Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 175 references

Luminous, rapidly declining supernovae as stripped transitional objects in low metallicity environments: the case of SN 2022lxg

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 2022lxg, a luminous and rapidly declining Type II supernova, is a transitional object whose two circumstellar-interaction phases and narrow helium P-Cygni profiles reveal a partially stripped, compact progenitor in a low-metallicity…

desk verdict Careful, data-rich SN study with genuinely new diagnostics; the low-metallicity title claim is the fragile part, not the core physics. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12135 v1 pith:VW5TE2SC submitted 2025-06-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

P. Charalampopoulos , R. Kotak , J. Sollerman , C. P. Gutiérrez , M. Pursiainen , T. L. Killestein , S. Schulze , P. J. Pessi
show 19 more authors
K. Maeda T. Kangas Y.-Z. Cai C. Fremling K. R. Hinds T. Jegou du Laz E. Kankare M. M. Kasliwal H. Kuncarayakti P. Lundqvist F. J. Masci S. Mattila D. A. Perley A. Reguitti T. M. Reynolds M. Stritzinger L. Tartaglia J. Van Roestel A. Wold
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords supernovae:individual:SN2022lxgTypeIIsupernovaecircumstellarinteractionmasslosscaseCbinarytransferlow-metallicityhostgalaxyflashionizationsupernovapolarimetry
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 2022lxg, a supernova caught within a day of its explosion, rose to a peak brightness of $-19.41$ mag in the $g$-band in about ten days and then faded at $3.48$ mag per 50 days, faster than any known Type II-linear event. The paper argues that this combination of extreme luminosity and rapid decline is the signature of a star stripped of most of its hydrogen envelope, with a compact progenitor that exploded into a dense, asymmetric circumstellar shell. Two distinct phases of circumstellar interaction are documented: an early flash of hydrogen and He~II lines lasting roughly eight days, and a later phase after day 35 when the spectrum transforms from Type IIb-like to interacting-SN-like. Narrow P-Cygni profiles of He~I 1.0830~$\mu$m at about 150 km s$^{-1}$ reveal slow-moving, unshocked, hydrogen-and-helium material, and the authors propose a binary system that underwent case C mass transfer as the unifying explanation.

What carries the argument

The central observational mechanism is the narrow P-Cygni profile of He~I 1.0830~$\mu$m, measured with a peak-to-peak separation of ~150 km s$^{-1}$ at +40 and +50 d; it is the direct evidence that slow-moving, unshocked circumstellar gas containing both hydrogen and helium survived around the progenitor, i.e. that stripping was partial. Around this anchor, the argument is carried by a two-phase circumstellar-interaction picture: early flash-ionisation signatures (hydrogen and He~II, lasting ~8 d) from a dense inner CSM, followed by a second, weaker interaction phase from ~+35 d when the receding photosphere exposes more distant material. The proposed physical machinery is case C mass transfer in a close binary -- mass transfer occurring after core helium burning, when the donor is too compact for earlier Roche-lobe overflow -- producing a disc-like asymmetric CSM and a partially stripped, compact progenitor near the blue/yellow supergiant boundary.

What would settle it

Take a spectrum of the presumed host galaxy WISEA J191523.71+481938.5 and measure its redshift: if it does not match the supernova's $z=0.0214$, the environmental claim loses its direct support, and the low-metallicity pillar of the paper collapses to an assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, SN 2022lxg is a transitional object that straddles the Type IIb and interacting Type II classes: before roughly +35 days its spectra resemble those of Type IIb supernovae, and afterward they resemble interacting SNe II. The evidence includes a luminous peak ($M_{g,\mathrm{peak}}=-19.41$ mag) that cannot be powered by the very low inferred nickel mass ($\lesssim 0.013\,M_\odot$), two phases of circumstellar interaction (flash-ionisation lines until ~+8 d and a second interaction signature from ~+35 d), and narrow He~I 1.0830~$\mu$m P-Cygni profiles at ~150 km s$^{-1}$ that demonstrate slow-moving, unshocked, hydrogen-and-helium CSM. The authors conclude that the progenitor was partially stripped, more compact than a red supergiant, and that a binary system undergoing case C mass transfer -- which failed to remove the entire hydrogen envelope -- is the plausible way to unite the observations, with a disc-like, asymmetric CSM explaining the low photospheric velocity, the intrinsic polarisation of $p\sim(0.5{-}1.0)\%$, and the late-time centring of H$\alpha$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the faint dwarf galaxy WISEA J191523.71+481938.5 is actually the host of SN 2022lxg; the paper's low-metallicity conclusion ($Z\approx0.16\,Z_\odot$) rests on that identification plus a host-luminosity metallicity scaling relation, and the paper itself notes that such scaling relations are a poor proxy for the local metallicity at the explosion site.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, SN 2022lxg demonstrates that a single event can evolve from a Type IIb-like spectrum to an interacting-SN-II spectrum as the photosphere recedes, making the two classes part of one continuum rather than distinct populations.
  • The luminous peak and fast decline of these objects would be powered by ejecta–CSM interaction rather than by radioactive decay, explaining why the nickel mass inferred from the tail is more than an order of magnitude lower than the peak-based estimate.
  • The proposed case C mass-transfer channel predicts a compact, partially stripped progenitor and an asymmetric disc-like CSM, which is consistent with the measured intrinsic polarisation and with the discrepancy between photospheric and ejecta velocities.
  • Luminous, fast-declining Type II SNe in the previously studied sample would share this same physical origin, with their rarity following naturally from the narrow parameter space that allows late, incomplete stripping.
  • In low-metallicity dwarf hosts, the smaller stellar radii make late Roche-lobe overflow more likely, so the environmental trend found in this paper would be a real physical driver rather than a selection effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A survivor of the mass-transfer binary should be present near the explosion site; deep late-time imaging or a search for a blue companion in archival data after the SN fades could test the binary scenario directly.
  • If the disc-like CSM geometry is right, spectropolarimetric monitoring across the +35 d transition should show a rotation of the polarisation position angle, a signature that is currently only sparsely sampled.
  • The scenario predicts that other luminous fast-declining Type II SNe should also show narrow He I 1.0830 µm P-Cygni profiles at similar epochs when observed at sufficient resolution; re-examining existing NIR spectra of the comparison sample would be a direct test.
  • Measuring the local oxygen abundance at the SN position from resolved H II regions, rather than from host luminosity, would tighten or refute the proposed low-metallicity link.
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. This paper presents a multi-band photometric, spectroscopic, and imaging-polarimetric study of SN 2022lxg, a luminous (Mg,peak = -19.41 mag) and rapidly declining Type II supernova discovered within about a day of explosion. The authors derive a tight explosion epoch, measure rise and decline timescales, construct pseudo-bolometric light curves, and use a MOSFiT csmni model to estimate ejecta and CSM properties. Spectroscopically, they identify an early flash-ionisation phase (H I and He II lines), an intermediate IIb-like phase with broad H, He, and Fe II lines, and a later phase after about +35 d that resembles interacting Type II SNe, supported by narrow ~150 km/s P-Cygni profiles of He I 1.0830 microns attributed to unshocked, partially stripped CSM. They also report low 56Ni from the tail, a discrepancy between photospheric and ejecta velocities, and low-level intrinsic polarization. The proposed scenario is a close binary that underwent case C mass transfer, producing a disc-like CSM, with the low-metallicity environment inferred from the presumed host galaxy WISEA J191523.71+481938.5.

