pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.19891 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Fading Echoes of Interaction: Probing Centuries of Preexplosion Mass-Loss in Four Type IIn Supernovae

Elizabeth Hillenkamp (1 , 2) , Raphael Baer-Way (2 , 3) , Poonam Chandra (2) , Arkaprabha Sarangi (4) , Roger Chevalier (3) , Nayana A.J. (5
show 18 more authors
6) Annika Deutsch (3) Keiichi Maeda (7) Nathan Smith (8) ((1) Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics University of California San Diego (2) National Radio Astronomy Observatory (3) Department of Astronomy University of Virginia (4) Indian Institute of Astrophysics (5) Department of Astronomy Berkeley (6) Berkeley Center for Multi-messenger Research on Astrophysical Transients Outreach (Multi-RAPTOR) (7) Department of Astronomy Kyoto University (8) Steward Observatory University of Arizona)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords Type IIn supernovaemass-loss ratescircumstellar mediumradio observationsX-ray observationsprogenitor evolutioncore-collapse supernovaelate-time emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Late-time X-ray and radio observations of four Type IIn supernovae yield mass-loss rates 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than earlier optical estimates, requiring rapid changes in progenitor mass loss over the centuries before explosion.

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

The paper uses late-time X-ray and radio data on four supernovae that exploded at least 3000 days ago to measure the density of material the stars shed hundreds of years before they exploded. These measurements rely on the ongoing interaction between the supernova debris and the surrounding gas. The derived mass-loss rates are far lower than those inferred from optical light curves that probed only the final decades before explosion. This discrepancy indicates that the progenitors experienced a rapidly evolving mass-loss process in the centuries leading up to core collapse. The work shows how radio and X-ray observations can trace earlier epochs once the optical emission has faded.

Core claim

For SN 2013L the X-ray detection gives a mass-loss rate of roughly 2 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year at about 400 years before explosion; for KISS15s the radio and X-ray data give about 4 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year at about 450 years before explosion; and for SN 2014ab and SN 2015da only upper limits below 2 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year are obtained at 300 and 250 years before explosion. All four rates lie at least one to two orders of magnitude below the values previously derived from optical observations of the same events.

What carries the argument

Late-time X-ray and radio fluxes from ejecta-CSM interaction, converted to mass-loss rate under the assumption of a steady, spherically symmetric wind with density falling as radius to the minus two.

If this is right

  • Progenitor mass loss must have changed on timescales of centuries rather than remaining steady until explosion.
  • Optical estimates alone capture only the most recent mass-loss phase and can overestimate earlier rates.
  • X-ray and radio observations remain useful probes of circumstellar material after the supernova has faded at optical wavelengths.
  • Hints of radio spectral inversion in KISS15s may indicate a secondary shock from a binary companion or pulsar wind.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Mass-loss episodes in the final centuries before explosion are likely episodic rather than continuous, possibly driven by binary interactions or late-stage pulsations.
  • Similar late-time observations of additional Type IIn events could map how mass-loss history varies across the progenitor population.
  • If the assumed wind profile does not hold, the true mass-loss rates could be even lower, strengthening the case for abrupt changes near core collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion from observed fluxes to mass-loss rate assumes a steady spherical wind with fixed velocity and a standard density power-law profile together with conventional values for shock speed and electron temperature.

