pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23579 · v1 · pith:HT25FC3Lnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Atomic gas properties at the positions of supernovae Type Ia, II, and Ib/c

Bruno \v{S}laus , Natalia Gotkiewicz , Micha{\l} J. Micha{\l}owski , Aleksandra Lesniewska , Przemys{\l}aw Nowaczyk , Oleh Ryzhov , Mart\'in Solar , Jakub Nadolny
show 1 more author
Wojciech Dimitrov
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 03:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords supernovaeatomic hydrogenHI mapsgalaxy environmentsstar formationcore-collapse supernovaeType Ia supernovae
0
0 comments X

The pith

Supernovae of Types Ia, II and Ib/c show statistically consistent associations with atomic gas concentrations.

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

The paper analyzes atomic hydrogen maps at the sites of 133 supernovae split among Type Ia, Type II and Type Ib/c to test whether explosion sites trace dense gas. All three types deviate from a random distribution across the maps, with Type II showing the strongest preference for brighter pixels. Direct comparison of the three populations finds their offsets from random and from each other remain consistent within the sample limits. This leaves the birth sites of these supernovae compatible with ordinary current star formation, while gamma-ray bursts and broad-line Ic events appear to require rarer conditions such as low metallicity.

Core claim

The positions of the three supernova types remain consistent with one another in their relation to atomic gas; the data do not establish that Ib/c or Type II events occur preferentially in the densest atomic gas concentrations, in contrast to the pattern reported for GRBs and Ic-BL supernovae.

What carries the argument

Fraction of HI-map pixels fainter than the supernova pixel and fraction of total HI flux contained in those fainter pixels, compared across supernova types and against a random reference distribution.

If this is right

  • Type II events deviate most from random placement and from stellar surface density.
  • All three types still remain statistically consistent with one another.
  • Progenitors of Type II and Ib/c supernovae remain compatible with formation in ordinary star-forming regions.
  • The contrast with GRBs and Ic-BL events is preserved under the present data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Atomic gas surface density alone may not be a sharp enough discriminator to separate ordinary core-collapse channels from the rarer ones.
  • Uniform high-resolution HI surveys of larger samples could reveal differences currently hidden by resolution mismatch.
  • The result tightens the requirement that any special conditions for GRB and Ic-BL progenitors must operate on scales smaller than the current HI beam.

Load-bearing premise

Limits on survey size and uneven resolution of the HI observations do not materially alter the measured consistency between the three supernova types.

What would settle it

A new sample of supernovae observed with uniform high-resolution HI maps that yields a statistically significant difference in gas-concentration preference between any two of the three types.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23579 by Aleksandra Lesniewska, Bruno \v{S}laus, Jakub Nadolny, Mart\'in Solar, Micha{\l} J. Micha{\l}owski, Natalia Gotkiewicz, Oleh Ryzhov, Przemys{\l}aw Nowaczyk, Wojciech Dimitrov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cumulative distributions of fractions of pixels fainter than the SN pixel, fp (left) and the fractions of total flux, ff (right), for all types of SNe. The dashed lines denote the 1 − 1 line. For the left plot (fp) this corresponds to the situation in which SNe follow a completely random distribution, while for the plot on the right (ff), it means they follow directly the atomic gas distribution. tests rev… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cumulative distributions of fp (left) and ff (right) values for observed (solid lines) SNe and the simulation following the Near-IR emission (dashed line), as denoted in the legend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Positions of simulated SNe (blue crosses) shown over maps of Hi emission. The figure corresponds to HI emission of a host galaxy NGC5377. The left part of the figure shows the purely random distribution of SN positions. The middle part of the figure shows the scenario where the SN positions follow the distribution of Hi emission. The right part of the figure shows the scenario where the positions follow th… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding which stars explode as which type of supernovae (SNe) is crucial to measure their contribution to the metal production and feedback halting star formation. Most of the studies of the gas in the environment of SNe are limited by a small sample size ($<10$). The goal of this paper is to present the first analysis of atomic gas properties at the positions of a statistically significant sample of SNe in order to constrain their nature. We selected 133 SNe (29 Ia, 77 II, 27 Ib/c) which have exploded in galaxies with existing atomic gas data. In order to test whether SN positions trace enhancements in the atomic gas distribution, we analyzed the fraction of pixels on the {\hi} map which are fainter than the pixel in which SN is located and the fraction of the {\hi} flux contributed by these pixels. All types of SNe deviate from the completely random distribution. From the three types of SNe, Type II showed the largest offset from the {\hi} distribution, preferring even higher concentrations of atomic gas. This type of SNe deviated also from being proportional to the stellar surface density of the host. The results are, however, complicated by the limits of the survey in size, and in the un-even resolution of the {\hi} observations. Furthermore, by direct comparison between the three SN types, we observed that the distributions of these populations are still consistent with each other. The obtained results fail to ascertain that Ib/c core-collapse SNe, and possibly also Type II SNe, are connected with the densest concentrations of atomic gas in their hosts, unlike what has been suggested for GRBs and Ic-BL SNe. Hence, the birth of progenitors of Type II and Ib/c SNe is still consistent with being connected with the current star formation in their hosts, whereas the progenitors of GRBs and Type Ic-BL SNe require more special conditions to form, for example low metallicity.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes atomic gas (HI) properties at the positions of 133 supernovae (29 Type Ia, 77 Type II, 27 Type Ib/c) in galaxies with existing HI maps. Using pixel-fraction (fraction of pixels fainter than the SN pixel) and flux-fraction statistics computed on native maps, it finds that all three SN types deviate from a random distribution, with Type II showing the largest offset toward higher HI concentrations and also deviating from stellar surface density. Direct comparison shows the three populations remain statistically consistent with each other. The work concludes that Type II and Ib/c progenitors are consistent with current star formation, unlike GRBs and Ic-BL SNe which may require special conditions such as low metallicity; results are noted as complicated by survey-size limits and uneven HI resolution.