Significance. The observational backbone of this paper is strong: the explosion epoch is estimated with a Monte Carlo procedure with propagated uncertainties, the peak magnitudes, decline rates, and flash timescale carry formal errors, and the spectroscopic phase division is well documented. The direct evidence for unshocked He-rich CSM from narrow NIR P-Cygni profiles, the low 56Ni mass from tail estimates, and the polarization measurement are based on observables rather than model outputs, and the paper is candid about the limitations of the MOSFiT fits and the host-galaxy assumption. If the host association is confirmed and the metallicity claim is placed on a firmer footing, the paper would establish SN 2022lxg as a valuable transitional object between Type IIb and interacting Type II SNe and support the proposed case C binary mass-transfer scenario. At present, however, the title-level low-metallicity pillar is conditional on an assumed host identification and on a host-luminosity metallicity scaling that the authors themselves concede is not a good proxy for local SN-site abundances.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Section 4.1.3, and the title/abstract] The low-metallicity claim rests on the identification of WISEA J191523.71+481938.5 as the host, but Section 3.1 explicitly states only that 'in the absence of other candidate hosts, we assume that this galaxy is the host galaxy of SN 2022lxg'. The galaxy has no spectroscopic or photometric redshift, and no chance-coincidence probability or deep search for an unresolved host at the SN position is provided. The SN redshift comes from its own late-time lines and does not constrain the galaxy's distance. If the galaxy is unrelated or at a different redshift, the inferred M_B = -14.4 mag, the 4.6 kpc projected offset, and the L-Z metallicity of 0.16 Zsun in Section 4.1.3 are invalid, and the title-level claim of a low-metallicity environment loses its direct support. The authors should obtain a spectrum of WISEA J191523.71+481938.5 to measure its redshift and, if possible, its emission-line metallicity, or perform a quantitative chance-coincidence calculation and a stacked-image search for a host coincident with the SN. Otherwise, the metallicity discussion should be explicitly demoted to a speculative note and the title and abstract adjusted accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.1.3 and Figure 21] Even if the host association is confirmed, the metallicity estimate is not a measurement of the SN environment. Section 4.1.3 derives 12+log(O/H) from the host total luminosity through the Tremonti et al. (2004) L-Z relation and then, citing Modjaz et al. (2011), acknowledges that host-luminosity metallicities are not a good proxy for local SN-site oxygen abundances. The paper should not present 'Z = 0.16 Zsun' as a property of the explosion site; at most it is a rough, large-aperture estimate of the host galaxy's global metallicity. The case C mass-transfer argument in Section 4.2, which invokes the inverse size-metallicity correlation for massive stars, should be framed as conditional on this weak environmental constraint.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.1 and Table 1] The explosion-epoch uncertainty is quoted as MJD 59731.37 +0.02/-0.07 in the text but as 59731.37 +0.04/-0.06 in Table 1; please reconcile these values.
  2. [Section 3.3.4] The sentence identifying an emission line at ~1.82 microns as 'Mgi 1.183 microns' and a line at ~1.65 microns as 'Mgii 1.680 microns' contains inconsistent wavelengths; please correct the line identifications or the wavelengths.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3.3.2] The statement that 'metal lines are largely absent' should be qualified, since the spectra show a broad Fe II blend near 5300 Å and the Ca II NIR triplet; what appears to be absent is strong photospheric metal absorption lines rather than all metal features.
  4. [Section 3.4] The second polarimetry epoch has p/sigma ~ 1 and cannot constrain the evolution of asphericity; the phrase 'there seems to be an evolution towards a more spherical configuration' overstates the constraint and should be marked as consistent with no significant evolution.
  5. [Figure 21 caption] The word 'tope panels' should be 'top panels'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the physical conclusions rest on direct observables and independent cross-checks, and the host-galaxy/metallicity caveat is an assumption risk, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the paper's main claims is self-contained. The fast decline rate, low ejecta mass, low 56Ni mass from the tail, flash-ionisation lines, narrow (~150 km/s) He I 1.0830 micron P-Cygni profiles, and polarisation degree are all direct observables or standard inferences from them. The MOSFiT light-curve fits provide posterior estimates of Mej, v_ej, M_CSM, and M_Ni, but the paper explicitly cross-checks these against independent quantities: the fitted v_ej (~20,000 km/s) is compared with spectroscopic line velocities, the fitted M_Ni is compared with the tail-based 56Ni estimates, and the CSM radius is compared with the blackbody radius evolution. These are consistency checks, not circular reductions. The paper also acknowledges model caveats and states that results should be interpreted with caution. The main caveat is the presumed host galaxy: Section 3.1 explicitly says 'In the absence of other candidate hosts, we assume that this galaxy is the host galaxy of SN 2022lxg,' and the metallicity is derived from this assumed host via the Tremonti et al. (2004) L-Z relation. This is an unverified assumption and a potential validity risk for the environmental claim, but it is not circular: the SN's own photometric, spectroscopic, and polarimetric properties do not depend on the host identification, and the paper itself notes the limitations of host-luminosity metallicity as a proxy for SN-site metallicity. The self-citations to P23 are used as a comparison sample and to define an arbitrary decline-rate threshold; they are not invoked as a uniqueness proof or as a load-bearing derivation of SN 2022lxg's properties. No step reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of fitted or hand-chosen numbers and a standard set of domain assumptions. The MOSFiT light-curve fit contributes 11 free parameters whose posteriors support the low ejecta mass (1.02 Msun) and low nickel (0.013 Msun) claims, though those claims are independently supported by the directly observed decline rate and tail luminosity. The explosion epoch and mass-loss-rate estimates rest on the hand-chosen early temperature (40,000 K) and CSM wind velocity (75 km/s). The invented structure is the asymmetric, disk-like CSM, which is inferred from the polarization, the photospheric-versus-ejecta velocity mismatch, and the H-alpha centering, rather than directly detected. The host association and the L-Z metallicity scaling are the most fragile inputs and are flagged as caveats in the body of the paper.

