Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 134 references

Explosion sites of SN 1994W-like transients

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SN 1994W-like transients explode in the sites of low-mass red supergiants, not massive stars, according to their host-galaxy positions.

desk verdict A careful, useful NCR study of a rare transient subclass with valuable new HST limits, but the low-mass RSG conclusion leans on an LMC template that is not propagated host-by-host, and the 'rules out fallback' wording exceeds what the p-values support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17521 v1 pith:VQPRMKO7 submitted 2025-05-23 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

E. Kankare , T. Kangas , M. Fraser , S. Mattila , A. Pastorello , N. Elias-Rosa , G. Altavilla , S. Benetti
show 3 more authors
R. Kotak K. Matilainen I. Mäntynen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords SN1994W-liketransientsTypeIInsupernovaenormalisedcumulativerankredsupergiantprogenitorsluminousbluevariablescircumstellarmediumnovaeHSTimaging
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 argues that SN 1994W-like transients, a rare class of hydrogen-rich, narrow-line stellar explosions, are produced by relatively low-mass red supergiant stars rather than by very massive stars. The evidence comes from the explosion sites of ten such events: their positions fall in faint regions of host-galaxy Hα emission, giving a mean normalised cumulative rank (NCR) of 0.170 ± 0.076, far below the value of 0.5 expected for a population that traces recent star formation. In near-ultraviolet light the same sites are distributed flat (mean 0.488 ± 0.084), consistent with a modest-mass population. Statistical comparison with catalogued massive stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud shows the sites match red supergiants and exclude yellow supergiants, B[e] supergiants, and luminous blue variables. If correct, this favours an origin through a nuclear-flash envelope ejection or a merger-powered luminous red nova before a terminal supernova explosion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the normalised cumulative rank (NCR) method. For each host galaxy, pixels are ranked from faint to bright; the NCR of the explosion site is the fraction of total galaxy emission in pixels fainter than the site. A low NCR_Hα means the transient is not spatially tied to Hα-bright star-forming regions, while a value near 0.5 means no correlation. To interpret the numbers, the paper simulates the LMC Hα image to the median distance, resolution, pixel scale, and signal-to-noise of the SN sample, then computes NCR distributions for catalogued red supergiants, yellow supergiants, B[e] supergiants, and luminous blue variables, adding Gaussian positional noise. These simulated distributions are the templates against which the SN sample's distribution is tested with the Anderson–Darling statistic.

What would settle it

A single SN 1994W-like event found at NCR_Hα > 0.5 in a strongly star-forming region, or a direct pre-explosion detection of a luminous blue variable or >25 M⊙ supergiant at the site of such an event, would contradict the low-mass RSG interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that SN 1994W-like transients explode in environments that do not follow recent star formation, placing their progenitors among lower-mass evolved stars. The sample mean NCR_Hα = 0.170 ± 0.076 is among the lowest of core-collapse SN subtypes, lower than the values for Type IIn and Type IIP SNe and inconsistent with the flat distribution of Type Ic SNe. The NCR_NUV mean of 0.488 ± 0.084 matches a flat distribution, which together with the lifetime interpretation of the UV light implies MZAMS ≲ 14 M⊙ for rotating single stars. Anderson–Darling tests comparing the SN NCR_Hα distribution to simulated LMC stellar populations give p-values of 27% (low-luminosity RSGs), 18% (all RSGs), and 1% or less for YSGs and LBVs, so the events are consistent with RSGs and inconsistent with massive blue supergiants. The paper also finds that the early −26 d spectrum of SN 2003G resembles F8 supergiants and luminous red novae, and that deep HST limits rule out a surviving supergiant at the site of SN 2011ht, supporting a terminal explosion with a massive but pre-erupted CSM.

