pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.07936 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

The Type IIn SN 2025cbj coincidence with the high-energy neutrino IceCube-250421A

S. Garrappa , E. A. Zimmerman , T. Wasserman , E. O. Ofek , A. Gal-Yam , R. Konno , P. Chen , O. Yaron
show 9 more authors
S. Ben-Ami C. M. Copperwheat S. Fainer A. Horowicz A. Humpe P. A. Mazzali D. Polishook E. Segre S. A. Spitzer
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Type IIn supernovaehigh-energy neutrinosIceCubemulti-messenger astronomychance coincidenceCSM interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

The association between supernova SN 2025cbj and neutrino IceCube-250421A is consistent with a random coincidence.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines whether a Type IIn supernova observed in 2025 could be the source of a high-energy neutrino detected by IceCube. The authors use optical observations to confirm the supernova's interaction with dense circumstellar material. They run simulations to calculate the probability that the two events line up by chance, finding it around 24 percent when compared to a catalog of supernovae. A simple model of neutrino production in the supernova's shock also predicts far less than one neutrino event detectable by IceCube. These results suggest the link is probably not causal.

Core claim

The paper reports that resampling simulations yield a chance-coincidence probability of approximately 0.24 for at least one such event when using the TNS catalog, and 0.078 for the ZTF-BTS catalog. A post-breakout interaction model in a dense wind predicts an expected muon neutrino count of about 0.001 in the IceCube Bronze stream over 76 days for this candidate. Spectra confirm ongoing dense CSM interaction through narrow Balmer lines and broad wings.

What carries the argument

Resampling simulations that scramble neutrino positions while keeping declinations and error contours, combined with a post-shock-breakout interaction model in a dense wind for estimating neutrino yield.

If this is right

  • Future multi-messenger searches will need larger samples of both supernovae and neutrinos to reduce chance-coincidence probabilities.
  • The low expected yield implies that even strong CSM interaction may not produce detectable neutrinos in current IceCube alerts for individual events.
  • Catalog size and selection biases can significantly affect the assessed significance of associations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar analyses could be applied to other candidate associations to build a statistical sample of potential neutrino-producing supernovae.
  • If the model underestimates production efficiency, some Type IIn events might still contribute to the diffuse neutrino flux.
  • Improved early-time observations could better constrain the timing and thus the coincidence probability.

Load-bearing premise

The simple post-shock-breakout interaction model accurately captures the neutrino production efficiency without major uncertainties from the circumstellar material density profile or acceleration details.

