Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Velocity evolution of broad-lined type-Ic supernovae with and without gamma-ray bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that GRB-supernovae and ordinary broad-lined type Ic supernovae have indistinguishable expansion velocities and velocity evolution, so an optical velocity curve cannot reveal whether a jet was launched.

desk verdict The largest, most careful Ic-BL velocity study to date, whose sample-level null result is credible, but whose population-level conclusion outruns the statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11503 v2 pith:2ZEJYVW3 submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.HE

Gabriel Finneran , Laura Cotter , Antonio Martin-Carrillo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw98.70.Rz
keywords typeIc-BLsupernovaegamma-rayburstsGRB-supernovaassociationexpansionvelocityFeIIabsorptionSipower-lawdecayengine-driven
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 asks whether the launch of an ultra-relativistic gamma-ray burst jet leaves a measurable mark on the expanding ejecta of a broad-lined type Ic supernova (a hydrogen-free stellar explosion whose spectral lines are broadened by fast ejecta). Using the largest spectroscopic sample assembled for this question — 875 spectra from 61 ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae and 13 GRB-supernovae — the authors measure the velocities of the Fe II and Si II absorption features and fit the decline of those velocities with power laws. They find that neither the velocities at fifteen days after explosion nor the power-law decay indices differ statistically between the two classes: the median Fe II velocity is about 21,000 km/s in both populations, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on the best-constrained subsample return p-values between 0.39 and 0.89. This contradicts an earlier, smaller study that reported GRB-supernovae expanding about 6,000 km/s faster. If the result stands, optical velocity measurements cannot be used to flag jet-powered explosions, and GRB-supernovae and ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae should be regarded as one underlying population.

What carries the argument

Three pieces of machinery carry the argument. Velocities are measured from the wavelength of minimum flux in the blended Fe II (5169 Å) and Si II (6355 Å) absorption features, located by a cubic spline fit to Savitzky-Golay smoothed spectra, with uncertainties propagated through one thousand Monte-Carlo noise realisations per spectrum. The velocity evolution is then parameterised as a single power law \$v = a\,t^{b}\$ or as a smoothly broken power law with break time \$t_b\$, slopes \$\alpha_1\$ and \$\alpha_2\$, and a smoothness parameter \$s\$, with MCMC marginalisation of the parameters and an F-test that requires three-$\sigma$ improvement before a broken law is accepted. Population comparisons are deliberately restricted to the Gold subsample, whose explosion times are known to within three days, so that the fitted slopes and epoch velocities are not corrupted by \$t_0\$ uncertainty; the two populations are then compared with two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests.

What would settle it

Build a brightness-unbiased, volume-limited sample of nearby type Ic-BL supernovae with densely sampled pre-peak light curves and late-time radio follow-up, and compare the fifteen-day Fe II velocities of the radio-quiet subclass with those of GRB-supernovae: a statistically significant velocity deficit for the radio-quiet events would overturn the common-population conclusion, whereas continued overlap would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the presence of a GRB jet leaves no imprint on the photospheric expansion of a type Ic-BL supernova. For the Fe II feature, the median gold-sample decay index is \$-0.27^{+0.04}_{-0.27}\$ for GRB-supernovae and \$-0.30^{+0.09}_{-0.25}\$ for ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae; for Si II the medians are \$-0.4^{+0.2}_{-0.3}\$ and \$-0.6^{+0.3}_{-0.2}\$. At fifteen days the median Fe II velocity is \$\sim 21\,000\$ km s\${}^{-1}\$ in both populations, and two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests cannot reject a common parent distribution for the decay indices (Fe II p=0.85, Si II p=0.39) or for the day-15 velocities (Fe II p=0.89, Si II p=0.46). The authors also find that broken power-law evolution is common for Si II and always shallow-steep, while Fe II breaks are mostly steep-shallow, and that the engine-driven supernovae SN2016coi and PTF12gzk follow the same Si II velocity pattern as GRB060218-SN2006aj with a break near eighteen days — a possible sign of a two-component ejecta structure such as a jet or cocoon in some ordinary events. They conclude that neither the velocities nor their evolution can distinguish the classes, and that GRB-supernovae and ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae are likely drawn from the same underlying population of events.