Load-bearing premise

The LMC massive-star catalogues, simulated to the median distance and depth of the SN host observations, are assumed to be representative of the stellar populations in the ten host galaxies; if the LMC's star-formation history or catalogue completeness differs from those galaxies, the matching to RSGs and the exclusion of LBVs could be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A larger sample of SN 1994W-like events should show a continued absence of events in Hα-bright regions if the low-mass RSG origin is correct.
  • The flat NUV distribution implies that the bulk of these events come from stars below roughly 14 solar masses (for rotating single stars), with binary evolution allowing somewhat higher masses.
  • The two proposed pre-outburst channels—nuclear-flash envelope ejection and luminous red nova from a merger—both predict that these events should be preceded by months-to-years of low-luminosity variability, which current and future surveys can search for.
  • Deep HST imaging of further SN 1994W-like sites should reveal no optically bright surviving supergiants, unless dust formed after the event obscures them.
  • If the interpretations are right, SN 1994W-like events join electron-capture and low-mass core-collapse channels that produce hydrogen-rich, CSM-interacting transients from stars near the low end of the core-collapse mass range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the low-mass RSG hypothesis by measuring the NCR_Hα of SN 1994W-like events discovered by upcoming all-sky surveys, which should yield a distribution skewed even more strongly toward faint Hα than the current sample if low-mass RSGs dominate.
  • The light echo around SN 1999el hints at a dusty sheet or shell tens of parsecs from the explosion; if such echoes are found around more events, they would support the idea that massive CSM was expelled decades beforehand, not just months.
  • The MZAMS ≲ 14 M⊙ limit from the flat NUV distribution may underestimate the role of interacting binaries, which can produce low-mass-looking sites even for initially more massive stars; binary population synthesis could quantify this.
  • If the nuclear-flash channel is real, the pre-outburst of SN 2011ht should have produced a faint, red, plateau-like light curve wholly consistent with a 10^46 erg event; future nearby events with dense UV coverage could distinguish this from a merger-powered LRN by the absence of a distinct double-peaked blue-red structure.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a sample of 10 SN 1994W-like transients, a rare and physically debated class of narrow-line events. The authors apply the normalized cumulative rank (NCR) method to measure the association of each event with host-galaxy Hα and NUV emission. The sample mean NCR_Hα is 0.170 ± 0.076, which is far below the flat-distribution value of 0.5, while the NCR_NUV mean is 0.488 ± 0.084, consistent with a flat distribution. The NCR_Hα distribution is compared, via simulated LMC images degraded to the median sample distance, against NCR distributions of LMC RSGs, YSGs, B[e] supergiants, and LBVs. Anderson-Darling tests yield p-values of 27% (low-luminosity RSGs), 18% (all RSGs), 6% (high-luminosity RSGs), 7% (B[e]), 2% (YSGs), and 1% (LBVs), leading to the claim that the sample is consistent with low-mass RSGs and inconsistent with high-mass stars. The paper also presents new photometry and spectroscopy of SN 1999eb, an early −26 d spectrum of SN 2003G that resembles F8 supergiants and LRNe, and late-time HST imaging that sets deep limits on a surviving precursor of SN 2011ht.