What would settle it

A direct detection of a neutrino from a similar Type IIn supernova at a distance where the expected yield is order one, or a much lower observed coincidence rate in a larger sample of events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.07936 by A. Gal-Yam, A. Horowicz, A. Humpe, C. M. Copperwheat, D. Polishook, E. A. Zimmerman, E. O. Ofek, E. Segre, O. Yaron, P. A. Mazzali, P. Chen, R. Konno, S. A. Spitzer, S. Ben-Ami, S. Fainer, S. Garrappa, T. Wasserman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper: photometric light curves from LAST (blue), ZTF-g (green), ZTF-r (red), DDOTI/OAN (orange) with temporal x-axis centered on the fitted peak time at MJD 60754.5. The magenta marker is the Swift-UVOT measurement in the UVW1 band. The dashed purple vertical line marks the arrival of IceCube-250421A . Lower: Pseudo-bolometric light curve in the (4700-6231 Å) range. The dot-dashed line shows the power-law… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Liverpool telescope spectra of SN2025cbj. a narrow Hα com￾ponent can be identified in both epochs, below a strong galactic H α narrow feature. However, the lower resolution does not allow accurate velocity measurements or a positive identification of the Hβ line. We note that the very narrow components (e.g., on top of the real narrow Hα feature in the green spectrum) are noise residue, as well as the fea￾… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MMT spectrum of SN2025cbj. Zero velocity Hα and Hβ are marked with red and blue striped vertical lines, respectively. Zoom-ins of the Hα and β profiles with fits to a Gaussian+Lorentzian shape are added, showing a good fit aside from the blue-wing asymmetry in Hα. The best-fit velocities (i.e. line FWHM) for both the Gaussian (vG) and Lorentzian (vL) components are presented next to the fits. Test SN catal… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Context. The origin of the astrophysical high-energy neutrino flux remains uncertain. Core-collapse supernovae with strong CSM interaction (Type IIn) are compelling candidates for efficient hadronic acceleration and neutrino production. Aims. We investigate the possible association between the Type IIn supernova SN2025cbj and the IceCube high-energy neutrino IceCube-250421A, and assess whether the observed properties of the SN permit an appreciable neutrino yield. Methods. We combined rapid optical follow-up with LAST and archival ZTF photometry with spectroscopy from LT/SPRAT and MMT/BINOSPEC to characterize the SN evolution and CSM interaction. We estimated the explosion and peak times from early light-curve fitting, and quantified the chance-coincidence probability with resampling simulations that scramble neutrino right ascensions while preserving declinations and error contours. Using a simple post-shock-breakout interaction model in a dense wind, we estimated the expected muon-neutrino yield for IceCube real-time Bronze stream. Results. Spectra of SN2025cbj obtained after the neutrino epoch show persistent narrow Balmer lines superposed on broad Lorentzian electron-scattering wings, consistent with sustained dense-CSM interaction. For the multi-messenger association, resampling simulations against the TNS catalog give a chance-coincidence probability for observing $k \ge 1$ events of $p \simeq 0.24$ (and $p \simeq 0.078$ against the ZTF-BTS catalog). These values are sensitive to the size of the SNe and neutrino samples. A post-breakout interaction scenario predicts an expected $N_{\nu_\mu} \sim 10^{-3}$ events in the IceCube Bronze alert stream over 76 days per this one candidate. We discuss the implications of these numbers and possible biases that may affect these results.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports spectroscopic and photometric observations of the Type IIn supernova SN 2025cbj, which shows persistent narrow Balmer lines indicative of dense CSM interaction. It identifies a temporal and spatial coincidence with the IceCube neutrino IceCube-250421A and uses position-scrambling resampling simulations (preserving declinations and error contours) against the TNS and ZTF-BTS catalogs to derive chance-coincidence probabilities of p ≃ 0.24 and p ≃ 0.078, respectively. A simplified post-shock-breakout wind-interaction model is used to estimate an expected muon-neutrino yield of N_νμ ∼ 10^{-3} events in the IceCube Bronze alert stream over 76 days, leading to the assessment that the association is marginal with negligible expected yield.

Significance. If the reported coincidence probability and yield estimates hold, the work provides a transparent, observationally grounded case study for multi-messenger associations involving Type IIn supernovae. The explicit use of catalog-based resampling and acknowledgment of model limitations (CSM profile, acceleration efficiency) make it a useful reference for future neutrino-SN searches, even though the low significance and yield indicate the event is likely coincidental. The paper's value lies in its careful, non-overclaiming presentation rather than in establishing a definitive detection.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods / neutrino yield estimation] The post-breakout interaction model (described in the Methods and Results sections) adopts a specific CSM wind density to arrive at N_νμ ∼ 10^{-3}; because this density is explicitly listed as a free parameter and the yield is sensitive to it, the manuscript should include a short sensitivity range (e.g., varying the density by a factor of 3–10) to demonstrate that the conclusion of negligible yield remains robust.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] The abstract and main text note that the probabilities are sensitive to catalog sizes; adding a brief table or sentence quantifying how p changes when the neutrino sample is restricted to the Bronze stream only would improve clarity.
  2. [Observations and data analysis] Ensure that the exact time intervals between the neutrino arrival, the spectroscopic epochs, and the light-curve peak are stated numerically in the text (rather than only in figures) so that readers can directly verify the post-breakout timing assumption.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and positive assessment of the manuscript's careful presentation. We have addressed the single major comment by incorporating the requested sensitivity analysis on the neutrino yield.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / neutrino yield estimation] The post-breakout interaction model (described in the Methods and Results sections) adopts a specific CSM wind density to arrive at N_νμ ∼ 10^{-3}; because this density is explicitly listed as a free parameter and the yield is sensitive to it, the manuscript should include a short sensitivity range (e.g., varying the density by a factor of 3–10) to demonstrate that the conclusion of negligible yield remains robust.

