $\dot{M}_{w,0}$.

What would settle it

Observe SN 2024ggi at 230 GHz or higher frequencies around 20-30 days after the explosion with sensitivity below 0.05 mJy: the Eruptive model predicts that the free-free optical depth drops once the shock passes $R_3\approx1.2\times10^{15}$ cm, so synchrotron emission should become visible then, and a continued non-detection would falsify the assumed shell extent or mass-loss rate. A detection above 0.15 mJy at any of the three observed epochs would already contradict the preferred solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the deep ALMA upper limits, below 0.15 mJy at all three epochs and corresponding to a luminosity below about $8\times10^{24}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,Hz^{-1}}$, place a tight constraint on the circumstellar medium once free-free absorption and the nonrelativistic electron population are included in the synchrotron model. In the Wind model, the allowed mass-loss rates fall into two branches, roughly below $10^{-6}$ or above $10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$; neither branch matches the early ionized emission lines. In the Eruptive model, the preferred characteristic mass-loss rate is $\dot{M}_{w,0}\sim5\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, in line with independent spectral modeling. The paper concludes that the millimeter non-detection is the expected signature of an eruptive shell: the synchrotron radiation generated behind the shock is absorbed by the unshocked dense CSM, so the absence of a signal is itself evidence for the shell.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumed size and density shape of the dense shell around the star, which is borrowed from an unpublished model rather than fit to the ALMA data; if that shell sat farther out or had a different density profile, the same blank observations would point to a different mass-loss rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For SN 2024ggi, a steady stellar wind cannot simultaneously explain the ALMA non-detections and the early ionized emission lines; the Eruptive model can.
  • The preferred Eruptive mass-loss rate of about $5\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ agrees with the value derived from independent optical spectral modeling, so the millimeter and optical constraints converge on the same dense shell.
  • Because the dense shell absorbs synchrotron radiation at 230 GHz, millimeter non-detections at early times do not contradict high mass-loss rates; they are what high mass-loss rates look like.
  • Multi-epoch millimeter and submillimeter observations with a cadence of a few days, starting within days of explosion, offer a way to catch the predicted rise and fall of the signal as the shock exits the opaque shell.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Eruptive interpretation is correct, other Type II SNe with early ionized emission lines should also show blank ALMA fields at 230 GHz during the first two weeks; the non-detection should be the typical result for mass-loss rates near $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$.
  • Because free-free absorption scales as $\nu^{-2.1}$, a testable prediction is that the shell becomes transparent at submillimeter frequencies before it does at 230 GHz; a detection first appearing at, say, 350 GHz while 230 GHz stays dark would support the model. This is an inference, not a claim the paper makes.
  • The paper's preference for the high branch ($\dot{M}_{w,0}\sim5\times10^{-3}$) over the low branch ($\dot{M}_{w,0}\lesssim10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$) relies on independent spectral evidence, since the ALMA data alone cannot distinguish the two; a future early observation with the same sensitivity could break this degeneracy by timing the emergence from free-free absorption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ALMA Band 6 (223 GHz) continuum observations of the nearby Type II SN 2024ggi at three epochs (8.4, 13.3, and 17.2 days after explosion), all yielding non-detections with 3-sigma upper limits below 0.15 mJy, corresponding to a luminosity of about 8e24 erg/s/Hz. The authors model the ejecta-CSM interaction using a Wind model and an Eruptive (piece-wise) CSM density profile, updating the Hu et al. (2023) radio emission model to include free-free absorption and a more careful treatment of the nonrelativistic electron fraction. They report that the Wind model is disfavored by early-time spectroscopy, whereas the Eruptive model with Mdot_0 ~ 5e-3 Msun/yr is consistent with the ALMA non-detections and with the spectral modeling of Zhang et al. (2024).