Significance. If the central NCR claim holds, this work provides a rare and direct constraint on the progenitors of SN 1994W-like transients, favoring low-mass RSG channels (nuclear-flash or luminous-red-nova scenarios) over massive-star channels such as LBVs. The observational additions are valuable: new SN 1999eb data, an early SN 2003G spectrum that connects the class to LRN-like spectral signatures, and the deepest HST non-detection limits for a SN 2011ht precursor. The statistical analysis is not circular: the comparison is made against independent LMC stellar catalogs, and no parameters are fitted to the NCR data. The paper is transparent about the caveats of the NCR method, including resolution and S/N biases, and it explicitly acknowledges the small sample size. The main strength is the carefully constructed matched-resolution simulation of the LMC templates, following the approach of Kangas et al. (2017). The significance would be strengthened by a robustness analysis that propagates the known biases into the statistical test.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2.3] The Anderson-Darling test compares the SN NCR_Hα distribution to LMC templates that are simulated at the median sample distance (60.1 Mpc), a typical 1″ seeing, and one representative S/N, but the 10 SNe span distances from 21.4 to 76.8 Mpc (Table 1) and the host galaxies have substantially different morphologies (e.g., massive spirals NGC 4041 and NGC 6951 versus the LMC’s dwarf irregular morphology). The paper’s own caveats in this same section state that lower spatial resolution biases low/moderate NCR values upward while lower S/N biases low values downward; these effects are surely of the same order as the differences between the SN sample mean (0.170) and the LBV mean (0.510) or the YSG mean (0.355). Because these biases are not propagated into the p-values, the reported 1% (LBV) and 2% (YSG) exclusions do not include the dominant systematic uncertainty. I request a sensitivity analysis that varies the resolution, distance, and S/N over the ranges present in the sample, or that uses host-specific simulations, to show how the AD p-values respond; without this, the headline claim that high-mass stars are excluded is not fully supported.
  2. [§2.2.3] The sentence “The NCR results also suggest that fallback explosions of relatively massive stars can be ruled out as a channel for the SN 1994W-like events” is stronger than what the presented statistics justify. The AD test against the high-luminosity RSG subsample (which would include many of the more massive RSG progenitors) gives p = 6%, i.e., only marginal inconsistency, and the test against LBVs/YSGs has low power with only 10 events. I recommend softening this claim or providing a more sensitive test (for example, a one-sided test targeted at the fallback-mass regime) before making such a definitive statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.2] The text reads “this effect is minimal for the NRC analysis” but should read “NCR analysis”; the same abbreviation error appears in one other place in this section.
  2. [§5.1] In the description of the intermediate astrometric step, “a deep R-band image of NGC 4401” should be “NGC 4041,” the host of SN 1994W.
  3. [Table 1] Several entries in the tpeak,JD column contain spurious spaces (e.g., “2453 556.5” and “24551 40.0”); these should be removed or cleaned for consistency.
  4. [§2.2.3 and Fig. 3] The notation for the B[e] supergiant sample is inconsistent: the text uses “SG B[e]” in the p-value list and “B[e] supergiant” elsewhere; please unify the nomenclature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the NCR comparison rests on an external LMC calibration rather than on values derived from the sample itself.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an empirical comparison, not a derivation from its own outputs. The SN NCR values in Table 2 are measured directly from the authors' NOT H-alpha images and GALEX NUV images, independent of any template. The comparison distributions are produced by applying Kangas et al. (2017)'s published simulation recipe to the Gaustad et al. (2001) H-alpha map of the LMC and to published LMC catalogs of RSGs, YSGs, B[e] supergiants, and LBVs; no parameter of the Anderson-Darling test is fitted to the SN NCR values. The only same-group citation, Kangas et al. (2017), is an external calibration that is empirically falsifiable and does not presuppose the SN 1994W-like result. The acknowledged resolution, distance, and signal-to-noise caveats are systematic uncertainties in transferring that calibration, not a circular reduction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central NCR claim rests on the validity of the NCR method as a tracer of progenitor age, the representativeness of the LMC stellar templates, and the assumption that the 10-event sample is unbiased. The free parameters are the analysis choices (distance cut, RSG luminosity split, positional uncertainty, and image simulation settings) that shape the comparison. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • NCR sample distance cut = 80 Mpc
    Events at larger distances (SN 2005cl at 116 Mpc, SN 2020pvb at 90 Mpc) were excluded from the NCR analysis to avoid resolution and S/N biases, affecting which events contribute to the mean NCR values.
  • RSG luminosity split for low-mass vs high-mass comparison = log(L/Lsun) = 4.6
    Red supergiants were divided at this bolometric luminosity to define a low-mass subsample (MZAMS about 9 solar masses); the threshold is chosen by the authors and shapes the conclusion that the SN sample matches low-mass RSGs.
  • Added Gaussian positional uncertainty to LMC stars = 0.5 arcsec
    A positional uncertainty of 0.5 arcsec was added to the LMC stellar coordinates to simulate the astrometric error of the SN positions; the choice affects the simulated NCR distributions.
  • Spatial resolution parameters for LMC image simulation = seeing 1 arcsec, pixel scale 111 pc, S/N matched to ALFOSC
    The LMC H-alpha image was convolved, rebinned, and noised to match the median distance (60.1 Mpc) and resolution of the SN sample observations; these choices determine the NCR values of the comparison stellar samples.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NCR_H-alpha ranks are a valid tracer of the progenitor age/mass sequence for core-collapse supernovae.
    The interpretation of the low sample mean NCR_H-alpha as evidence for low-mass, long-lived progenitors depends on the established correlation between NCR and stellar lifetime (Section 2.2.1; Anderson et al. 2012; Kangas et al. 2017).
  • domain assumption The LMC H-alpha map and massive-star catalogs (RSG, YSG, B[e], LBV) simulated to 60.1 Mpc represent the stellar environments of the SN host galaxies.
    The Anderson-Darling comparisons in Section 2.2.3 assume the LMC templates are unbiased analogues; differences in star formation history, metallicity, dust, or catalog completeness would change the inferred progenitor type.
  • domain assumption The 10-event sample is representative of the SN 1994W-like class without environmental bias.
    The sample was gathered from classification reports that mention spectral similarity to SN 1994W (Section 2.1); the authors note missing events but assume they are not biased towards particular environments.
  • domain assumption H-alpha emission traces very recent star formation (less than about 10 Myr) and NUV traces star formation over 16 to 100 Myr.
    These calibrations (Section 2.2.3, citing Gogarten et al. 2009) underpin the translation of NCR_NUV flatness into a progenitor mass limit of MZAMS less or similar to 14 solar masses.
  • domain assumption A surviving supergiant precursor of SN 2011ht is not completely obscured by newly formed dust.
    The HST non-detection limits in Section 5.3 exclude most supergiants only under this condition, which the authors explicitly caveat in the abstract and Section 5.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explosion sites of SN 1994W-like transients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VQPRMKO7

@misc{pith2026250517521,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explosion sites of SN 1994W-like transients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VQPRMKO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17521}
}
abstract