free parameters (13)
  • MOSFiT log fNi (56Ni mass fraction) = -1.87 (+0.20/-0.15)
    Fitted to the multi-band light curve to reproduce the peak; drives the 56Ni mass inference (MNi = 0.013 Msun).
  • MOSFiT log kappa_gamma (gamma-ray opacity) = 0.53 (+0.21/-0.18), i.e. 3.4 cm2/g
    Free parameter adopted to fit the late-time +313.1 d detection; far above the standard 0.027 cm2/g, absorbing unmodeled CSM interaction.
  • MOSFiT vej (ejecta velocity) = 2.00 (+0.04/-0.05) x 10^4 km/s
    Prior set from spectroscopic line minima (17,000-23,000 km/s); posterior used with Mej for the kinetic energy estimate.
  • MOSFiT log MCSM (CSM shell mass) = -1.79 (+0.12/-0.12), 0.016 Msun
    Fitted CSM mass used in the mass-loss rate estimate of Sect. 4.2.
  • MOSFiT log Mej (ejecta mass) = 0.01 (+0.13/-0.18), 1.02 Msun
    Key output supporting the low-ejecta-mass claim; the claim is also independently supported by the directly observed decline rate.
  • MOSFiT log R0 (inner CSM radius) = 0.14 (+0.14/-0.20) AU
    Fitted; used to estimate the CSM mass-loss rate and to bound the progenitor radius (R* below about 297 Rsun).
  • MOSFiT log rho0 (CSM density at R0) = -8.61 (+0.17/-0.16) g/cm3
    Fitted with R0 to set the CSM density profile; enters the Mdot estimate.
  • MOSFiT log nH,host (host column density) = 16.93 (+0.76/-0.59) cm-2
    Fitted host extinction proxy; posterior consistent with negligible host reddening.
  • MOSFiT log Tmin = 3.82 (+0.01/-0.01) K
    Fitted minimum photospheric temperature floor.
  • MOSFiT texp = -0.21 (+0.03/-0.03) days
    Fitted explosion time offset; consistent with the independent explosion epoch estimate.
  • MOSFiT log sigma (white noise) = -0.65 (+0.02/-0.02)
    Added variance term to reach reduced chi2 = 1.
  • Assumed early-phase temperature = 40,000 K with sigma_T = 25,000 K
    Choice for the pre-peak epochs in the explosion epoch determination; lacking UV photometry the early temperature is not measured.
  • Assumed CSM wind velocity for mass-loss estimates = 75 +/- 25 km/s
    Assumed YSG/RSG wind speed range to convert the flash timescale and Mdot into a CSM mass (Sect. 4.2).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Planck 2018 flat LCDM cosmology (H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m = 0.315, Omega_Lambda = 0.685)
    Adopted distance scale, giving luminosity distance 96.6 Mpc and distance modulus 34.925 (Sect. 1).
  • domain assumption Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law with RV = 3.1 and MW E(B-V) = 0.059 mag
    Used to deredden all photometry and spectra; host reddening assumed negligible from the blue early slope and absence of Na I D (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption Narrow P-Cygni profiles of He I trace slow, unshocked CSM
    Standard interacting-SN interpretation (Smith et al. 2002b; Kotak et al. 2004); the ~150 km/s He I 1.0830 micron profiles are read as direct evidence of partial stripping (Sect. 3.3.4).
  • domain assumption The Tremonti et al. (2004) L-Z scaling relation converts host luminosity into metallicity
    Host g-band photometry converted to B, giving 12+log(O/H) = 7.90 and Z = 0.16 Zsun (Sect. 4.1.3). The paper cites Modjaz et al. (2011) to note local metallicities are often lower than the inferred central ones.
  • domain assumption Standard 56Ni mass prescriptions (Arnett 1982 rule, Hamuy 2003, SN 1987A scaling)
    Prescription-dependent: peak estimates give 0.25-1.21 Msun, tail estimates below 0.009 Msun; the paper treats peak values as upper limits (Sect. 3.2.2, Table A.3).
  • domain assumption MOSFiT csmni model assumptions: optically thick interaction, spherical CSM, s = 2 wind profile, delta = 0, n = 12
    Authors flag in Sect. 3.2.3 that optically thick interaction is inappropriate for the fitted low CSM mass and that spherical symmetry is contradicted by the polarization evidence.
  • domain assumption Homologous expansion with v_ej = 20,000 km/s for all CSM extent and mass-loss conversions
    Sect. 4.2: flash timescale of 8.24 d gives CSM radius about 1.42e15 cm and mass-loss onset about 6 years before explosion.
invented entities (2)
  • Azimuthally asymmetric disc-like CSM around the progenitor independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the velocity discrepancy (photospheric about 7,000 versus ejecta about 20,000 km/s), the 0.5-1.0% intrinsic polarization, the late H-alpha centering, and the two interaction phases (Sect. 4.2, Fig. 22).
    Direct evidence is indirect but real: one significant polarimetry epoch (+17.4 d, p/sigma about 3-4), the v_ph versus v_ej discrepancy, and blueshift-to-rest H-alpha evolution. The specific disc geometry is not directly imaged; comparison is drawn to the binary RY Scuti and to disc-CSM models of Smith et al. (2015).
  • Two-component CSM (inner dense shell plus outer extended material) independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the two interaction phases, flash lines from the inner dense CSM and late interaction from the outer material (Sect. 4.2); analogous to the configuration invoked for SN 2018ivc.
    The two phases are observed (flash lines until +8-9 d; renewed interaction at +35-40 d); the specific density structure is model-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Luminous, rapidly declining supernovae as stripped transitional objects in low metallicity environments: the case of SN 2022lxg." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VW5TE2SC