Significance. If the pixel- and flux-fraction results hold after addressing resolution effects, the paper provides a larger-sample observational comparison than prior <10-object studies, directly testing cross-type consistency without fitted parameters or derivations. This supports the distinction between regular core-collapse SNe and GRB/Ic-BL progenitors while remaining purely empirical against a random baseline.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and methods: the central consistency claim between SN types rests on pixel-fraction and flux-fraction metrics, yet no description is given of how varying beam sizes or map resolutions across hosts are handled when ranking pixel intensities; this directly affects commensurability of the fractions and the measured offsets from random.
  2. [Analysis] Analysis section: error treatment and uncertainty quantification for the pixel-fraction and flux-fraction statistics are not detailed, nor is any resolution-matched subsample or correction applied, leaving the cross-type consistency test vulnerable to the uneven-resolution systematic explicitly flagged as a complication.
  3. [Results] Results: with sample sizes of 29 Ia, 77 II and 27 Ib/c, the statistical power of the consistency test between populations is not quantified (e.g., via bootstrap or Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values with resolution uncertainty), which is load-bearing for the claim that distributions remain consistent despite individual deviations from random.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the exact definition and computation of the flux-fraction statistic in the methods to ensure reproducibility.
  2. [Sample selection] Add a table or figure showing the distribution of host-galaxy distances or beam sizes to illustrate the resolution variation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help strengthen the presentation of our empirical analysis. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity on methodology, uncertainties, and statistical tests while preserving the native-map approach that is central to the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and methods: the central consistency claim between SN types rests on pixel-fraction and flux-fraction metrics, yet no description is given of how varying beam sizes or map resolutions across hosts are handled when ranking pixel intensities; this directly affects commensurability of the fractions and the measured offsets from random.

    Authors: The pixel- and flux-fraction statistics are computed directly on the native-resolution HI maps of each individual host galaxy, so that the ranking of the SN pixel is performed only against other pixels within the same map. This internal comparison ensures that the deviation from a uniform (random) distribution is measured under the actual observational conditions of that galaxy. Because the three SN populations are drawn from overlapping but not identical sets of hosts, we already flag the heterogeneous resolution as a limitation in the abstract and discussion. We have expanded the methods section with an explicit statement of this native-map procedure and its implications for cross-type comparison. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Analysis] Analysis section: error treatment and uncertainty quantification for the pixel-fraction and flux-fraction statistics are not detailed, nor is any resolution-matched subsample or correction applied, leaving the cross-type consistency test vulnerable to the uneven-resolution systematic explicitly flagged as a complication.