We study a sample of narrow-line transients that share characteristics with the Type IIn classified supernova (SN) 1994W, a prototypical member of this class of events, via investigation of their explosion sites and spectrophotometric data. The normalised cumulative rank (NCR) method was used to compare the explosion sites of 10 events to the star-formation distributions of their host galaxies, and to the sites of different evolved massive stars. The resulting sample mean value of NCR$_{\mathrm{H}\alpha} = 0.170 \pm 0.076$ is low, while the NCR$_{\mathrm{NUV}}$ distribution is flat with a mean value of $0.488 \pm 0.084$. The NCR distribution of SN 1994W-like events is consistent with relatively low-mass red supergiants (RSGs) and, despite the small sample size, inconsistent with high-mass stars such as luminous blue variables. To explain the nature of SN 1994W-like transients, interaction between an expanding ejecta and a relatively massive circumstellar medium is likely required, with the latter possibly having been produced by a H envelope ejection via a nuclear flash event, or a luminous red nova (LRN) from a stellar merger; both channels are consistent with low-mass RSGs suggested by the NCR results. In this context, we find the early $-26$ d spectrum from light curve maximum of SN 2003G to share similarities to those of F8-type supergiant stars and LRNe. Finally, based on late-time HST imaging, we set the deepest limits for the surviving precursor of SN 2011ht to $M_{\mathrm{F438W}} > -3.8$ and $M_{\mathrm{F555W}} > -4.0$ mag. This would exclude most supergiants as a non-terminal progenitor, assuming that such a star is not completely obscured by newly formed dust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17521 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A selection of spectra of a sample SN 1994W-like events, including SNe 1994W (Chugai et al. 2004), 1999eb (see Sect. 3), 1999el (see Sect. 2.1.4), 2003G (Shivvers et al. 2017), 2005cl (Kiewe et al. 2012), 2006bo (Taddia et al. 2013), 2009kn (Kankare et al. 2012), 2011ht (Humphreys et al. 2012; Pastorello et al. 2019b), and 2020pvb (Elias-Rosa et al. 2024). The spectra were dereddened by the total line-of-sight extin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Absolute light curve selection of spectroscopically SN 1994W￾like events. The epoch t = 0 d corresponds to the estimated light curve peak. The sample includes SNe 1994W (Sollerman et al. 1998, and references therein), 1999eb (see Sect. 3), 1999el (Di Carlo et al. 2002), 2003G (see Sect. 4), 2004gd (see Sect. 4), 2005cl (Kiewe et al. 2012), 2006bo (Taddia et al. 2013), 2009kn (Kankare et al. 2012), 2011ht (Roming et … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. NCR values of our sample of SN 1994W-like events. Comparisons include other main CCSN subtypes in a) NCRHα and b) NCRNUV (Anderson et al. 2012; Habergham et al. 2014; Ransome et al. 2022, indicated in the legend as A12, H14, and R22, respectively). In c) NCRHα values of the SN 1994W-like sample are compared to those of a selection of massive stars in the LMC simulated at the distance of 60.1 Mpc based on the method … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The data was obtained with the Asiago 1.82 m telescope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Our observed light curves of SN 1999eb (solid symbols). For completeness, the early KAIT observations by Modjaz et al. (1999) and the late-time HST detections reported by Li et al. (2002) are also shown (open symbols). b) Absolute light curve evolution at the platea…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectroscopic time series of SN 1999eb with epochs and used telescopes indicated. For completeness, the sequence includes also the public spectra on the WISeREP database (no available details on the used instruments). The spectra were dereddened by the Galactic extinc￾…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of continuum subtracted and peak normalised Hα profiles of SN 1994W-like events primarily around +35 d with a spectral resolution of R ≥ 800. The Hα lines show similarly blueshifted P Cygni absorption minima around 600 to 700 km s−1 (dashed and solid vertica…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Early −26 d spectrum of SN 2003G compared to LRN NGC 4490-2011OT1 close to the red maximum (Pastorello et al. 2019b), and to a F8 I type supergiant template (Pickles 1998). SN 2003G evolves spectroscopically into a SN 1994W-like event as shown by the comparison to SN 2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The top row shows WFPC2 cutouts and the bottom row the ACS and WFC3 cutouts centred on the position of SN 1994W with a size of 2 × 2 arcsec2 , and an orientation of north up and east left. The candidate host cluster of SN 1994W is most clearly seen in the F336W filter,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Panels show a 1× 1 arcsec2 cutout in F555W and F814W filters, centered on the location of SN 1999el with north to the left and east down. Cosmic rays are masked in maroon, the phase of each image with respect to the discovery epoch is indicated above each column. centl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 2 × 2 arcsec2 cutout of the drizzled F555W image with north up and east left from 2017 March 10.6 ut, centred on the position of SN2011ht (indicated with a blue circle). Sources detected at S/N > 3 in this image are plotted in pink, while those detected with S/N > 5 a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 2 × 2 arcsec2 cutout centred on the position of SN 2004gd in F225W, marked with a blue circle. Sources detected by dolphot at S/N > 3 are marked with red crosses. using dolphot, while PSF-fitting photometry of each detected source was done on the individual _flc frame…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The evolution of the ejecta radius assuming a 550 km s−1 bulk expansion velocity for a pre-outburst of SN 2011ht (green dotted line) from the onset at the first epoch of detections (green square symbols; Fraser et al. 2013; Ofek et al. 2014) compared to the estimated …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2015, , 219, 12