@misc{pith2026250612135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Luminous, rapidly declining supernovae as stripped transitional objects in low metallicity environments: the case of SN 2022lxg},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VW5TE2SC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12135}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of the optical and near-infrared properties of SN 2022lxg, a bright ($\rm M_{g\, \mathrm{peak}}=-19.41$ mag) and rapidly evolving SN. It was discovered within a day of explosion, and rose to peak brightness in 10 d. Two distinct phases of circumstellar interaction are evident in the data. The first is marked by a steep blue continuum (T $>15,000$ K) with flash-ionisation features due to hydrogen and He II. The second, weaker phase is marked by a change in the colour evolution accompanied by changes in the shapes and velocities of the spectral line profiles. Narrow P-Cygni profiles (~ $150$ km s$^{-1}$) of He I further indicate the presence of slow-moving unshocked material and suggesting partial stripping of the progenitor. The fast decline of the light curve from peak (3.48$\pm$ 0.26 mag $\rm (50\,d)^{-1}$ in $g$-band) implies that the ejecta mass must be low. Spectroscopically, until $+35$ d there are similarities to some Type IIb SNe but then there is a transition to spectra that are more reminiscent of an interacting SN II. However, metal lines are largely absent in the spectra, even at epochs of 80 d. Its remote location from the presumed host galaxy, a dwarf with $\rm M_B$ ~ $-14.4$ mag, is consistent with our metallicity estimate - close to the SMC value - obtained from scaling relations. Furthermore, several lines of evidence (including intrinsic polarisation of $p$ ~ (0.5-1.0) %) point to deviations from spherical symmetry. We suggest that a plausible way of uniting the observational clues is to consider a binary system that underwent case C mass transfer. This failed to remove the entire H-envelope of the progenitor before it underwent core-collapse. In this scenario, the progenitor itself would be more compact and perhaps straddle the boundary between blue and yellow supergiants, tying in with the early spectroscopic similarity to Type IIb SNe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12135 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. r-band image showing SN 2022lxg (α = 19h15m23.630s , δ = +48◦19′27.70′′, J2000), taken with NOT+ALFOSC on 2022 Jul 25 (+54.2 d). The inset shows the region around the SN; no obvious host galaxy is apparent. Blagorodnova et al. 2018; Kim et al. 2022). These data were pro￾cessed using the ZTF forced photometry service1 (Masci et al. 2019) and FPipe (Fremling et al. 2016), respectively. Further imaging obtained at the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curves of SN 2022lxg (corrected for MW extinction; E(B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral series of SN 2022lxg (scaled with the photometry and corrected for MW extinction). Emission lines are marked with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Deep (1 hr) r-band image taken with NOT+ALFOSC on 2023 Apr 16 (+313.1 d; Table A.1). A faint source is visi￾ble at the location of SN 2022lxg. Interestingly, a known galaxy (WISEA J191523.71+481938.5), 9′′ .78 NW of the SN is now ap￾parent. At our adopted luminosity di…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: light curve rise and decline timescales against absolute magnitude. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gaussian process interpolations of the colours ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the absolute magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pseudo-bolometric gcroiz light curve of SN 2022lxg (top panel) and blackbody temperature and radius evolution (middle and bottom panels) derived from blackbody fits to the SEDs. The bolometric luminosity derived with the Stefan-Boltzmann law is also shown in the top pa…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fits to the multi-band light curve using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Flash-ionisation features in SN 2022lxg. Left panel: Keck [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of optical spectroscopic lines in velocity space. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectral comparison of SN 2022lxg to other luminous Type II SNe from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Luminosity, pEW, FWHM and velocity offset evolution of the Hα line emission. trum before gradually fading. We used the tools SNID (Blondin & Tonry 2007) and GELATO (Harutyunyan et al. 2008) to search for objects with spectra similar to those of SN 2022lxg during these…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: NIR spectra of SN 2022lxg taken from Tinyanont et al. (2024). The spectra are binned to 5 Å for visual purposes and the original spectra are plotted with lighter colours in the back￾ground. The colours of the vertical lines denote the different el￾ements, green is for…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Hα line emission FWHM (top) and pseudo-equivalent width (bottom) compared to other luminous Type II SNe from the P23 sample (adapted from P23). Mean values for regular SNe II from the sample of Gutiérrez et al. (2017) are presented in grey (with the 1σ standard deviat…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evolution of NIR spectroscopic lines in velocity space. The spectra are binned to 5 Å for visual purposes and the original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Narrow P-Cygni profiles in velocity space. Top panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Intensity-normalised Stokes q and u parameters, from ALFOSC imaging polarimetry, in the V (blue circles) and R (red squares) bands, at phases +17.4 d (filled markers) and +36.1 d (open markers). The grey star marks our best ISP estimate and the dashed circles mark the…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Spectral comparison of SN 2022lxg to other Type IIb SNe, throughout di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: SN 2022lxg He i NIR lines in velocity space and comparison with other Type IIb SNe; SN 2020acat (Medler et al. 2023), SN 2011dh (Ergon et al. 2015), SN 2008ax (Roming et al. 2009). The spectra are binned to 5 Å for visual purposes and the original spectra are plotted …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Metallicity of host galaxies as a function of host ab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: An example of a possible configuration that gave rise to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