    Authors: We agree that the simplified post-shock-breakout model treats the CSM wind density as a free parameter and that the expected yield is sensitive to this choice. In the revised manuscript we have added a brief sensitivity paragraph in the Methods section. We recompute N_νμ for wind densities scaled by factors of 3 and 10 around the fiducial value adopted in the original calculation (chosen to be consistent with the observed narrow-line luminosities). The resulting yields span approximately 3×10^{-4} to 3×10^{-3} events over the 76-day window, remaining ≪ 0.01 in all cases. This explicitly demonstrates that the conclusion of negligible expected muon-neutrino yield is robust against plausible variations in the density parameter. The updated text and a short table of the sensitivity results have been included. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper computes chance-coincidence probability via independent resampling simulations that scramble neutrino right ascensions against external catalogs (TNS and ZTF-BTS) while preserving declinations and error contours; this is not derived from the neutrino count or SN data by construction. The expected neutrino yield is obtained from a post-shock-breakout wind-interaction model whose parameters are set by the observed SN light curve, spectra, and explosion time, rather than being fitted to the IceCube event itself. No load-bearing steps reduce to self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains. The analysis remains self-contained with external benchmarks and explicitly notes sensitivities to catalog size and model parameters.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Neutrino yield rests on a parameterized shock-interaction model whose key inputs (CSM density, shock velocity) are inferred from the SN light curve and spectra rather than measured independently; standard assumptions about hadronic acceleration are invoked without new justification.

free parameters (1)
  • CSM wind density
    Adjusted within the post-breakout interaction model to reproduce observed SN properties before computing neutrino output.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption High-energy neutrinos are produced efficiently via proton-proton interactions in the post-shock region of a dense wind
    Invoked in the simple interaction model to convert shock energy into expected muon-neutrino count.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5729 in / 1183 out tokens · 58483 ms · 2026-05-16T23:55:00.794084+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 48, 060501

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    G., Abraham, K., Ackermann, M., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Abraham, K., Ackermann, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 52

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 051103

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2017, Astroparticle Physics, 92, 30

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    2024b, VizieR Online Data Catalog: IceCube Event Catalog of Alert Tracks (ICECAT-1) (Abbasi+, 2023), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/269/25

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2024b, VizieR Online Data Catalog: IceCube Event Catalog of Alert Tracks (ICECAT-1) (Abbasi+, 2023), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/269/25. Originally published in: 2023ApJS..269...25A

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 949, L12

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, L12

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    L., Watson, A

    Atri, S., Becerra, R. L., Watson, A. M., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40211, 1

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Ben-Ami, S., Konidaris, N., Quimby, R., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8446, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 844686

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    O., Polishook, D., et al

    Ben-Ami, S., Ofek, E. O., Polishook, D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 085002

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    D., Walters, R., et al

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

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

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

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

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

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

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

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 165

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.11263

    Buson, S., Tramacere, A., Oswald, L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.11263

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 54

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075004 Förster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al

    Fabricant, D., Fata, R., Epps, H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075004 Förster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    F., et al

    Franckowiak, A., Akerlof, C., Cowen, D. F., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0909.0631

    work page arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 162

    Franckowiak, A., Garrappa, S., Paliya, V ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 162

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    J., et al

    Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 118

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    A., Sharma, Y ., et al

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

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

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

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Gal-Yam, A. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 237, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 423.05

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 103

    Garrappa, S., Buson, S., Franckowiak, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 103

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    2024, A&A, 687, A59

    Garrappa, S., Buson, S., Sinapius, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A59

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 119

    He, H.-N., Kusenko, A., Nagataki, S., Fan, Y .-Z., & Wei, D.-M. 2018, ApJ, 856, 119

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    & Chevalier, R

    Huang, C. & Chevalier, R. A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1261 IceCube Collaboration. 2013, Science, 342, 1242856 IceCube Collaboration. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40195, 1 IceCube Collaboration, Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., et al. 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378 IceCube Collaboration, Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 538 IceCube Collaboratio...