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2015, , 219, 12

    2015

  2. [2]

    Alard, C.\ 2000, , 144, 363

    2000

  3. [3]

    & Lupton, R

    Alard, C. & Lupton, R. H.\ 1998, , 503, 325

    1998

  4. [4]

    Anderson, J. P. & James, P. A.\ 2008, , 390, 1527

    2008

  5. [5]

    Anderson, J. P. & Soto, M.\ 2013, , 550, A69

    2013

  6. [6]

    P., Habergham, S

    Anderson, J. P., Habergham, S. M., James, P. A., Hamuy, M., 2012, , 424, 1372

    2012

  7. [7]

    Baer-Way, R., DeGraw, A., Zheng, W., et al.\ 2024, , 964, 172

    2024

  8. [8]

    Barkov, M. V. & Komissarov, S. S.\ 2011, , 415, 944

    2011

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., Hinshaw, G., 2014, , 794, 135

    2014

  2. [10]

    F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al.\ 2021, , 908, 75

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al.\ 2021, , 908, 75

    2021

  3. [11]

    Blagorodnova, N., Kotak, R., Polshaw, J., et al.\ 2017, , 834, 107

    2017

  4. [12]

    Blagorodnova, N., Klencki, J., Pejcha, O., et al.\ 2021, , 653, A134

    2021

  5. [13]

    Blondin, S., Modjaz, M., Kirshner, R., Challis, P., Hernandez, J., 2006, Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 481

    2006

  6. [14]

    & Monard, L

    Boles, T. & Monard, L. A. G.\ 2006, Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 468, 1

    2006

  7. [15]

    Boles, T., Pastorello, A., Stanishev, V., et al.\ 2011, Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 2851, 1

    2011

  8. [16]

    Z., Massa, D

    Bonanos, A. Z., Massa, D. L., Sewilo, M., et al.\ 2009, , 138, 1003

    2009

  9. [17]

    M., Suntzeff, N

    Bouchet, P., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N. B., et al.\ 1991, , 245, 490

    1991

  10. [18]

    Bragaglia, A., Munari, U., Barbon, R., et al.\ 1994, , 6044, 1

    1994

  11. [19]

    J., Bartmentloo, S., Schulze, S., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2503.08768

    Brennan, S. J., Bartmentloo, S., Schulze, S., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2503.08768

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al.\ 2012, , 427, 127

    2012

  13. [21]

    Cai, Y.-Z., Pastorello, A., Fraser, M., et al.\ 2019, , 632, L6

    2019

  14. [22]

    Cai, Y.-Z., Pastorello, A., Fraser, M., et al.\ 2022, , 667, A4

    2022

  15. [23]

    L., Qiao, Q

    Cao, L., Qiu, Y. L., Qiao, Q. Y., et al.\ 1999, , 7288, 1

    1999

  16. [24]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al.\ 2016, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    C., Boer, T

    Chambers, K. C., Boer, T. D., Bulger, J., et al.\ 2020, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2020-2201, 1

    2020

  18. [26]

    N., Blinnikov, S

    Chugai, N. N., Blinnikov, S. I., Cumming, R. J., et al.\ 2004, , 352, 1213

    2004

  19. [27]

    Cortini, G., Villi, M., Barbon, R., et al.\ 1994, , 6042, 1

    1994

  20. [28]

    A.\ 2013, , 428, 1927

    Crowther, P. A.\ 2013, , 428, 1927

    2013

  21. [29]

    D., Snoek, L

    Davidson, M. D., Snoek, L. C., Volten, H., Doenszelmann, A., 1992, , 255, 457

    1992

  22. [30]

    P., Pignata, G., et al.\ 2015, , 807, 63

    de Jaeger, T., Anderson, J. P., Pignata, G., et al.\ 2015, , 807, 63

    2015

  23. [31]