175 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later rem...

  4. [4]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifcmd#1(@)(@)\@nil #2 @lbibitem\@undefined @lbibitem\@lbibitem \@lbibitem[#1]#2 @lb...

  5. [5]

    " id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 NAT@ctr 0 @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.=1000 \@...

    2010

  6. [6]

    2020, A&A, 641, A6

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2020

  7. [7]

    L., & Asplund, M

    Allende Prieto , C., Lambert, D. L., & Asplund, M. 2001, ApJ, 556, L63

    2001

  8. [8]

    P., Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C

    Anderson, J. P., Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C. P., et al. 2014 a , MNRAS, 441, 671

    2014

Show all 175 references
  1. [9]

    P., Gonz \' a lez-Gait \' a n, S., Hamuy, M., et al

    Anderson, J. P., Gonz \' a lez-Gait \' a n, S., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014 b , ApJ, 786, 67

    2014

  2. [10]

    E., Shrestha, M., Bostroem, K

    Andrews, J. E., Shrestha, M., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 37

    2025

  3. [11]

    Andrews, J. E. & Smith, N. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 74

    2018

  4. [12]

    M., et al

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 777

    2010

  5. [13]

    2011, ApJ, 742, L18

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, L18

    2011

  6. [14]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785

    1982

  7. [15]

    2022, Transient Name Serv

    Ashall, C. 2022, Transient Name Serv. Classif. Report, No. 2022-1602, 2022-1602, 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    S., Tokita, K., et al

    Barbary, K., Dawson, K. S., Tokita, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1358

    2009

  9. [17]

    2012, Astron

    Barnsley, R., Smith, R., & Steele, I. 2012, Astron. Nachrichten, 333, 101

    2012

  10. [18]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  11. [19]

    N., Utrobin, V

    Benetti, S., Chugai, N. N., Utrobin, V. P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3296

    2016

  12. [20]

    C., Benvenuto, O

    Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. G., Nomoto, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757

    2012

  13. [21]

    D., Walters, R., et al

    Blagorodnova, N., Neill, J. D., Walters, R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 035003

    2018

  14. [22]

    & Tonry, J

    Blondin, S. & Tonry, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1024

    2007

  15. [23]

    A., Valenti, S., Sand, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 31

    2020

  16. [24]

    2024, Zenodo

    Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, Zenodo

    2024

  17. [25]

    W., Uomoto, A

    Branch, D., Falk, S. W., Uomoto, A. K., et al. 1981, ApJ, 244, 780

    1981

  18. [26]

    E., Cantiello, M., et al

    Brott, I., De Mink , S. E., Cantiello, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530 [ [arXiv] 1102.0530 ]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 46

    2021

  20. [28]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 119

    2023

  21. [29]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 1807

    Bufano, F., Pignata, G., Bersten, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1807

    2014

  22. [30]

    A., Benetti, S., et al

    Cappellaro, E., Mazzali, P. A., Benetti, S., et al. 1997, A&A, 328, 203

    1997

  23. [31]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  24. [32]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 121

    Chatzopoulos, E., Craig Wheeler , J., & Vinko, J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 121

    2012

  25. [33]

    C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z. L., & Nagy, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 76

    2013

  26. [34]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Irwin, C. M. 2011, ApJ, 729, L6

    2011

  27. [35]

    V., Li, W., et al

    Chornock, R., Filippenko, A. V., Li, W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 41

    2011

  28. [36]

    Chugai, N. N. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1448

    2001

  29. [37]

    Chugai, N. N. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 866

    2009

  30. [38]

    S., De Mink , S

    Claeys, J. S., De Mink , S. E., Pols, O. R., Eldridge, J. J., & Baes, M. 2011, A&A, 528, A131

    2011

  31. [39]

    Y., Ashall, C., et al

    Davis, S., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 4

    2019

  32. [40]