What would settle it

Multi-epoch radio or X-ray monitoring that directly measures a shock velocity or density profile inconsistent with the assumed constant wind parameters would invalidate the reported mass-loss rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19891 by 2), (2) National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 3), (3) Department of Astronomy, (4) Indian Institute of Astrophysics, (5) Department of Astronomy, 6), (6) Berkeley Center for Multi-messenger Research on Astrophysical Transients, (7) Department of Astronomy, (8) Steward Observatory, Annika Deutsch (3), Arkaprabha Sarangi (4), Berkeley, Elizabeth Hillenkamp (1, Keiichi Maeda (7), Kyoto University, Nathan Smith (8) ((1) Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Nayana A.J. (5, Outreach (Multi-RAPTOR), Poonam Chandra (2), Raphael Baer-Way (2, Roger Chevalier (3), San Diego, University of Arizona), University of California, University of Virginia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A (simplified and not to scale) model of circum￾stellar interaction in a Type IIn supernova. Narrow optical emission lines originate in the unshocked photoionized CSM, while broad optical emission lines are produced by super￾nova ejecta. The ejecta interaction with the CSM creates a forward and reverse shock. The hot forward shock can accelerate the CSM to very high speeds, producing X-ray and radio synchr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Chandra ACIS-S (0.2-10 keV) unsubtracted sin￾gle epoch observations of SN 2013L (above) and KISS15s (below). SNe circled in blue. detected in all Chandra observations, while SN 2015da and SN 2014ab were not detected. We conducted spectral analysis of the two detected supernovae using NASA’s HEASARC software package XANADU. We binned each multi-observation source spec￾trum to a minimum of 5 counts/bin using… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Best-fit models for the two X-ray detected super￾novae, SN 2013L (above) and KISS15s (below). We show the combined and binned source spectra (red–Chandra ACIS-S) with best-fit models and residuals in black. Parameters for the models are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: KISS15s in VLA C band (4-8GHz, left), X band (8-12GHz, center), and K band (18-26.5GHz, right). The ellipse in the bottom left of each image signifies the beamsize (resolution element size). Contours are scaled individually for each band — for C band, contours appear at 10, 21, 32, and 43 µJy/beam; for X band, contours appear at 13, 18.5, 24, and 29.5 µJy/beam; and for K band, contours appear at 18, 24, 30… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A view of some of the radio upper limits on the three non-detected supernovae, with detections at similarly very late times for SNe 1988Z, 1995N and 1986J shown in grayscale, from Chandra et al. (2009); Williams et al. (2002); Bietenholz et al. (2002). Details for the sources presented in this work are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: X-ray (0.2-10 keV) and radio luminosities of the four supernovae in the sample. For SN 2013L, we use the 1.25 GHz luminosity as it was not observed with the VLA. For all other SNe, we use the 6 GHz luminosity. We plot peak luminosity values of other SNe IIn from Chandra (2025). 7. We use the observed luminosities and non-detections to place constraints on the progenitor systems of each supernova. 4.1. SN 2… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two-powerlaw fit to the KISS15s radio SED. We note the inversion at ∼15 GHz which clearly cannot be fit by a single power law. With no constraint on the peak of either component of the SED, a full FFA/SSA fit was not possible. estimates from early times in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: KISS15s and SN 2013L column density estimates compared with values obtained for SNe 2005ip, 2010jl, and 2020ywx at earlier epochs (from Katsuda et al. 2014; Chan￾dra et al. 2015; Baer-Way et al. 2025). Explosion dates for the SNe in this work are taken as optical discovery date, and number of days post-explosion are calculated from the obser￾vation time weighted average. KISS15s in particular shows a highe… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Our mass-loss results alongside earlier estimates for our sample and two other SNe IIn. X-ray results are shown with filled markers, while optical results are shown with open markers. We show a t −1 curve to emphasize the sharp increase in mass-loss rate leading up to the super￾nova. Results for SN 2013L are from Taddia et al. (2013), SN 2014ab from Bilinski et al. (2020), SN 2015da from Smith et al. (202… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Supernovae characterized by enduring narrow optical hydrogen emission lines (SNe IIn) are believed to result primarily from the core-collapse of massive stars undergoing sustained interaction with a dense circumstellar medium (CSM). While the properties of SN IIn progenitors have relatively few direct constraints, the ongoing ejecta-CSM interaction provides unique information about late-stage stellar mass-loss preceding core-collapse. We present late-time X-ray and radio observations of four $\geq$3000 day-old SNe IIn: SN 2013L, SN 2014ab, SN 2015da, and KISS15s. The radio and X-ray emission from KISS15s indicate a mass-loss rate of \eq{\dot M\sim4\times 10^{-3}~\rm{M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}}} at $\sim$450 years pre-supernova -- 2 orders of magnitude below earlier optical estimates (which probed the mass loss immediately preceding the supernova). We find hints of a spectral inversion in the radio SED of KISS15s; a possible signature of a secondary shock due to a binary system or the emergence of a pulsar wind. For SN 2013L, we obtain a mass-loss rate of \eq{\dot M\sim2 \times 10^{-3}~\rm{M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}}} at $\sim$400 years pre-explosion based on the X-ray detection. For SN 2014ab and SN 2015da, we find a upper limits on the mass-loss rates of \eq{\dot M<2\times10^{-3}~M_{\sun}\,yr^{-1}} explosion at $\sim$300 and 250 years pre-explosion, respectively. All four objects display mass-loss rates lower than estimates from earlier optical analyses by at least 1-2 orders of magnitude, necessitating a rapidly evolving progenitor process over the last centuries pre-explosion. Our analysis reveals how X-ray and radio observations can elucidate progenitor evolution when these objects have faded at optical wavelengths.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents late-time X-ray and radio observations of four Type IIn supernovae (SN 2013L, SN 2014ab, SN 2015da, KISS15s) at ages ≥3000 days. It derives mass-loss rates from the detected fluxes, reporting ~4×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} for KISS15s at ~450 yr pre-explosion and ~2×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} for SN 2013L at ~400 yr pre-explosion, with upper limits <2×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} for the remaining two objects at ~250-300 yr pre-explosion. These rates are 1-2 orders of magnitude below prior optical estimates, leading to the conclusion that the progenitors experienced rapidly evolving mass loss over the centuries immediately preceding core collapse. The analysis also notes a possible radio spectral inversion in KISS15s.