    work page arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    2016, Nature Physics, 12, 807

    Kadler, M., Krauß, F., Mannheim, K., et al. 2016, Nature Physics, 12, 807

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075005

    Kansky, J., Chilingarian, I., Fabricant, D., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075005

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    2012, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Katz, B., Sapir, N., & Waxman, E. 2012, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 279, Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. P. Roming, N. Kawai, & E. Pian, 274–281

    work page 2012

  32. [32]

    2024, Nature, 627, 754

    Li, G., Hu, M., Li, W., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 754

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.19080

    Lu, M.-X., Liang, Y .-F., Wang, X.-G., & Zhang, H.-Q. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.19080

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003 Mészáros, P. & Waxman, E. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 171102

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    2018, Phys

    Murase, K. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 081301

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    & Ioka, K

    Murase, K. & Ioka, K. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 121102

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    A., & Ofek, E

    Murase, K., Thompson, T. A., & Ofek, E. O. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2528

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Ofek, E. O. & Ben-Ami, S. 2020, PASP, 132, 125004

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    O., Rabinak, I., Neill, J

    Ofek, E. O., Rabinak, I., Neill, J. D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1396

    work page 2010

  40. [40]

    O., Zoglauer, A., Boggs, S

    Ofek, E. O., Zoglauer, A., Boggs, S. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 42

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    2025, A&A, 695, A266

    Omeliukh, A., Garrappa, S., Fallah Ramazani, V ., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A266

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

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

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40242, 1

    Pfeiffer, L., Buson, S., Garrappa, S., & Fermi-LAT Collaboration. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40242, 1

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    S., Steele, I

    Piascik, A. S., Steele, I. A., Bates, S. D., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9147, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91478H

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    R., & Auchettl, K

    Pitik, T., Tamborra, I., Angus, C. R., & Auchettl, K. 2022, ApJ, 929, 163

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

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

    Rehemtulla, N., Miller, A. A., Jegou Du Laz, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 7

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    2022, Phys

    Reusch, S., Stein, R., Kowalski, M., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 221101

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 54

    Rodrigues, X., Garrappa, S., Gao, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 54

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 95

    work page 2005

  50. [50]

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

    work page 1990

  51. [51]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 74

    Shvartzvald, Y ., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 74

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith, N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 403

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    M., Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 17

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    2025a, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-915, 1

    Sollerman, J., Covarrubias, S., Chu, M., & Fremling, C. 2025a, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-915, 1

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    2025b, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-915, 1

    Sollerman, J., Covarrubias, S., Chu, M., & Fremling, C. 2025b, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-915, 1

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 103

    Sommani, G., Franckowiak, A., Lincetto, M., & Dettmar, R.-J. 2025, ApJ, 981, 103

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Stein, R., Ho, A. Y . Q., Gangopadhyay, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.08355

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 510

    Stein, R., van Velzen, S., Kowalski, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 510

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 108 van Velzen, S., Stein, R., Gilfanov, M., et al

    Svirski, G., Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2012, ApJ, 759, 108 van Velzen, S., Stein, R., Gilfanov, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2559

    work page 2012

  60. [60]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00098

    Wasserman, T., Sapir, N., Szabo, P., & Waxman, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00098

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    & Waxman, E

    Wasserman, T. & Waxman, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25337

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    M., Lee, W

    Watson, A. M., Lee, W. H., Troja, E., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9910, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, ed. A. B. Peck, R. L. Sea- man, & C. R. Benn, 99100G

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    O., & Gal-Yam, A

    Waxman, E., Wasserman, T., Ofek, E. O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2025, ApJ, 978, 133

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    & Gal-Yam, A

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

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06176

    Zegarelli, A., Franckowiak, A., Sommani, G., Valtonen-Mattila, N., & Yuan, T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06176

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    2024, A&A, 690, A187

    Zegarelli, A., Guetta, D., Celli, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A187

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

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

    Zimmerman, E. A., Irani, I., Chen, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 759 Article number, page 9 of 9

    work page 2024