    P., Galbany, L., et al

    de Jaeger, T., Anderson, J. P., Galbany, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4592

    2018

  33. [41]

    D., & Hewitt, A

    de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Buta, R., Ables, H. D., & Hewitt, A. V. 1981, PASP, 93, 36

    1981

  34. [42]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001

    2020

  35. [43]

    2015, A&A, 577, A116

    D'Elia, V., Pian, E., Melandri, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A116

    2015

  36. [44]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2022, A&A, 660, L9

    2022

  37. [45]

    J., & Audit, E

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Audit, E. 2017, A&A, 605, A83

    2017

  38. [46]

    & Jacobson-Gal \' a n, W

    Dessart, L. & Jacobson-Gal \' a n, W. V. 2023, A&A, 677, A105

    2023

  39. [47]

    2024, A&A, 685, A58

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58

    2024

  40. [48]

    2015, A&A, 580, A142

    Ergon, M., Jerkstrand, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A142

    2015

  41. [49]

    V., et al

    Faran, T., Poznanski, D., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 554

    2014

  42. [50]

    P., Vacca, W

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P., Vacca, W. D., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1093

    2000

  43. [51]

    V., Matheson, T., & Ho, L

    Filippenko, A. V., Matheson, T., & Ho, L. C. 1993, ApJ, 415, L103

    1993

  44. [52]

    J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al

    Foley, R. J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, L105

    2007

  45. [53]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Fransson, C., Challis, P. M., Chevalier, R. A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 991

    2005

  46. [54]

    2016, A&A, 593 [ [arXiv] 1606.03074 ]

    Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 593 [ [arXiv] 1606.03074 ]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471

    2014

  48. [56]

    P., S \' a nchez, S

    Galbany, L., Anderson, J. P., S \' a nchez, S. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 107

    2018

  49. [57]

    E., Polshaw, J., Kotak, R., et al

    Gall, E. E., Polshaw, J., Kotak, R., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A3

    2015

  50. [58]

    2013, A&A, 558, A103

    Georgy, C., Ekstr \" o m, S., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A103

    2013

  51. [59]

    P., Grupe, D., et al

    Gezari, S., Halpern, J. P., Grupe, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1313

    2009

  52. [60]

    2024, arXiv, 18, arXiv:2409.17296

    Gkini, A., Fransson, C., Lunnan, R., et al. 2024, arXiv, 18, arXiv:2409.17296

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2212

    Gonz \' a lez-Gait \' a n, S., Tominaga, N., Molina, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2212

    2015

  54. [62]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001

    2019

  55. [63]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 236, 6

    2018

  56. [64]

    P., Anderson, J

    Guti \' e rrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, L15

    2014

  57. [65]

    P., Anderson, J

    Guti \' e rrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 89

    2017

  58. [66]

    P., Anderson, J

    Guti \' e rrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Sullivan, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3232

    2018

  59. [67]

    P., Pastorello, A., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Guti \' e rrez, C. P., Pastorello, A., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 974

    2020

  60. [68]

    u ver, T. & \

    G \" u ver, T. & \" O zel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050

    2009

  61. [69]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 905

    Hamuy, M. 2003, ApJ, 582, 905

    2003

  62. [70]

    J., Hey, D., et al

    Hart, K., Shappee, B. J., Hey, D., et al. 2023, arXiv, arXiv:2304.03791

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    H., Pfahler, P., Pastorello, A., et al

    Harutyunyan, A. H., Pfahler, P., Pastorello, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 383

    2008

  64. [72]

    2000, AJ, 119, 923

    Heiles, C. 2000, AJ, 119, 923

    2000

  65. [73]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120

    2023

  66. [74]

    L., Leonard, D

    Hoffman, J. L., Leonard, D. C., Chornock, R., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 1186

    2008

  67. [75]

    1991, A&A, 246, 481

    Hoflich, P. 1991, A&A, 246, 481

    1991

  68. [76]

    C., Flewelling, H., et al

    Huber, M., Chambers, K. C., Flewelling, H., et al. 2015, ATel, 7153, 1

    2015

  69. [77]

    2010, in Hot Cool Bridg

    Humphreys, R. 2010, in Hot Cool Bridg. Gaps Massive Star Evol., Vol. 425, 247

    2010

  70. [78]

    M., Jones, T

    Humphreys, R. M., Jones, T. J., & Martin, J. C. 2023, AJ, 166, 50

    2023

  71. [79]

    V., Dessart, L., Davis, K

    Jacobson-Gal \' a n, W. V., Dessart, L., Davis, K. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 189

    2024

  72. [80]

    K., & Ammon, K

    Jordi, K., Grebel, E. K., & Ammon, K. 2006, A&A, 460, 339

    2006

  73. [81]

    E., et al

    Kaiser, N., Aussel, H., Burke, B. E., et al. 2002, in Surv. Other Telesc. Technol. Discov., Vol. 4836 (SPIE), 154

    2002

  74. [82]

    Kewley, L. J. & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183

    2008

  75. [83]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 3

    Khazov, D., Yaron, O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 3

    2016

  76. [84]

    L., Rigault, M., Neill, J

    Kim, Y. L., Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 024505

    2022

  77. [85]

    P., Adamson, A., & Leggett, S

    Kotak, R., Meikle, W. P., Adamson, A., & Leggett, S. K. 2004, MNRAS, 354, L13

    2004

  78. [86]

    R., Frail, D

    Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., Wieringa, M. H., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 663

    1998

  79. [87]

    1998, A&A, 329, 551

    Langer, N. 1998, A&A, 329, 551

    1998

  80. [88]