Significance. The data themselves are valuable: the three ALMA upper limits are among the deepest early-time millimeter constraints for a Type II SN with flash-ionized CSM, and the comparison in Figure 2 places SN 2024ggi in context with other stripped-envelope and interacting SNe. The model updates in Section 3.3 (nonrelativistic electrons and free-free absorption) are physically motivated and the shock-velocity validation against Moriya et al. (2013) in Figure 3 is a useful check. If the Eruptive-model inference were robust, the paper would provide a clear demonstration that early millimeter non-detections can distinguish eruptive from steady-wind mass-loss. However, as discussed in the major comments, the central quantitative claim (Mdot_0 ~ 5e-3 Msun/yr) is not uniquely determined by the ALMA data alone and rests on an unpublished, unvaried CSM geometry, so the significance of the present result is more modest than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Fig. 6] The ALMA upper limits alone allow two distinct branches for the Eruptive model: Mdot_0 of roughly 5e-3 Msun/yr and a low-mass-loss branch with Mdot_0 below 1e-4 (epsilon_B=0.1) or 5e-4 (epsilon_B=0.001) Msun/yr, as shown in the right panels of Figure 6. The paper's preference for the high branch is driven by external early-time spectroscopic/light-curve evidence (Zhang et al. 2024), not by the millimeter observations themselves. The abstract's statement that 'the ALMA observations suggest a mass-loss rate of ~5e-3 Msun/yr' therefore overstates what the ALMA data alone determine. I recommend rewording the abstract and Section 4 to state that the ALMA data are consistent with the high branch only when combined with independent constraints, or to present the allowed range of Mdot_0 from the ALMA data alone.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (1)] The Eruptive-model inference depends entirely on the fixed shell geometry R0=1e13 cm, R1=1e14 cm, R2=2e14 cm, R3=1.2e15 cm and Mdot_min=1e-6 Msun/yr, adopted from the unpublished 'Yan in prep.' with no sensitivity analysis. The predicted 230 GHz light curve is strongly controlled by when the shock exits the high-opacity inner region and enters the low-density outer region, because free-free absorption (Eqs. 6-7) is what hides the high-Mdot_0 branch. A different R3 (or a different inner density slope) would change which Mdot_0 values are allowed at the observed epochs. The authors should at minimum vary R2, R3, and the power-law indices n1, n2 over reasonable ranges and show whether the conclusion Mdot_0 ~ 5e-3 Msun/yr (as opposed to the low branch) survives. Without this, the quoted mass-loss rate is not secured by the analysis in the paper.
  3. [Sec. 4] The ejecta parameters Eej=1.5e51 erg and Mej=4 Msun are assumed rather than fit to any light curve, and the text acknowledges that these parameters are hard to constrain. The shock velocity and hence the synchrotron luminosity and the free-free optical depth all depend on these values (through the dynamics in Section 3.1). I request an explicit sensitivity test: for example, how do the allowed Mdot_0 ranges in Figure 6 change when Eej and Mej are varied within the plausible ranges for a Type II SN (e.g., Eej = 1e51-2e51 erg, Mej = 3-6 Msun)? If the degeneracy between ejecta parameters and Mdot_0 is strong, the conclusion should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'distance-variant mass-loss rate' is awkward; 'radially varying mass-loss rate' would be clearer.
  2. [Sec. 2, Table 1] The observation phases are given as '+8, +13, +17 days after the discovery' in the abstract but as '8.4, 13.3, 17.2 days' in Table 1; please unify the notation and clarify the explosion epoch adopted from Pessi et al. (2024).
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The choice of p=3 (alpha=1) is stated, but no justification or alternative is given. Since the synchrotron spectrum and the free-free absorption turnover interact, a brief comment on the expected p for collisionless shocks (e.g., p ~ 2.5-3) would help the reader assess the robustness.
  4. [Sec. 3.3.2] The free-free opacity formula in Eq. (7) is attributed to Panagia & Felli (1975) and Yurk et al. (2022), but the exact normalization and the frequency/temperature dependence should be cross-checked. Also, Te=5e4 K is adopted without a sensitivity study; a sentence on how Te affects the derived Mdot_0 would be useful.
  5. [Fig. 7] The 'Scaled Luminosity' label in Figure 7 is undefined in the caption. Please define the scaling used for the gray lines.
  6. [References] The paper relies on 'Yan in prep.' for the Eruptive-model geometry. Since this is unpublished and inaccessible, the paper should either include the key values in the text (which it does) and state explicitly that the results are contingent on that work, or provide the details in an appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; ALMA non-detections are independent data, and the Eruptive-model mass-loss preference is selected via external spectroscopic evidence rather than forced by the millimeter observations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is conditional forward modeling, not a circular reduction. The ALMA 3-sigma upper limits are genuine, independent measurements. The Wind/Eruptive model code is adopted from Hu et al. (2023), but its shock-velocity output is validated against the external Moriya et al. (2013) formula (Fig. 3, left panel), so the self-citation is backed by an independent benchmark. The Eruptive-model geometry (R0, R1, R2, R3, Mdot_min) is adopted from an unpublished light-curve match ('Yan in prep.') and from same-group Hu et al. (2024); this is a stated model assumption, not a result derived from the ALMA data, and the paper explicitly says the radio data alone cannot constrain these parameters. The ALMA upper limits permit both a high Mdot_0 branch (~5e-3 Msun/yr) and a low branch (<1e-4 or <5e-4 Msun/yr; Fig. 6); the high branch is preferred using independent early-time optical/spectroscopic evidence (Zhang et al. 2024). The abstract's phrase 'the ALMA observations suggest a mass-loss rate of ~5e-3' overstates what the millimeter non-detections alone determine, but this is a framing/attribution issue, not circularity: the chosen value does not reduce by construction to the ALMA inputs. The assumed Eej and Mej are stated as assumptions without a light-curve fit, which is a robustness concern rather than a circular one. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper converts a clean observational upper limit into a statement about the progenitor's mass-loss history through a multi-parameter model. The genuinely data-driven output is the excluded Mdot interval for the Wind model; the Eruptive model result depends on five geometric parameters from an unpublished work, three fixed microphysics fractions, and two assumed ejecta parameters. All of these are choices, not measured quantities.