Load-bearing premise

The central result rests on the assumption that the ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae in the sample stand in for genuinely jet-free explosions, even though they were collected by brightness-limited surveys that may favour bright, nickel-rich events seen along the jet direction; if that selection bias is strong, the measured overlap with GRB-supernovae could be an artefact of how the sample was gathered rather than a sign that the two classes are the same.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Expansion velocity is unusable as a jet discriminator: neither the Fe II nor the Si II velocity at fifteen days separates GRB-supernovae from ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae, so optical spectroscopy alone cannot reveal a hidden jet.
  • Because the Fe II and Si II decay indices overlap across type Ic, type Ic-BL, and GRB-supernovae, the deceleration rate of the ejecta appears intrinsic to stripped-envelope explosions rather than a signature of jet energy injection.
  • Broken power-law decline appears in both classes at similar rates, and the resemblance of SN2016coi and PTF12gzk to GRB060218-SN2006aj suggests that some ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae do harbour a second ejecta component, plausibly a jet or a cocoon.
  • Discriminating jet-bearing from jet-free events will have to rely on late-time radio and X-ray observations rather than on optical velocities, as the paper explicitly concludes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the brightness-limited surveys that found most of the ordinary events preferentially picked up nickel-rich, pole-on explosions, the reported velocity overlap could be a selection effect: a genuinely jet-free subset might still expand more slowly, and the common-population conclusion would then be overstated.
  • A clean test would split ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae by late-time radio detection: if radio-bright events (hidden jets) show systematically higher velocities than radio-quiet events, the two underlying populations are not actually the same.
  • The growing Fe II minus Si II velocity difference after roughly day 20 hints that the Fe II 5169 Å minimum is not a clean photospheric tracer once line de-blending sets in, which would add a systematic uncertainty to any cross-class comparison built on this line.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles the largest spectroscopic sample to date of type Ic-BL supernovae with and without associated GRBs: 61 ordinary type Ic-BL SNe and 13 GRB-SNe, comprising 875 spectra. It measures Fe II 5169 Å and Si II 6355 Å expansion velocities using a spline-fitting Monte Carlo method, fits the velocity evolution with power-law (Eq. 1) and broken power-law (Eq. 2) models, and compares the two populations using decay indices and velocities at t0+15 days, restricted to a Gold sample with well-constrained explosion times. The main result is that the two populations show overlapping velocities and statistically indistinguishable decay indices, leading the authors to conclude that GRB-SNe and ordinary Ic-BL SNe are drawn from the same underlying population of events.

Significance. The dataset is the largest of its kind and the methodology is generally careful: the Monte Carlo spline procedure, the Gold/Silver/Bronze quality tiers, the explicit t0-robustness study in Appendix D, and the literature cross-checks in Appendix E are genuine strengths. If the null result survives a treatment of selection effects, it would be an important constraint on jet-ejecta coupling and on the interpretation of Ic-BL SNe as engine-driven events. However, the headline population-equality claim currently rests on small Gold subsamples and on a survey-selected 'ordinary' sample that the manuscript itself acknowledges may be biased toward jet-bearing events. The significance of the central conclusion is therefore conditional on addressing these caveats.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 2.2, Sect. 2.3, Tables 3 and 6] The central population-equality claim is weakened by sample selection. The manuscript notes in Sect. 2.2 that ordinary Ic-BL SNe are drawn from magnitude-limited surveys such as ZTF BTS (m_peak <= 18.5 mag) and that this may bias the sample toward bright, nickel-rich, polar-viewed events that could harbour jets, while Sect. 2.3 notes the very different redshift ranges of the two discovery channels (z <~ 0.2 vs z <~ 0.6). If the 'ordinary' sample preferentially includes jet-bearing SNe, a genuine velocity difference between truly jet-free and jet-bearing populations could be masked, producing the null results in Table 6. The sample also places known engine-driven SNe in the ordinary group (e.g., SN2009bb, SN2012ap, PTF12gzk, SN2016coi). The paper does not quantify or correct for this selection effect, so the abstract conclusion that the two groups are drawn from the same underlying population is stronger than the data currently support.
  2. [Tables 3 and 6] The KS tests use Gold sample sizes of only 5-6 GRB-SNe and 11-13 ordinary Ic-BL SNe. With such small samples, failure to reject the null at the chosen p<0.01 threshold is weak evidence for population equality; p-values of 0.85, 0.39, 0.89, and 0.46 are as consistent with low statistical power as with a genuinely common underlying distribution. A power analysis or a statement of the minimum detectable velocity difference would be needed to support the abstract claim that the two populations are indistinguishable. The manuscript acknowledges the small numbers in passing, but the conclusions do not carry this caveat with sufficient weight.
  3. [Sect. 4.2, Sect. 4.4, Sect. 5.1] The quantitative statistical comparisons are not model-independent. The 15-day velocities and decay indices used in the KS tests are computed from the same power-law and broken power-law fits that define them, so the two population comparisons inherit the assumptions of the fitted model. In addition, Sect. 5.1 reports a ~12000 km/s difference between the spline-minimum Fe II velocity and the Modjaz et al. template-matching velocity for SN1998bw, illustrating that the Fe II measurements are sensitive to line blending. The raw velocity plots (left panels of Figs. 7 and 8) do show overlap, which is reassuring, but the quantitative p-values alone are not a model-independent demonstration of population equality.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 4.2.2, Fig. 12] The sentence 'as a result of these issues, SN2002ap was assigned to the Gold sample' appears to be a typo; the object shown in Fig. 12 and discussed in that paragraph is SN2009bb, not SN2002ap.
  2. [Sect. 4.6 and Sect. 5.1] Two different figures are both numbered Figure 25: the Fe II minus Si II velocity difference plot and the literature comparison plot. The latter should be renumbered to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sect. 4.2.2, Table 3] The text states a p-value of 0.21 for the Si II decay-index KS test, while Table 3 lists 0.39 for the same test; the discrepancy should be reconciled.
  4. [Sect. 4.4.2] The sentence 'it is certain that these velocities are accurate' appears to be a typo; the surrounding discussion indicates the intended meaning is that the velocities from the Bronze sample are not reliable.
  5. [Sect. 5.4] The phrase 'and references therin' should read 'and references therein'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the velocity measurements and power-law fits are independent of the population labels, and the self-citations are methodological or data-source references, not load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: spectra are measured with a spline method to obtain Fe II and Si II velocities, the velocity evolution is parameterised with single and broken power-laws, and the two populations are then compared via KS tests on the fitted decay indices and on the fit-evaluated velocities at t0+15 days. These fitted quantities are the objects of the population comparison, not inputs that define the populations; the two groups are defined solely by the presence or absence of an associated GRB, which is external to the fitting procedure. The central claim of velocity overlap is also directly visible in the left panels of Figs. 7 and 8, i.e. in the measured velocities themselves, and the fits are benchmarked against literature values in Sect. 5.1 and Appendix E. The self-citations (Finneran & Martin-Carrillo 2024 for smoothing window and knot density; Finneran et al. 2025 for the GRBSN webtool) are methodological tuning choices and a data repository, respectively; neither supplies a theoretical premise that forces the conclusion, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The acknowledged magnitude-limited selection bias of the ordinary Ic-BL sample (Sect. 2.2) is a representativeness concern that could affect the astrophysical interpretation, but it is not a circular reduction of the derivation to its own inputs. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary standard required here.