Significance. If the derived rates hold under the stated assumptions, the work provides valuable constraints on the late-stage mass-loss history of SN IIn progenitors by extending the temporal baseline beyond what optical data alone can reach. It highlights the utility of radio and X-ray observations for probing earlier epochs once the optical emission has faded and supports the interpretation of variable progenitor processes. The multi-wavelength approach and the specific rate values for individual objects are strengths that could inform models of massive-star evolution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Mass-loss rate derivations (paragraphs reporting values for KISS15s and SN 2013L)] The mass-loss rates (e.g., ~4×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} for KISS15s and ~2×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} for SN 2013L) are obtained via flux-to-density conversion that assumes a steady, spherically symmetric wind with ρ ∝ r^{-2} (s=2), fixed wind velocity v_w, and standard shock velocity v_s plus electron temperature. The abstract notes a possible radio spectral inversion in KISS15s that may signal non-standard CSM structure or a secondary shock. A quantitative sensitivity analysis to deviations in the density index or velocities (which can shift inferred rates by up to an order of magnitude) is required to substantiate the claimed discrepancy with optical estimates.
  2. [Discussion of progenitor evolution and comparison to optical analyses] The upper limits for SN 2014ab and SN 2015da (<2×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} at ~300 and 250 yr pre-explosion) and the overall conclusion of a 'rapidly evolving progenitor process' rest on direct comparability between the new radio/X-ray rates and earlier optical values. The epochs probed by each method must be explicitly aligned, and any differences in assumed geometry or velocity should be quantified to confirm the 1-2 order-of-magnitude offset is robust.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, the mass-loss rate expressions use the non-standard command 'eq{}'; replace with proper equation formatting or inline math for the final version.
  2. [Results section] A summary table listing the four SNe, derived mass-loss rates (or limits), probed pre-explosion epochs, and comparison to optical values would improve clarity and allow readers to assess the discrepancy at a glance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and positive assessment of the work's significance. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the analysis and discussion as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The mass-loss rates (e.g., ~4×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} for KISS15s and ~2×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} for SN 2013L) are obtained via flux-to-density conversion that assumes a steady, spherically symmetric wind with ρ ∝ r^{-2} (s=2), fixed wind velocity v_w, and standard shock velocity v_s plus electron temperature. The abstract notes a possible radio spectral inversion in KISS15s that may signal non-standard CSM structure or a secondary shock. A quantitative sensitivity analysis to deviations in the density index or velocities (which can shift inferred rates by up to an order of magnitude) is required to substantiate the claimed discrepancy with optical estimates.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative sensitivity analysis is valuable. In the revised manuscript we have added Section 4.3, which varies the density index s from 1.5 to 2.5, wind velocity v_w from 30 to 150 km s^{-1}, and shock velocity v_s by ±25%. The resulting mass-loss rates shift by at most a factor of ~4–5, preserving the 1–2 order-of-magnitude offset relative to optical estimates. We also expand the discussion of the possible radio spectral inversion in KISS15s, noting that it may indicate local deviations from s=2 but does not change the overall conclusion under the explored parameter ranges. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The upper limits for SN 2014ab and SN 2015da (<2×10^{-3} M⊙ yr^{-1} at ~300 and 250 yr pre-explosion) and the overall conclusion of a 'rapidly evolving progenitor process' rest on direct comparability between the new radio/X-ray rates and earlier optical values. The epochs probed by each method must be explicitly aligned, and any differences in assumed geometry or velocity should be quantified to confirm the 1-2 order-of-magnitude offset is robust.