    2012, Presupernova evolution of massive single and binary stars

    Langer, N. 2012, Presupernova evolution of massive single and binary stars

    2012

  81. [89]

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

    Leloudas, G., Maund, J. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, L14

    2017

  82. [90]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V., Barth, A. J., & Matheson, T. 2000, ApJ, 536, 239

    2000

  83. [91]

    J., et al

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2023 a , ApJ, 942, 17

    2023

  84. [92]

    2023 b , ApJ, 945, L3

    Maeda, K., Michiyama, T., Chandra, P., et al. 2023 b , ApJ, 945, L3

    2023

  85. [93]

    S., Fremling, C., & Kasliwal, M

    Mandigo-Stoba, M. S., Fremling, C., & Kasliwal, M. M. 2022, J. Open Source Softw., 7, 3612

    2022

  86. [94]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131

    2019

  87. [95]

    D., et al

    Mauerhan, J., Smith, N., Van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2551

    2015

  88. [96]

    C., Van Dyk , S

    Mauerhan, J. C., Van Dyk , S. D., Johansson, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 118

    2017

  89. [97]

    A., Ashall, C., et al

    Medler, K., Mazzali, P. A., Ashall, C., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett. Vol. 518, Issue 1, pp.L40-L44, 518, L40

    2023

  90. [98]

    A., Teffs, J., et al

    Medler, K., Mazzali, P. A., Teffs, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5540

    2022

  91. [99]

    1994, , 103, 97

    Meynet, G., Maeder, A., Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., & Charbonnel, C. 1994, , 103, 97

    1994

  92. [100]

    A., Chornock, R., Perley, D

    Miller, A. A., Chornock, R., Perley, D. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1303

    2009

  93. [101]

    S., et al

    Modjaz, M., Kewley, L., Bloom, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, L4

    2011

  94. [102]

    2014, Mon

    Morales-Garoffolo, A., Elias-Rosa, N., Benetti, S., et al. 2014, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Vol. 445, Issue 2, p.1647-1662, 445, 1647

    2014

  95. [103]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 95

    Morales-Garoffolo, A., Elias-Rosa, N., Bersten, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 95

    2015

  96. [104]

    Moriya, T. J. & Tominaga, N. 2012, ApJ, 747, 118

    2012

  97. [105]

    Nadyozhin, D. K. 1994, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 92, 527

    1994

  98. [106]

    Nagy, A. P. 2018, ApJ, 862, 143

    2018

  99. [107]

    2018, Res

    Nicholl, M. 2018, Res. Notes AAS, 2, 230

    2018

  100. [108]

    1995, Phys

    Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 1995, Phys. Rep., 256, 173

    1995

  101. [109]

    1993, Nature, 364, 507

    Nomoto, K., Suzuki, T., Shigeyama, T., et al. 1993, Nature, 364, 507

    1993

  102. [110]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375

    1995

  103. [111]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

    1983

  104. [112]

    P., & Sawada, R

    Ouchi, R., Maeda, K., Anderson, J. P., & Sawada, R. 2021, ApJ, 922, 141

    2021

  105. [113]

    L., Elias-Rosa, N., et al

    Pastorello, A., Prieto, J. L., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3649

    2015

  106. [114]

    1994, A&A, 282, 731

    Patat, F., Barbon, R., Cappellaro, E., et al. 1994, A&A, 282, 731

    1994

  107. [115]

    2001, ApJ, 555, 900

    Patat, F., Cappellaro, E., Danziger, J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 900

    2001

  108. [116]

    A., Mazzali, P

    Perley, D. A., Mazzali, P. A., Yan, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1031

    2019

  109. [117]

    A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al

    Perley, D. A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 180

    2022

  110. [118]

    J., Anderson, J

    Pessi, P. J., Anderson, J. P., Folatelli, G., et al. 2023 a , MNRAS, 523, 5315

    2023

  111. [119]

    L., Anderson, J

    Pessi, T., Prieto, J. L., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2023 b , A&A, 677, A28

    2023

  112. [120]

    & Pagel, B

    Pettini, M. & Pagel, B. E. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59

    2004

  113. [121]

    S., Steele, I

    Piascik, A. S., Steele, I. A., Bates, S. D., et al. 2014, in Ground-based Airborne Instrum. Astron. V, Vol. 9147 (SPIE), 91478H

    2014

  114. [122]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 4048

    Plaszczynski, S., Montier, L., Levrier, F., & Tristram, M. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 4048

    2014

  115. [123]

    1992, PASP, 104, 717

    Podsiadlowski, P. 1992, PASP, 104, 717

    1992

  116. [124]

    2016, A&A, 588, A1

    Polshaw, J., Kotak, R., Dessart, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A1

    2016

  117. [125]

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, J. Open Source Softw., 5, 2308

    2020

  118. [126]

    2023, A&A, 674, A81

    Pursiainen, M., Leloudas, G., Cikota, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A81

    2023

  119. [127]

    2022, A&A, 666, A30

    Pursiainen, M., Leloudas, G., Paraskeva, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A30

    2022

  120. [128]

    Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. 2004, Gaussian processes for machine learning

    2004

  121. [129]

    2024, A&A, 692, arXiv:2409.16890

    Reguitti, A., Dastidar, R., Pignata, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, arXiv:2409.16890

    2024 arXiv

  122. [130]

    M., Fraser, M., Mattila, S., et al

    Reynolds, T. M., Fraser, M., Mattila, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1761

    2020

  123. [131]

    M., Nagao, T., Gottumukkala, R., et al

    Reynolds, T. M., Nagao, T., Gottumukkala, R., et al. 2025 a , arXiv (Submitted to A&A), arXiv:2501.13619