    Dessart, L.\ 2024, arXiv:2405.04259

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J.\ 2005, , 439, 671

    2005

  25. [33]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J.\ 2019, , 622, A70

    2019

  26. [34]

    J., Gezari, S., et al.\ 2009, , 394, 21

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Gezari, S., et al.\ 2009, , 394, 21

    2009

  27. [35]

    Dessart, L., Livne, E., & Waldman, R.\ 2010, , 405, 2113

    2010

  28. [36]

    J., Audit, E., et al.\ 2016, , 458, 2094

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Audit, E., et al.\ 2016, , 458, 2094

    2016

  29. [37]

    Di Carlo, E., Massi, F., Valentini, G., et al.\ 2002, , 573, 144

    2002

  30. [38]

    & Timmes, F

    Diehl, R. & Timmes, F. X.\ 1998, , 110, 637

    1998

  31. [39]

    Djupvik, A. A. & Andersen, J.\ 2010, Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics V, 14, 211

    2010

  32. [40]

    E.\ 2000, , 112, 1383

    Dolphin, A. E.\ 2000, , 112, 1383

    2000

  33. [41]

    Drake, S. A. & Ulrich, R. K.\ 1980, , 42, 351

    1980

  34. [42]

    G., Schmidt, B

    Eastman, R. G., Schmidt, B. P., & Kirshner, R.\ 1996, , 466, 911

    1996

  35. [43]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al.\ 2011, , 142, 72

    2011

  36. [44]

    Ekstr \"o m, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al.\ 2012, , 537, A146

    2012

  37. [45]

    J., Benetti, S., et al.\ 2024, , 686, A13

    Elias-Rosa, N., Brennan, S. J., Benetti, S., et al.\ 2024, , 686, A13

    2024

  38. [46]

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., et al.\ 2024, , 685, A58

    2024

  39. [47]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Chugai, N., et al.\ 2001, , 325, 907

    2001

  40. [48]

    V.\ 1997, , 35, 309

    Filippenko, A. V.\ 1997, , 35, 309

    1997

  41. [49]

    Filippenko, A. V. & Barth, A. J.\ 1994, , 6046, 2

    1994

  42. [50]

    Filippenko, A. V. & Foley, R. J.\ 2004, , 8453, 3

    2004

  43. [51]

    V., Chornock, R., Foley, R

    Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., Foley, R. J., Li, W.\ 2004, , 8288, 2

    2004

  44. [52]

    Fraser, M., Magee, M., Kotak, R., et al.\ 2013, , 779, L8

    2013

  45. [53]

    Fraser, M.\ 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200467

    2020

  46. [54]

    S., Levan, A

    Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Strolger, L., et al.\ 2006, , 441, 463

    2006

  47. [55]

    Gagliano, R., Newton, J., Puckett, T., et al.\ 2009, Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 1997, 1

    2009

  48. [56]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al.\ 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  49. [57]

    Garnavich, P., Challis, P., Riess, A., Kirshner, R., Berlind, P.\ 1995, , 6124, 3

    1995

  50. [58]

    Garnavich, P., Jha, S., Challis, P., Kirshner, R., Berlind, P.\ 1999, , 7268, 2

    1999

  51. [59]

    E., McCullough, P

    Gaustad, J. E., McCullough, P. R., Rosing, W., Van Buren, D.\ 2001, , 113, 1326

    2001

  52. [60]

    M., Dalcanton, J

    Gogarten, S. M., Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., et al.\ 2009, , 691, 115

    2009

  53. [61]

    Gonz \'a lez-D \' az, R., Galbany, L., Kangas, T., et al.\ 2024, , 684, A104

    2024

  54. [62]

    Graham, J., Li, W., Puckett, T., et al.\ 2003, , 8045, 1

    2003

  55. [63]

    M., Anderson, J

    Habergham, S. M., Anderson, J. P., James, P. A., Lyman, J. D.\ 2014, , 441, 2230

    2014

  56. [64]

    & Maza, J.\ 2003, , 8045, 2

    Hamuy, M. & Maza, J.\ 2003, , 8045, 2

    2003

  57. [65]

    M., Davidson, K., Jones, T

    Humphreys, R. M., Davidson, K., Jones, T. J., et al.\ 2012, , 760, 93

    2012

  58. [66]

    L., Lombardi, J

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Avendano Nandez, J. L., Lombardi, J. C.\ 2013, Science, 339, 433

    2013

  59. [67]

    James, P. A. & Anderson, J. P.\ 2006, , 453, 57

    2006

  60. [68]

    P., Richards, G

    Jester, S., Schneider, D. P., Richards, G. T., et al.\ 2005, , 130, 873

    2005

  61. [69]