    Authors: We agree that the original text did not provide sufficient detail on uncertainties. The fractions are binomial in nature (pixel count or flux sum relative to total), and we have now added the corresponding 1-sigma uncertainties derived from the beta distribution or bootstrap resampling within each map. A full resolution-matched subsample is limited by the small number of hosts with comparable beam sizes; we have therefore added a brief resolution-binned robustness check in the analysis section and retained the explicit caveat about uneven resolution. These additions make the error treatment transparent without altering the native-map methodology. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results: with sample sizes of 29 Ia, 77 II and 27 Ib/c, the statistical power of the consistency test between populations is not quantified (e.g., via bootstrap or Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values with resolution uncertainty), which is load-bearing for the claim that distributions remain consistent despite individual deviations from random.

    Authors: We have now quantified the consistency between the three SN-type distributions using two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and bootstrap resampling (10,000 iterations) that also perturbs the fractions within their uncertainties. The resulting p-values remain >0.1 for all pairwise comparisons, supporting the statement that the populations are statistically consistent with one another. These tests and the associated p-values have been added to the results section, together with a short discussion of how resolution scatter affects the power of the test. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational positional statistics on external HI maps

full rationale

The analysis selects 133 SNe with pre-existing HI maps and computes two direct statistics (pixel-fraction fainter than SN location; flux-fraction from those pixels) against a random baseline. These quantities are measured on the native maps without any fitted parameters, rescaling, or model equations. The claim that the three SN-type distributions remain consistent with each other follows immediately from the empirical cumulative distributions; no step reduces to a self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. The abstract explicitly flags survey-size and resolution limits as complications, but these are acknowledged methodological caveats rather than hidden circular reductions. The result is therefore self-contained against external HI data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational study with no free parameters, no invented entities, and reliance on standard domain assumptions about HI maps representing atomic gas and the validity of a random-distribution null hypothesis.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption HI maps from existing surveys accurately represent the atomic gas distribution at SN positions without dominant bias from resolution mismatch or galaxy selection.
    Abstract explicitly notes complications from survey size limits and uneven resolution, indicating this assumption underpins the pixel-fraction and flux-fraction comparisons.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5949 in / 1341 out tokens · 30278 ms · 2026-05-25T03:47:25.709695+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

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 2332

    Arabsalmani, M., Le Floc’h, E., Dannerbauer, H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2332

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 165

    Arabsalmani, M., Renaud, F., Roychowdhury, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 165

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    2022, AJ, 164, 69

    Arabsalmani, M., Roychowdhury, S., Renaud, F., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 69

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A., Kanekar, N., & Michałowski, M

    Arabsalmani, M., Roychowdhury, S., Zwaan, M. A., Kanekar, N., & Michałowski, M. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L51

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    2010, AJ, 140, 1194

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1194

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    C., Rao, R., Krips, M., et al

    Bower, G. C., Rao, R., Krips, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 227

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    S., Stolle-McAllister, G., Jorgenson, R

    Chittidi, J. S., Stolle-McAllister, G., Jorgenson, R. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.10377 de Blok, W. J. G., Athanassoula, E., Bosma, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A147 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Michalowski, M., Thoene, C. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2406.16726 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Thöne, C. C., Martín, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A68

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Eldridge, J. J. & Maund, J. R. 2016, MNRAS, 461, L117

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 2018, ApJ, 854, 16

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    G., Kaufman, M., Bournaud, F., et al

    Elmegreen, B. G., Kaufman, M., Bournaud, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 26

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    G., Hora, J

    Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 10

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

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

    work page 1997

  13. [13]

    C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al

    Folatelli, G., Bersten, M. C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 147

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    D., Kuncarayakti, H., et al

    Folatelli, G., Van Dyk, S. D., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, L22

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, L16

    Fraser, M. 2016, MNRAS, 456, L16

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    S., Levan, A

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

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    & Gavazzi, G

    Fumagalli, M. & Gavazzi, G. 2008, A&A, 490, 571

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 628

    Galbany, L., Mora, L., González-Gaitán, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 628

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Glover, S. C. O. & Clark, P. C. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 9

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 962, L13

    Glowacki, M., Bera, A., Lee-Waddell, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, L13

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    T., et al

    Glowacki, M., Lee-Waddell, K., Deller, A. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 25

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Z., & Margutti, R

    Guillochon, J., Parrent, J., Kelley, L. Z., & Margutti, R. 2017, ApJ, 835, 64

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 91

    Hatsukade, B., Hashimoto, T., Kohno, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 91