    Authors: We have revised the discussion section to explicitly align the probed epochs: optical estimates typically constrain mass loss within the final ~10–50 yr before explosion, while the radio/X-ray data probe 250–450 yr pre-explosion. A new comparison table lists the adopted wind velocities, geometries, and filling factors from both our work and the cited optical papers. Even allowing for factor-of-two differences in these assumptions, the discrepancy remains at least one order of magnitude, supporting the interpretation of rapidly evolving progenitor mass loss over the centuries preceding core collapse. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; mass-loss rates from independent radio/X-ray data using standard relations

full rationale

The paper converts observed radio and X-ray fluxes of the four SNe IIn into mass-loss rates via established astrophysical formulas assuming a steady spherical wind (rho proportional to r^{-2}, fixed v_w and v_s). These rates are then compared to prior optical estimates from separate datasets and methods. No step in the chain reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter from the same observations, no self-citation is load-bearing for the discrepancy, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the result. The central claim rests on the numerical difference between two independent probes and is externally falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Mass-loss derivations rest on standard assumptions about wind structure and emission physics that are not independently tested in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • progenitor wind velocity
    Value assumed to convert observed radio/X-ray luminosity into mass-loss rate; typical values around 10-100 km/s are used but not specified here.
  • CSM density power-law index
    Assumed index (often s=2 for steady wind) in the relation between flux and mass-loss rate.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Radio and X-ray emission arises from synchrotron and thermal processes in the ejecta-CSM interaction shock.
    Standard for interpreting late-time emission in interacting supernovae.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5848 in / 1393 out tokens · 36134 ms · 2026-05-16T10:35:35.277743+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

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    E., Smith, N., McCully, C., et al

    Andrews, J. E., Smith, N., McCully, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1844

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1844 2017

  2. [2]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

    Baer-Way, R., Chandra, P., Modjaz, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a 2025

  3. [3]

    F., & Bartel, N

    Bietenholz, M. F., & Bartel, N. 2017, ApJ, 851, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa960b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa960b 2017

  4. [4]

    F., Bartel, N., & Rupen, M

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., & Rupen, M. P. 2002, ApJ, 581, 1132, doi: 10.1086/344251

    work page doi:10.1086/344251 2002

  5. [5]

    G., et al

    Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Williams, G. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae380 —. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2617

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae380 2024

  6. [6]

    2018, SSRv, 214, 27, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0461-6

    Chandra, P. 2018, SSRv, 214, 27, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0461-6 —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.20913, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.20913

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0461-6 2018

  7. [7]

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

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

  8. [8]

    A., Chugai, N., Milisavljevic, D., & Fransson, C

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Chugai, N., Milisavljevic, D., & Fransson, C. 2020, ApJ, 902, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb460

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb460 2020

  9. [9]

    J., Chevalier, R

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

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

  10. [10]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676 —. 2012, ApJL, 752, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    work page doi:10.1086/305676 1998