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

The analysis introduces no invented entities and no new physics; its free parameters are the fitted quantities of the phenomenological velocity models, and the population comparison is performed on those fitted distributions. The assumptions that carry the result are the standard spectroscopic ones (line identification, homologous expansion, reddening independence, explosion-epoch accuracy, archive completeness), several of which the authors themselves flag as sources of uncertainty (Sects. 2.2, 3.2, 3.5, 5.1, Appendix D).

free parameters (5)
  • Power-law normalization a and index b (Eq. 1) = Per SN; Fe II index median about -0.30 and Si II about -0.6 for Gold Ic-BL SNe
    Fitted to each SN's velocity evolution; the distributions of b are the quantities compared between populations with KS tests.
  • Broken power-law parameters A, tb, alpha1, alpha2 (Eq. 2) = Per SN; tb around 15 to 25 days for the five Fe II and six Si II broken-law SNe
    Fitted to SNe showing breaks; break time and pre/post-break indices are then interpreted as possible jet or cocoon signatures.
  • Smoothness parameter s in Eq. 2 = s = +/-20 for most SNe, +/-5 for a few (SN2002ap, SN2009bb)
    Chosen by hand per fit rather than constrained by data; it affects break sharpness and therefore the inferred indices.
  • Savitzky-Golay filter window length = 2-5% of spectrum length in resolution elements
    Set from a separate calibration (Finneran & Martin-Carrillo 2024); the paper notes it adds about 500-1000 km/s uncertainty.
  • Spline knot density = About 10% of resolution elements within the fitted feature
    Chosen from a stability analysis (Finneran & Martin-Carrillo 2024) and adjusted during iterative visual checks of the fits.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption During the photospheric phase used here (t < 60 days rest frame), the ejecta are in homologous expansion and line minima trace the expansion velocity.
    Invoked in Sect. 4 when restricting data to spectra younger than 60 days to avoid the nebular phase, where these assumptions break down.
  • domain assumption The minimum-flux wavelength of the blended Fe II feature (with 5169 A adopted as rest wavelength) traces the same line blend in both populations.
    Sect. 3.5 adopts 5169 A for consistency with prior work; Sect. 5.1 shows the method can differ from the Modjaz et al. (2016) template method by about 12,000 km/s for GRB980425-SN1998bw, so a systematic population difference in blend composition would bias the comparison.
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy and Milky Way reddening do not shift the measured velocity minima.
    Sect. 3.2 applies no reddening correction, citing Liu et al. (2016) that de-reddening does not change velocities; some spectra may already have been de-reddened before upload.
  • domain assumption Explosion epochs for non-GRB SNe estimated from sparse light curves are reliable enough to compare velocity evolution.
    Sect. 2.4 and Appendix D; the paper restricts statistical tests to the Gold sample (t0 constrained to within 3 days) because shifts in t0 materially change fitted power-law indices.
  • domain assumption Online archives (WISeREP, GRBSN) provide sufficiently complete spectroscopy, and the visual double-redshift-check catches mis-calibrated spectra.
    Sect. 3.2 relies on visual inspection for redshift-correction status where no host H-alpha line is available to verify the correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Velocity evolution of broad-lined type-Ic supernovae with and without gamma-ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZEJYVW3

@misc{pith2026241111503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Velocity evolution of broad-lined type-Ic supernovae with and without gamma-ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZEJYVW3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11503}
}
read the original abstract