free parameters (10)
  • Eej (ejecta kinetic energy) = 1.5e51 erg
    Assumed in Section 4 for both models; controls the shock velocity and luminosity scale.
  • Mej (ejecta mass) = 4 Msun
    Assumed in Section 4; affects the deceleration timescale and the shock evolution.
  • eps_B (magnetic energy fraction) = 0.1 and 0.001 (two cases)
    Assumed; higher eps_B raises the synchrotron luminosity and widens the excluded mass-loss ranges.
  • eps_e (electron energy fraction) = 0.1
    Assumed in Section 4; sets the normalization of the relativistic electron distribution.
  • p (electron power-law index) = 3
    Adopted from previous studies, giving alpha = (p-1)/2 = 1.
  • Te (free-free electron temperature) = 5e4 K
    Adopted in Eq. 7; the free-free opacity scales as Te^-1.35.
  • R0, R1, R2, R3 (Eruptive model radii) = 1e13, 1e14, 2e14, 1.2e15 cm
    Fixed from the unpublished 'Yan in prep.'; these radii determine when free-free absorption drops and the millimeter radiation can escape.
  • Mdot_min (outer wind floor) = 1e-6 Msun/yr
    Fixed from 'Yan in prep.'; describes the pre-eruption steady wind level.
  • Mdot_0 (Eruptive peak mass-loss rate) = ~5e-3 Msun/yr preferred; <1e-4 (eps_B=0.1) or <5e-4 (eps_B=0.001) also allowed
    The main inferred parameter; the ALMA data allow a bimodal solution, and the preference for 5e-3 comes from external spectral fits.
  • Mdot (Wind model mass-loss rate) = Excluded 1.5e-6 to 2.2e-3 Msun/yr (eps_B=0.1); 4e-5 to 1.6e-3 (eps_B=0.001)
    The single free parameter of the Wind model; the non-detection excludes the intermediate range.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Synchrotron radiation from a power-law electron distribution with p=3 follows a standard spectrum with alpha=1.
    Invoked in Section 3.2; foundational formula for the emission coefficient.
  • standard math Free-free absorption opacity follows Panagia & Felli (1975) and Yurk et al. (2022), Eq. 7, with Te = 5e4 K.
    Used in Section 3.3.2 to compute the optical depth of the unshocked CSM.
  • standard math Shock velocity evolution for a steady wind follows Moriya et al. (2013) and is reproduced by the numerical code.
    Validated in Figure 3 (left panel) against an external benchmark, supporting the Wind model dynamics.
  • domain assumption The CSM is spherically symmetric, with no binary companion or disk-like geometry.
    Stated at the end of Section 3.1: neither the Wind nor the Eruptive model considers the binary system scenario.
  • domain assumption The relativistic electron energy distribution is a single power law with a minimum energy set by Eq. 5, which includes the +1 term for the Lorentz factor.
    Section 3.3.1; this update to Hu et al. (2023) reduces the predicted luminosity for dense CSM.
  • ad hoc to paper The Eruptive model piece-wise profile (Eq. 1) with the specific radii R0=1e13, R1=1e14, R2=2e14, R3=1.2e15 cm and Mdot_min=1e-6 Msun/yr describes the actual CSM of SN 2024ggi.
    These values are taken from the unpublished 'Yan in prep.' (Section 4) and are not derived or fit in this paper; the quantitative conclusion depends on them.
  • domain assumption Fixed ejecta parameters Eej=1.5e51 erg and Mej=4 Msun, plus microphysics eps_e=0.1 and eps_B in {0.1, 0.001}, are representative for SN 2024ggi.
    Section 4 states these are assumed for simplicity and consistency with previous studies; they are not fit to the X-ray or optical light curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early-time millimeter observations of the nearby Type II SN 2024ggi." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QK5GJ2CL