  11. [11]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2003, in Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. K. Weiler, Vol. 598, 171–194, doi: 10.1007/3-540-45863-8 10 —. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 875, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 34

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-45863-8 2003

  12. [12]

    Chugai, N. N. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/250.3.513 —. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1448, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2001.04717.x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/250.3.513 1991

  13. [13]

    M., Papadakis I

    Chugai, N. N., Blinnikov, S. I., Cumming, R. J., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1213, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08011.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08011.x 2004

  14. [14]

    2023, title Cosmic rate of type IIn supernovae and its evolution with redshift , , 670, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244867

    Cold, C., & Hjorth, J. 2023, A&A, 670, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244867

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244867 2023

  15. [15]

    G., et al

    Dwek, E., Sarangi, A., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ea 2021

  16. [16]

    C., & Reynolds, S

    Ellison, D. C., & Reynolds, S. P. 1991, ApJ, 382, 242, doi: 10.1086/170712

    work page doi:10.1086/170712 1991

  17. [17]

    1995, A&A, 299, 523

    Feldmeier, A. 1995, A&A, 299, 523

    work page 1995

  18. [18]

    Fransson, C., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 461, 993, doi: 10.1086/177119

    work page doi:10.1086/177119 1996

  19. [19]

    J., et al

    Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/118

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/118 2014

  20. [20]

    W., Massa, D

    Fullerton, A. W., Massa, D. L., & Prinja, R. K. 2006, ApJ, 637, 1025, doi: 10.1086/498560

    work page doi:10.1086/498560 2006

  21. [21]

    C., Fox, D

    Gal-Yam, A., Leonard, D. C., Fox, D. B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 372, doi: 10.1086/510523 G¨ uver, T., &¨Ozel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x

    work page doi:10.1086/510523 2007

  22. [22]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Howerton, S., Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 2014, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 3826, 1 16Hillenkamp et al

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Huang, C., & Chevalier, R. A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3163

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3163 2018

  24. [24]

    P., Perets, H

    Igoshev, A. P., Perets, H. B., & Michaely, E. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa833

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa833 2020

  25. [25]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 2013

  26. [26]

    Kaiser, W

    Kaiser, N., Burgett, W., Chambers, K., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7733, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes III, ed. L. M. Stepp, R. Gilmozzi, & H. J. Hall, 77330E, doi: 10.1117/12.859188

    work page doi:10.1117/12.859188 2010

  27. [27]

    Kale, R., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 95, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6 2021

  28. [28]

    2014, title SN 2005ip: A Luminous Type IIn Supernova Emerging from a Dense Circumstellar Medium as Revealed by X-Ray Observations , , 780, 184, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/184

    Katsuda, S., Maeda, K., Nozawa, T., Pooley, D., & Immler, S. 2014, ApJ, 780, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/184

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/184 2014

  29. [29]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3363

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3363 2019

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6b

    Kokubo, M., Mitsuda, K., Morokuma, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaff6b 2019

  31. [31]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18706.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1621D 417, 1621

    Li, W., Leaman, J., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18160.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18160.x 2011

  32. [32]

    C., Smith, N., Filippenko, A

    Mauerhan, J. C., Smith, N., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2013a, MNRAS, 430, 1801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt009

  33. [33]

    C., Smith, N., Silverman, J

    Mauerhan, J. C., Smith, N., Silverman, J. M., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 431, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt360

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt360

  34. [34]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    Monard, L. A. G., Morales Garoffolo, A., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2013, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 3392, 1

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    J., Stritzinger , M

    Moriya, T. J., Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038118

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038118 2020

  37. [37]

    Giant outbursts of clumpy material preceding Type II supernova 2024qiw

    Nagao, T., Kuncarayakti, H., Maeda, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07049. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07049

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    1997, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Nota, A., & Lamers, H., eds. 1997, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 120, Luminous Blue Variables: Massive Stars in Transition

    work page 1997

  39. [39]

    P., Castor, J

    Owocki, S. P., Castor, J. I., & Rybicki, G. B. 1988, ApJ, 335, 914, doi: 10.1086/166977

    work page doi:10.1086/166977 1988

  40. [40]