More than 60 broad-lined type Ic (Ic-BL) supernovae (SNe) are associated with a long gamma-ray burst (GRB). However, many type Ic-BL SNe exhibit no sign of an associated GRB. On average, the expansion velocities of GRB-associated type Ic-BL SNe (GRB-SNe) are greater than those of type Ic-BL SNe without an associated GRB. This work presents the largest spectroscopic sample of type Ic-BL SNe with and without GRBs to date, consisting of 61 ordinary type Ic-BL SNe and 13 GRB-SNe. The goal of this work is to compare the evolution of SN expansion velocities in cases where an ultra-relativistic jet has been launched (GRB-SNe) and cases where no GRB jet is inferred from observations (ordinary type Ic-BL SNe), to search for possible jet influences. To do this we measured the expansion velocities of the Fe II and Si II features observed in the spectra of type Ic-BL SNe using a spline fitting method and fitted the velocity evolution with single and broken power-laws. In each analysis we compared two populations: ordinary type Ic-BL SNe and GRB-SNe. We find that the expansion velocities of the Fe II and Si II features are similar between these populations, in contrast with previous studies. The Fe II and Si II power-law indices indicate that GRB-SNe decline at similar rates to ordinary type Ic-BL supernovae. Broken power-law evolution appears to be more common for the Si II feature. This observation may hint at a two-component ejecta model, such as a GRB jet or a cocoon. Neither the velocities nor their evolution can be used to distinguish between ordinary type Ic-BL SNe and GRB-SNe. Velocities consistent with broken power-law evolution may indicate the presence of a GRB jet in some of these ordinary type Ic-BL SNe, but this is likely not as robust as late-time radio surveys. These results suggest that GRB-SNe and ordinary type Ic-BL SNe are drawn from the same underlying population of events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11503 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow of sample selection showing the data sources in orange, number of SNe at each stage of the process in blue and filtering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Redshift distribution of the supernovae used in this anal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Emission line removal using the emlineclipper Python code. Line selection is performed manually, by selecting the bounding region around the emission lines. The data in a small range either side of the emission line region are fit using a spline. The mean and standard deviation of the spline fit residuals in this region are used to resample the flux in the emission line region. contribute to the Si II feature. In so… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Selection of the initial boundaries for the Fe II (5169 Å) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spline fit to the Si II feature of 2020bvc. The wavelength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral sequence of the type Ic-BL supernova SN2007D. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Velocity evolution of the Fe II feature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Velocity evolution of the Si II feature; same sample criteria and graphs as Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A sample of SNe representative of the Gold, Silver and Bronze samples. This figure shows their velocities as circles and a random sample of MCMC power-law/broken power-law fits as solid lines. Left: The ordinary type Ic-BL SN 2016coi, a Gold sample SN. Centre: The ordi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions of the power-law index for the Fe II velocity of GRB-SNe and ordinary type Ic-BL SNe. For broken power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fe II velocities of SN2002ap. The best fit is a broken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fe II velocities of SN2009bb. The best fit is a broken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Break velocity (A) vs rest-frame break time (tb) for Fe II. The black line shows the line of best fit. A later break time implies a higher break velocity. Note that we have excluded SN2016coi from this fit. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Broken power-law fits to the Si II velocities of SN2016coi, PTF12gzk and GRB060218-SN2006aj. All supernovae evolve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as 15 but for Si II. The black line shows the line of best fit. A later break time implies a lower break velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Histograms of Fe II velocities at t0+15 days. The histograms are shown with bins of 5000 km/s. Left: Histograms of Fe II velocities including data from the Gold, Silver and Bronze samples. Right: Histograms of Fe II velocities including data from the Gold sample only …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Fe II velocity vs decay index at t0+15 days for GRB-SNe and ordinary type Ic-BL SNe from the Gold and Silver samples. Velocities have been computed from the power-law (PL) and broken power-law (BPL) fits. A sample of type Ic supernovae from Modjaz et al. (2016) are sh…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Histograms of Si II velocities at t0+15 days. The histograms are shown with bins of 5000 km/s. Left: Histograms of Si II velocities including data from the Gold, Silver and Bronze samples. Right: Histograms of Si II velocities including data from the Gold sample only.…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Si II velocity vs decay index at t0+15 days for GRB-SNe and ordinary type Ic-BL SNe from the Gold and Silver samples. Velocities have been computed from the power-law (PL) and broken power-law (BPL) fits. GRB-SNe show similar velocities to some ordinary type Ic-BL SNe…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Broken power-law fit to the Si II velocities of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Difference between the Fe II and Si II velocities over time for ordinary type Ic-BL SNe and GRB-SNe from the Gold, Silver and Bronze samples. Left: Absolute velocity differences for each SN. Right: Velocity differences scaled by the velocity difference for GRB980425-S…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Comparison of SN velocities derived from the minima of absorption features in this work (orange circles) with SN velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_25.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Measuring the expansion velocities of broad-line Ic supernovae: An investigation of neglected sources of error in two popular methods

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spline and template fitting velocity methods for Ic-BL supernovae have similar precision once smoothing and phase errors are included, with a proposed red-continuum bias explaining most discrepancies.