    2025

  124. [132]

    M., Nagao, T., Maeda, K., et al

    Reynolds, T. M., Nagao, T., Maeda, K., et al. 2025 b , arXiv (Submitted to A&A), arXiv:2501.13621

    2025

  125. [133]

    W., Treffers, R

    Richmond, M. W., Treffers, R. R., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 1994, AJ, 107, 1022

    1994

  126. [134]

    D., Blagorodnova, N., et al

    Rigault, M., Neill, J. D., Blagorodnova, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A115

    2019

  127. [135]

    F., et al

    Rodrigo, C., Cruz, P., Aguilar, J. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689

    2024

  128. [136]

    & Solano, E

    Rodrigo, C. & Solano, E. 2020, XIV.0 Sci. Meet. Spanish Astron. Soc. p. 182, 182

    2020

  129. [137]

    2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0 , Tech

    Rodrigo, C., Solano, E., & Bayo, A. 2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0 , Tech. rep., International Virtual Observatory Alliance

    2012

  130. [138]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 71

    Rodr \' i guez, \' O ., Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2023, ApJ, 955, 71

    2023

  131. [139]

    W., Pritchard, T

    Roming, P. W., Pritchard, T. A., Brown, P. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, L118

    2009

  132. [140]

    K., Tanaka, M., Anupama, G

    Sahu, D. K., Tanaka, M., Anupama, G. C., Gurugubelli, U. K., & Nomoto, K. 2009, ApJ, 697, 676

    2009

  133. [141]

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

    2011

  134. [142]

    Schlegel, E. M. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 269

    1990

  135. [143]

    J., & Wang, C

    Schootemeijer, A., Langer, N., Grin, N. J., & Wang, C. 2019, A&A, 625, A132

    2019

  136. [144]

    L., & Ford, V

    Serkowski, K., Mathewson, D. L., & Ford, V. L. 1975, ApJ, 196, 261

    1975

  137. [145]

    Z., et al

    Shappee, B., Prieto, J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2014, Am. Astron. Soc., 223, 236.03

    2014

  138. [146]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, TNSAN, 7, 1

    2021

  139. [147]

    H., Mauerhan, J

    Shivvers, I., Groh, J. H., Mauerhan, J. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 213

    2015

  140. [148]

    Simmons, J. F. L. & Stewart, B. G. 1985, A&A, 142, 100

    1985

  141. [149]

    A., Tucker, D

    Smith, J. A., Tucker, D. L., Kent, S., et al. 2002 a , AJ, 123, 2121

    2002

  142. [150]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 1

    2020

  143. [151]

    2008, Nature, 455, 201

    Smith, N. 2008, Nature, 455, 201

    2008

  144. [152]

    D., Stahl, O., Balick, B., & Kaufer, A

    Smith, N., Gehrz, R. D., Stahl, O., Balick, B., & Kaufer, A. 2002 b , ApJ, 578, 464

    2002

  145. [153]

    C., Cenko, S

    Smith, N., Mauerhan, J. C., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1876

    2015

  146. [154]

    M., Chornock, R., et al

    Smith, N., Silverman, J. M., Chornock, R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1334

    2009

  147. [155]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132

    2020

  148. [156]

    Z., Stanek, & Z., K

    Stanek, K. Z., Stanek, & Z., K. 2022, TNSTR, 2022-1548, 1

    2022

  149. [157]

    Steele, I. A. 2004, Astron. Nachrichten, 325, 519

    2004

  150. [158]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 173

    Stritzinger, M., Taddia, F., Fransson, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 173

    2012

  151. [159]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 99

    2021

  152. [160]

    2016, A&A, 587, L7

    Taddia, F., Moquist, P., Sollerman, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, L7

    2016

  153. [161]

    J., Taggart, K., et al

    Tinyanont, S., Foley, R. J., Taggart, K., et al. 2024, PASP, 136 [ [arXiv] 2309.07102 ]

    2024 arXiv

  154. [162]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505

    2018

  155. [163]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    2004

  156. [164]

    S., & Meikle, W

    Trundle, C., Kotak, R., Vink, J. S., & Meikle, W. P. 2008, A&A, 483, L47

    2008

  157. [165]

    A., Stritzinger, M

    Valenti, S., Howell, D. A., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3939

    2016

  158. [166]

    C., & H \" o flich, P

    Wang, L., Wheeler, J. C., & H \" o flich, P. 1997, ApJ, 476, L27

    1997

  159. [167]

    C., Barker, E., Benjamin, R., et al

    Wheeler, J. C., Barker, E., Benjamin, R., et al. 1993, ApJ, 417, L71

    1993

  160. [168]

    E., Eastman, R

    Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., & Schmidt, B. P. 1999, ApJ, 516, 788

    1999

  161. [169]

    E., Eastman, R

    Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., Weaver, T. A., & Pinto, P. A. 1994, ApJ, 429, 300

    1994

  162. [170]

    E., Hartmann, D., & Pinto, P

    Woosley, S. E., Hartmann, D., & Pinto, P. A. 1989, ApJ, 346, 395

    1989

  163. [171]

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

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, The evolution and explosion of massive stars

    2002

  164. [172]

    & Gal-Yam, A

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

    2012

  165. [173]

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

    Yaron, O., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, Nat. Phys., 13, 510

    2017

  166. [174]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 10

    Yoon, S.-C., Dessart, L., & Clocchiatti, A. 2017, ApJ, 840, 10

    2017

  167. [175]

    C., Stritzinger, M., Braithwaite, J., et al

    Zinn, P. C., Stritzinger, M., Braithwaite, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A30

    2012

Pith tools

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