    Kangas, T., Mattila, S., Kankare, E., et al.\ 2013, , 436, 3464

    2013

  62. [70]

    Kangas, T., Portinari, L., Mattila, S., et al.\ 2017, , 597, A92

    2017

  63. [71]

    Kankare, E., Ergon, M., Bufano, F., et al.\ 2012, , 424, 855

    2012

  64. [72]

    Kankare, E., Fraser, M., Ryder, S., et al.\ 2014a, , 572, A75

  65. [73]

    Kankare, E., Mattila, S., Ryder, S., et al.\ 2014b, , 440, 1052

  66. [74]

    Kankare, E., Efstathiou, A., Kotak, R., et al.\ 2021, , 649, A134

    2021

  67. [75]

    Kiewe, M., Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., et al.\ 2012, , 744, 10

    2012

  68. [76]

    Li, C., Morozova, V.\ 2022, , 515, 3597

    2022

  69. [77]

    V., Van Dyk, S

    Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Van Dyk, S. D., et al.\ 2002, , 114, 403

    2002

  70. [78]

    M., Blinnikov, S., Gorbovskoy, E., et al.\ 2017, , 470, 2339

    Lipunov, V. M., Blinnikov, S., Gorbovskoy, E., et al.\ 2017, , 470, 2339

    2017

  71. [79]

    T., Evans, A., Rushton, M

    van Loon, J. T., Evans, A., Rushton, M. T., Smalley, B.\ 2004, , 427, 193

    2004

  72. [80]

    MacLeod, M., Macias, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al.\ 2017, , 835, 282

    2017

  73. [81]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al.\ 2005, , 619, L1

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al.\ 2005, , 619, L1

    2005

  74. [82]

    & Metzger, B

    Matsumoto, T. & Metzger, B. D.\ 2022, , 938, 5

    2022

  75. [83]

    C., Smith, N., Silverman, J

    Mauerhan, J. C., Smith, N., Silverman, J. M., et al.\ 2013, , 431, 2599

    2013

  76. [84]

    Metzger, B. D. & Pejcha, O.\ 2017, , 471, 3200

    2017

  77. [85]

    D., Garnavich, P., et al.\ 1999, , 7268, 1

    Modjaz, M., Li, W. D., Garnavich, P., et al.\ 1999, , 7268, 1

    1999

  78. [86]

    Modjaz, M., Kirshner, R., Challis, P., et al.\ 2005, , 8544, 4

    2005

  79. [87]

    Monet, D.\ 1998, Am. Astron. Soc. Meeting Abstracts, 30, 1427

    1998

  80. [88]

    Moore, M., Shimasaki, K., & Li, W.\ 2004, , 8443, 3

    2004

  81. [89]

    Moorwood, A., Cuby, J.-G., & Lidman, C.\ 1998a, The Messenger, 91, 9

  82. [90]

    Moorwood, A., Cuby, J.-G., Biereichel, P., et al.\ 1998b, The Messenger, 94, 7

  83. [91]

    J., Tominaga, N., Langer, N., et al.\ 2014, , 569, A57

    Moriya, T. J., Tominaga, N., Langer, N., et al.\ 2014, , 569, A57

    2014

  84. [92]

    R., Huchra, J

    Mould, J. R., Huchra, J. P., Freedman, W. L., et al.\ 2000, , 529, 786

    2000

  85. [93]

    Nakano, S., Kushida, R., & Kushida, Y.\ 1994, , 6122, 3

    1994

  86. [94]

    F., Massey, P., Skiff, B., Meynet, G.\ 2012, , 749, 177

    Neugent, K. F., Massey, P., Skiff, B., Meynet, G.\ 2012, , 749, 177

    2012

  87. [95]

    Nicholl, M.\ 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230

    2018

  88. [96]

    O., Sullivan, M., Shaviv, N

    Ofek, E. O., Sullivan, M., Shaviv, N. J., et al.\ 2014, , 789, 104

    2014

  89. [97]

    Pastorello, A., Turatto, M., Benetti, S., et al.\ 2002, , 333, 27

    2002

  90. [98]

    J., et al.\ 2011, Cent

    Pastorello, A., Stanishev, V., Smartt, S. J., et al.\ 2011, Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 2851, 2

    2011

  91. [99]

    Pastorello, A., Chen, T.-W., Cai, Y.-Z., et al.\ 2019a, , 625, L8

  92. [100]

    Pastorello, A., Mason, E., Taubenberger, S., et al.\ 2019b, , 630, A75

  93. [101]

    Pastorello, A., Fraser, M., Valerin, G., et al.\ 2021a, , 646, A119

  94. [102]