  2. Rapid follow-up observations of infant supernovae with the Gran Telescopio Canarias

    astro-ph.SR 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A GTC rapid-response program obtained spectra of 10 supernovae, only two of which were truly within 48h of first light, and forced photometry shows that survey nondetection limits systematically bias estimated explosi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  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]

    2024, , 962, 68

    Anand , S., Barnes , J., Yang , S., et al. 2024, , 962, 68

    2024

  4. [4]

    & Schwartz , M

    Arbour , R. & Schwartz , M. 1998, , 7065, 1

    1998

  5. [5]

    2002, , 7845, 1

    Armstrong , M. 2002, , 7845, 1

    2002

  6. [6]

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

    1982

  7. [7]

    C., Liu , Y., et al

    Barnes , J., Duffell , P. C., Liu , Y., et al. 2018, , 860, 38

    2018

  8. [8]

    C., Kulkarni , S

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

    2019

Show all 152 references
  1. [9]

    V., et al

    Ben-Ami , S., Gal-Yam , A., Filippenko , A. V., et al. 2012, , 760, L33

    2012

  2. [10]

    & Tonry , J

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

    2007

  3. [11]

    2002, , 566, 1005

    Branch , D., Benetti , S., Kasen , D., et al. 2002, , 566, 1005

    2002

  4. [12]

    S., Horesh , A., van der Horst , A

    Bright , J. S., Horesh , A., van der Horst , A. J., et al. 2019, , 486, 2721

    2019

  5. [13]

    2012, , 753, 67

    Bufano , F., Pian , E., Sollerman , J., et al. 2012, , 753, 67

    2012

  6. [14]

    2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054

    Cano , Z., Wang , S.-Q., Dai , Z.-G., & Wu , X.-F. 2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054

    2017

  7. [15]

    A., Clayton , G

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

    1989

  8. [16]

    2015, , 805, 187

    Chakraborti , S., Soderberg , A., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2015, , 805, 187

    2015

  9. [17]

    W., Inserra , C., Fraser , M., et al

    Chen , T. W., Inserra , C., Fraser , M., et al. 2018, , 867, L31

    2018

  10. [18]

    J., Tucker , B

    Childress , M. J., Tucker , B. E., Yuan , F., et al. 2016, , 33, e055

    2016

  11. [19]

    2013, , 767, 162

    Chornock , R., Berger , E., Rest , A., et al. 2013, , 767, 162

    2013

  12. [20]

    R., et al

    Corsi , A., Gal-Yam , A., Kulkarni , S. R., et al. 2016, , 830, 42

    2016

  13. [21]

    Corsi , A., Ho , A. Y. Q., Cenko , S. B., et al. 2023, , 953, 179

    2023

  14. [22]

    & Lazzati , D

    Corsi , A. & Lazzati , D. 2021, , 92, 101614

    2021

  15. [23]

    O., Frail , D

    Corsi , A., Ofek , E. O., Frail , D. A., et al. 2011, , 741, 76

    2011

  16. [24]

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

    Corsi , A., Ofek , E. O., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2014, , 782, 42

    2014

  17. [25]

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

    Corsi , A., Ofek , E. O., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2012, , 747, L5

    2012

  18. [26]

    Crowther , P. A. 2007, , 45, 177

    2007

  19. [27]

    & Mochkovitch , R

    Daigne , F. & Mochkovitch , R. 1998, , 296, 275

    1998

  20. [28]

    2020, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2020-3604, 1

    De , K. 2020, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2020-3604, 1

    2020

  21. [29]

    M., Tzanidakis , A., et al

    De , K., Kasliwal , M. M., Tzanidakis , A., et al. 2020, , 905, 58

    2020

  22. [30]

    M., Riddle , R., et al

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

    2020

  23. [31]

    2018, , 619, A66

    D'Elia , V., Campana , S., D'A \` , A., et al. 2018, , 619, A66

    2018

  24. [32]

    2015, , 577, A116

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

    2015

  25. [33]

    2006, , 444, 1050

    Della Valle , M., Chincarini , G., Panagia , N., et al. 2006, , 444, 1050

    2006

  26. [34]

    R., Soderberg , A

    Drout , M. R., Soderberg , A. M., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2011, , 741, 97

    2011

  27. [35]

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

    1997

  28. [36]

    2025, Astronomy and Computing, 52, 100954

    Finneran , G., Cotter , L., & Martin-Carrillo , A. 2025, Astronomy and Computing, 52, 100954

    2025

  29. [37]

    & Martin-Carrillo , A

    Finneran , G. & Martin-Carrillo , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12574

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J., Papenkova , M

    Foley , R. J., Papenkova , M. S., Swift , B. J., et al. 2003, , 115, 1220

    2003

  31. [39]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  32. [40]

    A., Sharma , Y., et al

    Fremling , C., Miller , A. A., Sharma , Y., et al. 2020, , 895, 32

    2020

  33. [41]

    Fynbo , J. P. U., Watson , D., Th \"o ne , C. C., et al. 2006, , 444, 1047

    2006

  34. [42]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Gal-Yam , A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 195

    2017

  35. [43]

    B., Price , P

    Gal-Yam , A., Fox , D. B., Price , P. A., et al. 2006, , 444, 1053

    2006

  36. [44]

    O., & Shemmer , O

    Gal-Yam , A., Ofek , E. O., & Shemmer , O. 2002, , 332, L73

    2002

  37. [45]

    J., Vreeswijk , P

    Galama , T. J., Vreeswijk , P. M., van Paradijs , J., et al. 1998, , 395, 670

    1998

  38. [46]

    K., et al

    Gangopadhyay , A., Misra , K., Sahu , D. K., et al. 2020, , 497, 3770

    2020

  39. [47]