@misc{pith2026241211389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early-time millimeter observations of the nearby Type II SN 2024ggi},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QK5GJ2CL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11389}
}
read the original abstract

The short-lived ionized emission lines in early spectroscopy of the nearby type II supernova SN 2024ggi signify the presence of dense circumstellar matter (CSM) close to its progenitor star. We proposed the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) observations by its Director's Discretionary Time program to catch the potential synchrotron radiation associated with the ejecta-CSM interaction. Multi-epoch observations were conducted using ALMA band 6 at +8, +13, and +17 days after the discovery. The data show non-detections at the position of SN 2024ggi with a 3sigma upper limit of less than 0.15 mJy, corresponding to a luminosity of approximately 8*10^24 erg/s/Hz. In this paper, we leverage the non-detections to place constraints on the properties of CSM surrounding SN 2024ggi. We investigate both the Wind and Eruptive models for the radial distribution of CSM, assuming a constant mass-loss rate in the Wind model and a distance-variant mass-loss rate in the Eruptive model. The derived CSM distribution for the Wind model does not align with the early-time spectral features, while the ALMA observations suggest a mass-loss rate of ~ 5*10^-3 Msun/year for the Eruptive model. Conducting multi-epoch millimeter/submillimeter observations shortly after the explosion, with a cadence of a few days, could offer a promising opportunity to capture the observable signature of the Eruptive model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11389 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Continuum images of SN 2024ggi at 1.3mm taken with ALMA at three epochs. The red circles, each with a diameter of 1 arcsec, indicate the location of SN 2024ggi at the coordinate RA/DEC = 11:18:22.087, -32:50:15.27. A color bar on the right shows the value scaling in units of mJy/beam. The synthesized beams are shown at the bottom-left of each plot. et al. 2021; DeMarchi et al. 2022; Sfaradi et al. 2024). In contrast… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: the early-time millimeter-band observations of core-collapse SNe, including SN 1993J (Phillips et al. 1993; Weiler et al. 2007), SN 2008D (Soderberg et al. 2008; Gorosabel et al. 2010), SN 2011dh (Horesh et al. 2013), iPTF13bvn (Cao et al. 2013), SN 2018ivc (Maeda et al. 2023), SN 2020oi (Maeda et al. 2021), SN 2023ixf (upper limits, Berger et al. 2023), and SN 2024ggi (3σ upper limits). The correspondin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In the context of the Wind model, this figure displays the performance comparison for the shock velocity (Vsh, left panel), the mean γ (¯γ, middle panel), and predicted luminosity at 230 GHz (right panel) with three sets of mass-loss rate, M˙ w = 10−7 M⊙ yr−1 (red lines), 10−5 M⊙ yr−1 (purple lines), and 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 (blue lines), respectively. The left panel is the comparison of Vsh between our numerical code (soli… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dashed and solid black lines are the mass￾loss rate versus CSM distance for the Wind model (dashed line) and the Eruptive model (solid line), respectively. The corresponding optical depth of free-free absorption is shown in red lines. The ejecta-CSM interaction cou…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In the context of the Wind model, this figure shows the likelihood distribution of the parameter mass-loss rate M˙ w with ϵB = 0.1 (the red line) and ϵB = 0.001 (the cyan line), respectively. M˙ w = 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 ), Equation 4 significantly over￾estimates the value of ¯…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The predicted luminosity at 230 GHz for the Wind model (left panels) and the Eruptive model (right panels) with two sets of ϵB as ϵB = 0.1 (upper panels) and ϵB = 0.001 (lower panels), respectively. The black triangles are the 3σ upper limits of SN 2024ggi obtained fro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The black lines are the mass-loss rate of the shocked CSM for the Wind model (upper panel) and the Eruptive model (lower panel), and the red lines are the corresponding optical depth of the free-free absorption. For the comparison, the gray lines are the predicted scal…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Pearson, J., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al

    Andrews, J. E., Pearson, J., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49 2024

  2. [2]

    K., Margutti, R., et al

    Berger, E., Keating, G. K., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4 2023

  3. [3]

    F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9 Bj¨ ornsson, C. I., & Lundqvist, P. 2014, ApJ, 787, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/143

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9 2021

  4. [4]

    A., Pearson, J., Shrestha, M., et al

    Bostroem, K. A., Pearson, J., Shrestha, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf9a4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf9a4 2023

  5. [5]