    Pastorello, A., Valerin, G., Fraser, M., et al.\ 2021b, , 647, A93

  95. [103]

    Pastorello, A., Valerin, G., Fraser, M., et al.\ 2023, , 671, A158

    2023

  96. [104]

    A., Taggart, K., Dahiwale, A., et al.\ 2020, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2020-3139, 1

    Perley, D. A., Taggart, K., Dahiwale, A., et al.\ 2020, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2020-3139, 1

    2020

  97. [105]

    J.\ 1998, , 110, 863

    Pickles, A. J.\ 1998, , 110, 863

    1998

  98. [106]

    L., McMillan, R., Bakos, G., et al.\ 2011, Cent

    Prieto, J. L., McMillan, R., Bakos, G., et al.\ 2011, Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 2903, 1

    2011

  99. [107]

    & Li, W.\ 2005, , 8544, 3

    Pugh, H. & Li, W.\ 2005, , 8544, 3

    2005

  100. [108]

    L., Habergham-Mawson, S

    Ransome, C. L., Habergham-Mawson, S. M., Darnley, M. J., James, P. A., Percival, S. M.\ 2022, , 513, 3564

    2022

  101. [109]

    Roming, P., Pritchard, T., & Brown, P.\ 2011, The Astronomer's Telegram, 3690, 1

    2011

  102. [110]

    Roming, P. W. A., Pritchard, T. A., Prieto, J. L., et al.\ 2012, , 751, 92

    2012

  103. [111]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P.\ 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  104. [112]

    L., MacLeod, M., Loeb, A., et al.\ 2020, , 892, 13

    Schr der, S. L., MacLeod, M., Loeb, A., et al.\ 2020, , 892, 13

    2020

  105. [113]

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al.\ 2017, , 129, 054201

    2017

  106. [114]

    M., Tzanidakis, A., et al.\ 2023, , 959, 142

    Sit, T., Kasliwal, M. M., Tzanidakis, A., et al.\ 2023, , 959, 142

    2023

  107. [115]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al.\ 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  108. [116]

    Smith N., Tombleson R., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 598

    2015

  109. [117]

    E., Van Dyk, S

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Van Dyk, S. D., et al.\ 2016, , 458, 950

    2016

  110. [118]

    J., & Lundqvist, P.\ 1998, , 493, 933

    Sollerman, J., Cumming, R. J., & Lundqvist, P.\ 1998, , 493, 933

    1998

  111. [119]

    N., Cobb, B., & Filippenko, A

    Steele, T. N., Cobb, B., & Filippenko, A. V.\ 2009, Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 2011, 1

    2009

  112. [120]

    D., Taddia, F., Fraser, M., et al.\ 2020, , 639, A104

    Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., Fraser, M., et al.\ 2020, , 639, A104

    2020

  113. [121]

    D., Taddia, F., Lawrence, S

    Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., Lawrence, S. S., et al.\ 2022, , 939, L8

    2022

  114. [122]

    Swift, B., Burket, J., Pugh, H., et al.\ 2004, , 8271, 2

    2004

  115. [123]

    D., Sollerman, J., et al.\ 2013, , 555, A10

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Sollerman, J., et al.\ 2013, , 555, A10

    2013

  116. [124]

    Tody, D.\ 1986, , 627, 733

    1986

  117. [125]

    A., Young, T

    Turatto, M., Mazzali, P. A., Young, T. R., et al.\ 1998, , 498, L129

    1998

  118. [126]

    Tylenda, R., Hajduk, M., Kami \'n ski, T., et al.\ 2011, , 528, A114

    2011

  119. [127]

    Valenti, S., Fraser, M., Benetti, S., et al.\ 2011, , 416, 3138

    2011

  120. [128]

    L., Pastorello, A., et al.\ 2022, , 513, 4983

    Valerin, G., Pumo, M. L., Pastorello, A., et al.\ 2022, , 513, 4983

    2022

  121. [129]

    A., Catchpole, R

    Whitelock, P. A., Catchpole, R. M., Menzies, J. W., et al.\ 1988, , 234, 5P

    1988

  122. [130]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A.\ 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 1015

    2002

  123. [131]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A.\ 2015, , 810, 34

    2015

  124. [132]

    L.\ 2006, , 118, 1711

    Wright, E. L.\ 2006, , 118, 1711

    2006

  125. [133]

    & Gal-Yam, A.\ 2012, , 124, 668

    Yaron, O. & Gal-Yam, A.\ 2012, , 124, 668

    2012

  126. [134]

    Ser., 355, 135

    Zickgraf, F.-J.\ 2006, ASP Conf. Ser., 355, 135

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.