    K., & Hosseinzadeh , G

    Gomez , S., Berger , E., Nicholl , M., Blanchard , P. K., & Hosseinzadeh , G. 2022, , 941, 107

    2022

  40. [48]

    A., Kann , D

    Greiner , J., Mazzali , P. A., Kann , D. A., et al. 2015, , 523, 189

    2015

  41. [49]

    Griffith , C., Li , W., & Filippenko , A. V. 2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1469, 1

    2008

  42. [50]

    2017, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-474, 1

    Gutierrez , C., Cartier , R., & Yaron , O. 2017, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-474, 1

    2017

  43. [51]

    A., et al

    Hamuy , M., Deng , J., Mazzali , P. A., et al. 2009, , 703, 1612

    2009

  44. [52]

    Ho , A. Y. Q., Kulkarni , S. R., Perley , D. A., et al. 2020, , 902, 86

    2020

  45. [53]

    Hodges , J. L. 1958, Arkiv for Matematik, 3, 469

    1958

  46. [54]

    R., Corsi , A., et al

    Horesh , A., Kulkarni , S. R., Corsi , A., et al. 2013, , 778, 63

    2013

  47. [55]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  48. [56]

    2020, , 639, L11

    Izzo , L., Auchettl , K., Hjorth , J., et al. 2020, , 639, L11

    2020

  49. [57]

    2019, , 565, 324

    Izzo , L., de Ugarte Postigo , A., Maeda , K., et al. 2019, , 565, 324

    2019

  50. [58]

    D., Salvaterra , R., et al

    Japelj , J., Vergani , S. D., Salvaterra , R., et al. 2018, , 617, A105

    2018

  51. [59]

    2004, , 56, 61

    Kosugi , G., Mizumoto , Y., Kawai , N., et al. 2004, , 56, 61

    2004

  52. [60]

    A., Fishman , G

    Kouveliotou , C., Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., et al. 1993, , 413, L101

    1993

  53. [61]

    J., et al

    Kuncarayakti , H., Maeda , K., Ashall , C. J., et al. 2018, , 854, L14

    2018

  54. [62]

    & Li , W

    Lee , E. & Li , W. 2005, , 8570, 1

    2005

  55. [63]

    & Li , W

    Lee , N. & Li , W. 2007, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 807, 1

    2007

  56. [64]

    J., Gompertz , B

    Levan , A. J., Gompertz , B. P., Salafia , O. S., et al. 2024, , 626, 737

    2024

  57. [65]

    2023, , 952, L39

    Li , L., Zhong , S.-Q., & Dai , Z.-G. 2023, , 952, L39

    2023

  58. [66]

    2018, , 868, L24

    Liu , L.-D., Zhang , B., Wang , L.-J., & Dai , Z.-G. 2018, , 868, L24

    2018

  59. [67]

    B., & Graur , O

    Liu , Y.-Q., Modjaz , M., Bianco , F. B., & Graur , O. 2016, , 827, 90

    2016

  60. [68]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 225

    Liu , Z., Zhao , X.-L., Huang , F., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 225

    2015

  61. [69]

    D., Bersier , D., James , P

    Lyman , J. D., Bersier , D., James , P. A., et al. 2016, , 457, 328

    2016

  62. [70]

    MacFadyen , A. I. & Woosley , S. E. 1999, , 524, 262

    1999

  63. [71]

    S., Matthews , D

    Margutti , R., Bright , J. S., Matthews , D. J., et al. 2023, , 954, L45

    2023

  64. [72]

    M., et al

    Margutti , R., Milisavljevic , D., Soderberg , A. M., et al. 2014, , 797, 107

    2014

  65. [73]

    2014, , 567, A84

    Martin-Carrillo , A., Hanlon , L., Topinka , M., et al. 2014, , 567, A84

    2014

  66. [74]

    V., Li , W., Leonard , D

    Matheson , T., Filippenko , A. V., Li , W., Leonard , D. C., & Shields , J. C. 2001, , 121, 1648

    2001

  67. [75]

    M., Stanek , K

    Matheson , T., Garnavich , P. M., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2003, , 599, 394

    2003

  68. [76]

    A., Deng , J., Hamuy , M., & Nomoto , K

    Mazzali , P. A., Deng , J., Hamuy , M., & Nomoto , K. 2009, , 703, 1624

    2009

  69. [77]

    A., Deng , J., Maeda , K., et al

    Mazzali , P. A., Deng , J., Maeda , K., et al. 2004, , 614, 858

    2004

  70. [78]

    A., Deng , J., Maeda , K., et al

    Mazzali , P. A., Deng , J., Maeda , K., et al. 2002, , 572, L61

    2002

  71. [79]

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

    Mazzali , P. A., Iwamoto , K., & Nomoto , K. 2000, , 545, 407

    2000

  72. [80]

    A., Walker , E

    Mazzali , P. A., Walker , E. S., Pian , E., et al. 2013, , 432, 2463

    2013

  73. [81]

    2012, , 547, A82

    Melandri , A., Pian , E., Ferrero , P., et al. 2012, , 547, A82

    2012

  74. [82]

    & Rees , M

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. & Rees , M. J. 1997, , 476, 232

    1997

  75. [83]