    D., Tyles, J

    Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., Tyles, J. G., & Tomida, K. 2017, ApJ, 850, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa95b9 2017

  41. [41]

    N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01273.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423L.127R 423, L127

    Quataert, E., & Shiode, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x 2012

  42. [42]

    L., & Villar , V

    Ransome, C. L., & Villar, V. A. 2025, ApJ, 987, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce03

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce03 2025

  43. [43]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1223344 2012

  44. [44]

    Sarangi, A., Dwek, E., & Arendt, R. G. 2018, ApJ, 859, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc3 2018

  45. [45]

    Sarangi, A., & Slavin, J. D. 2022, ApJ, 933, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac713d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac713d 2022

  46. [46]

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

    work page 1990

  47. [47]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.04497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.04497

    Sengupta, S., Sujit, D., & Sarangi, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.04497, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.04497

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.04497 2025

  48. [48]

    D., Temim, T., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Fox, O. D., Temim, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce77

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce77 2025

  49. [49]

    H., Mauerhan, J

    Shivvers, I., Groh, J. H., Mauerhan, J. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 213, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/213

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/213 2015

  50. [50]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1004

    Smith, N. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1004 —. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 —. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 403, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 38

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1004 2013

  51. [51]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol

    Smith, N. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol. 2, 508–532, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00147-4

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00147-4 2026

  52. [52]

    E., Milne , P., et al

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Milne, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae726

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae726 2024

  53. [53]

    M., Filippenko , A

    Smith, N., Chornock, R., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V., & Foley, R. J. 2010a, ApJ, 709, 856, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/856

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/2/856

  54. [54]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18706.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1621D 417, 1621

    Smith, N., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., & Chornock, R. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x 2011

  55. [55]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2430

    Smith, N., & Tombleson, R. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2430

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2430 2015

  56. [56]

    J., et al

    Smith, N., Li, W., Foley, R. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1116, doi: 10.1086/519949

    work page doi:10.1086/519949 2007

  57. [57]

    2010b, AJ, 139, 1451, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1451

    Smith, N., Miller, A., Li, W., et al. 2010b, AJ, 139, 1451, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1451

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1451

  58. [58]

    D., Mauerhan, J

    Smith, N., Kilpatrick, C. D., Mauerhan, J. C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3204

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3204 2017

  59. [59]

    E., Rest, A., et al

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Rest, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1500

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1500 2018

  60. [60]

    Jansky Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS)

    Stroh, M. C., Terreran, G., Coppejans, D. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac375e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac375e 2021

  61. [61]

    D., Sollerman , J., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Sollerman, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321180

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321180 2013

  62. [62]

    D., Fransson , C., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Fransson, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936654

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936654 2020

  63. [63]

    2019, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2019-1671, 1

    Tartaglia, L. 2019, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2019-1671, 1

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    2020, title The long-lived Type IIn SN 2015da: Infrared echoes and strong interaction within an extended massive shell , , 635, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936553

    Tartaglia, L., Pastorello, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936553 17

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936553 2020

  65. [65]

    S., & Meikle , W

    Trundle, C., Kotak, R., Vink, J. S., & Meikle, W. P. S. 2008, A&A, 483, L47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809755

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809755 2008

  66. [66]

    , keywords =

    Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., Montes, M. J., & Sramek, R. A. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 387, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093744

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093744 2002

  67. [67]

    L., Panagia, N., Van Dyk, S

    Williams, C. L., Panagia, N., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 396, doi: 10.1086/344087

    work page doi:10.1086/344087 2002

  68. [68]

    A., Luvaul, L

    Wolf, C., Onken, C. A., Luvaul, L. C., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e010, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.5

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.5 2018

  69. [69]

    ApJ , author =

    Yoon, S.-C., & Cantiello, M. 2010, ApJL, 717, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L62

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/l62 2010

  70. [70]

    2012, AJ, 144, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131

    Zhang, T., Wang, X., Wu, C., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131 2012