    M., Arcavi, I., et al

    Cao, Y., Kasliwal, M. M., Arcavi, I., et al. 2013, ApJL, 775, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L7

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/l7 2013

  6. [6]

    A., Chugai, N., et al

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Chugai, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/110

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/2/110 2012

  7. [7]

    Soderberg, A. M. 2015, ApJ, 810, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/32

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/32 2015

  8. [8]

    J., Chevalier, R

    Chandra, P., Stockdale, C. J., Chevalier, R. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1839, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1839

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/2/1839 2009

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.09270, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.09270

    Chen, T.-W., Yang, S., Srivastav, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.09270, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.09270

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    J., Goldberg, J

    Cheng, S. J., Goldberg, J. A., Cantiello, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad701e

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 302, doi: 10.1086/160167 —. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 1994, ApJ, 420, 268, doi: 10.1086/173557 —. 2006, ApJ, 651, 381, doi: 10.1086/507606

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Fransson, C., & Nymark, T

    Chevalier, R. A., Fransson, C., & Nymark, T. K. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1029, doi: 10.1086/500528

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Irwin, C

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

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    Chugai, N. N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17580, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17580

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c26

    DeMarchi, L., Margutti, R., Dittman, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c26

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, A&A, 603, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730873

    Livne, E. 2017, A&A, 603, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730873

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471, doi: 10.1038/nature13304

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    J., et al

    Gorosabel, J., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Castro-Tirado, A. J., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913263

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

    Hiramatsu, D., Tsuna, D., Berger, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    B., et al

    Horesh, A., Stockdale, C., Fox, D. B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1645

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06351

    Hu, M., Wang, L., & Wang, X. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06351. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06351

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2340 10 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W

    Hu, M., Wang, L., Wang, X., & Wang, L. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2340 10 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf2ec

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/3

    Khazov, D., Yaron, O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/3

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

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

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

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, Nature, 627, 754, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06843-6

    Li, G., Hu, M., Li, W., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 754, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06843-6

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1550

    Lin, H., Wang, X., Zhang, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1550

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    A., et al

    Lundqvist, P., Kundu, E., P´ erez-Torres, M. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6dc6

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Matsuoka, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b7

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Margalit, B., Quataert, E., & Ho, A. Y. Q. 2022, ApJ, 928, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53b0

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1829

    Matsuoka, T., & Sawada, R. 2024, ApJ, 963, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1829

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

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

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

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    1975, A&A, 39, 1 P´ erez-Torres, M

    Panagia, N., & Felli, M. 1975, A&A, 39, 1 P´ erez-Torres, M. A., Lundqvist, P., Beswick, R. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/38

    1975 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, A&A, 688, L28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450608

    Pessi, T., Cartier, R., Hueichapan, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, L28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450608

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Phillips, J. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Skiff, B., et al. 1993, IAUC, 5775, 1

    1993

  29. [37]

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

    Piro, A. L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y. 2021, ApJ, 909, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2b1

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, A&A, 686, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348761

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348761

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Sand, D

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

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    J., et al

    Smith, N., Pearson, J., Sand, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf366

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    W., Smartt, S

    Srivastav, S., Chen, T. W., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 100, 1

    2024

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-1020, 1 van Dyk, S

    Tonry, J., Denneau, L., Weiland, H., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-1020, 1 van Dyk, S. D., Weiler, K. W., Sramek, R. A., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1271, doi: 10.1086/117872

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Williams, C

    Weiler, K. W., Williams, C. L., Panagia, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1959, doi: 10.1086/523258

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Wang, L., & Aldering, G

    Wood-Vasey, W. M., Wang, L., & Aldering, G. 2004, ApJ, 616, 339, doi: 10.1086/424826

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, ApJL, 969, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b3

    Xiang, D., Mo, J., Wang, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b3

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Yaron, O., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510, doi: 10.1038/nphys4025

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Y., Ravi, V., & Ho, A

    Yurk, N. Y., Ravi, V., & Ho, A. Y. Q. 2022, ApJ, 934, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac771f

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 104, 1

    Zhai, Q., Li, L., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., & Wang, X. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 104, 1

    2024

  43. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 84, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2273

    Zhang, J., Wang, X., J´ ozsef, V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 84, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2273

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, Science Bulletin, 68, 2548, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.09.015

    Zhang, J., Lin, H., Wang, X., et al. 2023, Science Bulletin, 68, 2548, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.09.015

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5da4

    Zhang, J., Dessart, L., Wang, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5da4

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Irani, I., Chen, P., et al

    Zimmerman, E. A., Irani, I., Chen, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 759, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07116-6

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.