    J., & Wijers , R

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Rees , M. J., & Wijers , R. A. M. J. 1998, , 499, 301

    1998

  76. [84]

    J., Xu , D., Stevens , J., et al

    Micha owskI , M. J., Xu , D., Stevens , J., et al. 2018, , 616, A169

    2018

  77. [85]

    T., et al

    Milisavljevic , D., Margutti , R., Parrent , J. T., et al. 2015, , 799, 51

    2015

  78. [86]

    P., et al

    Modjaz , M., Blondin , S., Kirshner , R. P., et al. 2014, , 147, 99

    2014

  79. [87]

    P., et al

    Modjaz , M., Kewley , L., Kirshner , R. P., et al. 2008, , 135, 1136

    2008

  80. [88]

    Q., Bianco , F

    Modjaz , M., Liu , Y. Q., Bianco , F. B., & Graur , O. 2016, , 832, 108

    2016

  81. [89]

    Z., Garnavich , P

    Modjaz , M., Stanek , K. Z., Garnavich , P. M., et al. 2006, , 645, L21

    2006

  82. [90]

    R., de Koter , A., Vink , J

    Mokiem , M. R., de Koter , A., Vink , J. S., et al. 2007, , 473, 603

    2007

  83. [91]

    J., Suzuki , A., Takiwaki , T., Pan , Y.-C., & Blinnikov , S

    Moriya , T. J., Suzuki , A., Takiwaki , T., Pan , Y.-C., & Blinnikov , S. I. 2020, , 497, 1619

    2020

  84. [92]

    M \"u ller-Bravo , T. E. 2023, temuller/wiserep\_api: First Official Release!

    2023

  85. [93]

    & Piran , T

    Nakar , E. & Piran , T. 2017, , 834, 28

    2017

  86. [94]

    T., Milisavljevic , D., Soderberg , A

    Parrent , J. T., Milisavljevic , D., Soderberg , A. M., & Parthasarathy , M. 2016, , 820, 75

    2016

  87. [95]

    2001, , 555, 900

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

    2001

  88. [96]

    A., et al

    Pian , E., Amati , L., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 1999, , 138, 463

    1999

  89. [97]

    A., Masetti , N., et al

    Pian , E., Mazzali , P. A., Masetti , N., et al. 2006, , 442, 1011

    2006

  90. [98]

    2017, , 466, 1848

    Pian , E., Tomasella , L., Cappellaro , E., et al. 2017, , 466, 1848

    2017

  91. [99]

    2011, , 728, 14

    Pignata , G., Stritzinger , M., Soderberg , A., et al. 2011, , 728, 14

    2011

  92. [100]

    2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, 6094, 1

    Polshaw , J., Benitez , S., Taubenberger , S., et al. 2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, 6094, 1

    2014

  93. [101]

    J., Ashall , C., James , P

    Prentice , S. J., Ashall , C., James , P. A., et al. 2019, , 485, 1559

    2019

  94. [102]

    J., Ashall , C., Mazzali , P

    Prentice , S. J., Ashall , C., Mazzali , P. A., et al. 2018, , 478, 4162

    2018

  95. [103]

    J., Mazzali , P

    Prentice , S. J., Mazzali , P. A., Pian , E., et al. 2016, , 458, 2973

    2016

  96. [104]

    A., Bensch , K., Modjaz , M., et al

    Pritchard , T. A., Bensch , K., Modjaz , M., et al. 2021, , 915, 121

    2021

  97. [105]

    M., Nugent , P., et al

    Quimby , R., Kasliwal , M. M., Nugent , P., et al. 2009, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1783, 1

    2009

  98. [106]

    M., De Cia , A., Gal-Yam , A., et al

    Quimby , R. M., De Cia , A., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2018, , 855, 2

    2018

  99. [107]

    Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Celotti , A., & Rees , M. J. 2002, , 337, 1349

    2002

  100. [108]

    C., Gompertz , B

    Rastinejad , J. C., Gompertz , B. P., Levan , A. J., et al. 2022, , 612, 223

    2022

  101. [109]

    Rees , M. J. & Meszaros , P. 1994, , 430, L93

    1994

  102. [110]

    R., et al

    Rho , J., Evans , A., Geballe , T. R., et al. 2021, , 908, 232

    2021

  103. [111]

    Rhoads , J. E. 1997, , 487, L1

    1997

  104. [112]

    M., et al

    Roy , R., Sollerman , J., Silverman , J. M., et al. 2016, , 596, A67

    2016

  105. [113]

    2020, , 896, 166

    Ryan , G., van Eerten , H., Piro , L., & Troja , E. 2020, , 896, 166

    2020

  106. [114]

    K., Anupama , G

    Sahu , D. K., Anupama , G. C., Chakradhari , N. K., et al. 2018, , 475, 2591

    2018

  107. [115]

    K., Tanaka , M., Anupama , G

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

    2009

  108. [116]

    E., Soderberg , A

    Sanders , N. E., Soderberg , A. M., Levesque , E. M., et al. 2012 a , , 758, 132

    2012

  109. [117]

    E., Soderberg , A

    Sanders , N. E., Soderberg , A. M., Valenti , S., et al. 2012 b , , 756, 184

    2012

  110. [118]

    & Golay , M

    Savitzky , A. & Golay , M. J. E. 1964, Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627

    1964

  111. [119]

    2021, , 255, 29

    Schulze , S., Yaron , O., Sollerman , J., et al. 2021, , 255, 29

    2021

  112. [120]

    C., & Kasen , D

    Shankar , S., M \"o sta , P., Barnes , J., Duffell , P. C., & Kasen , D. 2021, , 508, 5390

    2021

  113. [121]

    2024, , 969, 32

    Shi , D.-W., Wang , S.-Q., Gan , W.-P., & Liang , E.-W. 2024, , 969, 32

    2024

  114. [122]

    V., Silverman , J

    Shivvers , I., Filippenko , A. V., Silverman , J. M., et al. 2019, , 482, 1545

    2019

  115. [123]

    M., Kong , J

    Silverman , J. M., Kong , J. J., & Filippenko , A. V. 2012, , 425, 1819

    2012

  116. [124]

    2014, , 52, 487

    Smith , N. 2014, , 52, 487

    2014

  117. [125]

    M., Nakar , E., Berger , E., & Kulkarni , S

    Soderberg , A. M., Nakar , E., Berger , E., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2006, , 638, 930

    2006

  118. [126]

    S., Fatkhullin , T

    Sonbas , E., Moskvitin , A. S., Fatkhullin , T. A., et al. 2008, Astrophysical Bulletin, 63, 228

    2008

  119. [127]

    Sparre , M., Sollerman , J., Fynbo , J. P. U., et al. 2011, , 735, L24

    2011

  120. [128]

    P., Yang , S., Anand , S., et al

    Srinivasaragavan , G. P., Yang , S., Anand , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14586

    2024 arXiv

  121. [129]

    D., Holmbo , S., Morrell , N., et al

    Stritzinger , M. D., Holmbo , S., Morrell , N., et al. 2023, , 675, A82

    2023

  122. [130]

    2019, , 621, A71

    Taddia , F., Sollerman , J., Fremling , C., et al. 2019, , 621, A71

    2019

  123. [131]

    2015, , 574, A60

    Taddia , F., Sollerman , J., Leloudas , G., et al. 2015, , 574, A60

    2015

  124. [132]

    D., Bersten , M., et al

    Taddia , F., Stritzinger , M. D., Bersten , M., et al. 2018, , 609, A136

    2018

  125. [133]

    2018, , 615, A136

    Tanga , M., Kr \"u hler , T., Schady , P., et al. 2018, , 615, A136

    2018

  126. [134]

    2019, , 883, 147

    Terreran , G., Margutti , R., Bersier , D., et al. 2019, , 883, 147

    2019

  127. [135]

    2017, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2017-440, 1

    Tonry , J., Stalder , B., Denneau , L., et al. 2017, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2017-440, 1

    2017

  128. [136]

    2018 a , Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-727, 1

    Tonry , J., Stalder , B., Denneau , L., et al. 2018 a , Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-727, 1

    2018

  129. [137]

    2018 b , Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-1384, 1

    Tonry , J., Stalder , B., Denneau , L., et al. 2018 b , Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-1384, 1

    2018

  130. [138]

    2018 c , Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-1390, 1

    Tonry , J., Stalder , B., Denneau , L., et al. 2018 c , Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-1390, 1

    2018

  131. [139]

    2018 d , Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-1429, 1

    Tonry , J., Stalder , B., Denneau , L., et al. 2018 d , Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-1429, 1

    2018

  132. [140]

    L., O'Connor , B., et al

    Troja , E., Fryer , C. L., O'Connor , B., et al. 2022, , 612, 228

    2022

  133. [141]

    2008, , 383, 1485

    Valenti , S., Benetti , S., Cappellaro , E., et al. 2008, , 383, 1485

    2008

  134. [142]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  135. [143]

    A., Pruzhinskaya , M

    Volnova , A. A., Pruzhinskaya , M. V., Pozanenko , A. S., et al. 2017, , 467, 3500

    2017

  136. [144]

    S., Mazzali , P

    Walker , E. S., Mazzali , P. A., Pian , E., et al. 2014, , 442, 2768

    2014

  137. [145]

    P., Xu , D., et al

    Wang , J., Zhu , Z. P., Xu , D., et al. 2018, , 867, 147

    2018

  138. [146]

    2019, , 877, 20

    Wang , S.-Q., Cano , Z., Li , L., et al. 2019, , 877, 20

    2019

  139. [147]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273

    1993

  140. [148]

    2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 5663, 1

    Wyrzykowski , L., Udalski , A., Kozlowski , S., & Soszynski , I. 2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 5663, 1

    2013

  141. [149]

    2024, , 626, 742

    Yang , Y.-H., Troja , E., O'Connor , B., et al. 2024, , 626, 742

    2024

  142. [150]

    & Gal-Yam , A

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

    2012

  143. [151]

    V., Mauerhan , J., et al

    Zheng , W., Filippenko , A. V., Mauerhan , J., et al. 2017, , 841, 64

    2017

  144. [152]

    E., de Jaeger , T., et al

    Zheng , W., Stahl , B. E., de Jaeger , T., et al. 2022, , 512, 3195

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.