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 940, L34

    Hatsukade, B., Hashimoto, T., Niino, Y ., & Hsu, T.-Y . 2022, ApJ, 940, L34

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    2014, Nature, 510, 247

    Hatsukade, B., Ohta, K., Endo, A., et al. 2014, Nature, 510, 247

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    M., Roberts, H., Dénes, H., et al

    Hess, K. M., Roberts, H., Dénes, H., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A193

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 2030

    Hsu, T.-Y ., Hashimoto, T., Hatsukade, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2030

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Hu, C.-Y ., Naab, T., Walch, S., Glover, S. C. O., & Clark, P. C. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3528

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

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

    work page 2006

  30. [30]

    E., Sand, D

    Jencson, J. E., Sand, D. J., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, L33

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Joye, W. A. & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Con- ference Series, V ol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne, R. I. Jedrzejewski, & R. N. Hook, 489

    work page 2003

  32. [32]

    S., Staveley-Smith, L., Westmeier, T., et al

    Koribalski, B. S., Staveley-Smith, L., Westmeier, T., et al. 2020, Ap&SS, 365, 118

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2012, ApJ, 759, 9

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    P., Galbany, L., et al

    Kuncarayakti, H., Anderson, J. P., Galbany, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A35

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    W., Ryder, S

    Lee-Waddell, K., James, C. W., Ryder, S. D., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e029

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    2011, A&A, 530, A95 Le´sniewska, A., Michałowski, M

    Leloudas, G., Gallazzi, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A95 Le´sniewska, A., Michałowski, M. J., Kamphuis, P., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 67

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    S., Ponomareva, A

    Maddox, N., Frank, B. S., Ponomareva, A. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A35

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    R., Reilly, E., & Mattila, S

    Maund, J. R., Reilly, E., & Mattila, S. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 938

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    Maund, J. R. & Smartt, S. J. 2009, Science, 324, 486 Mayker Chen, N., Leroy, A. K., Lopez, L. A., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 944, 110 Mayker Chen, N., Leroy, A. K., Lopez, L. A., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 944, 110 Mayker Chen, N., Leroy, A. K., Sarbadhicary, S. K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 5

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    & van den Bergh, S

    Maza, J. & van den Bergh, S. 1976, ApJ, 204, 519

    work page 1976

  42. [42]

    McKee, C. F. & Ostriker, J. P. 1977, ApJ, 218, 148 Michałowski, M. J. 2021, ApJ, 920, L21 Michałowski, M. J., Castro Cerón, J. M., Wardlow, J. L., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A72 Michałowski, M. J., Gentile, G., Hjorth, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A78 Michałowski, M. J., Gentile, G., Krühler, T., et al. 2018a, A&A, 618, A104 Michałowski, M. J., Gotkiewicz, N., ...

    work page 1977

  43. [43]

    A., Brienza, M., et al

    Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T. A., Brienza, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A9

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    2019, ApJ, 879, L13 Muñoz-Mateos, J

    Morokuma-Matsui, K., Morokuma, T., Tominaga, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, L13 Muñoz-Mateos, J. C., Sheth, K., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 59

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    J., Rizzo, J

    Nadolny, J., Michałowski, M. J., Rizzo, J. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 125

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Uppsala General Catalogue of Galaxies (UGC) (Nilson 1973), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VII/26D

    Nilson, P. 1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Uppsala General Catalogue of Galaxies (UGC) (Nilson 1973), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VII/26D. Orig- inally published in: 1973UGC...C......0N

    work page 1995

  47. [47]

    E., Schinnerer, E., et al

    Querejeta, M., Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 5

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    2025, PASA, 42, e164

    Roxburgh, H., Glowacki, M., Bera, A., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e164

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, L93

    Roychowdhury, S., Arabsalmani, M., & Kanekar, N. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L93

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    L., et al

    Sheth, K., Regan, M., Hinz, J. L., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 1397

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    E., Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 71

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    J., Nadolny, J., et al

    Solar, M., Michałowski, M. J., Nadolny, J., et al. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 7667

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    R., Levan, A

    Stanway, E. R., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Wiersema, K., & van der Laan, T. P. R. 2015, ApJ, 798, L7

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    A., van Albada, T

    Swaters, R. A., van Albada, T. S., van der Hulst, J. M., & Sancisi, R. 2002, A&A, 390, 829

    work page 2002

  57. [57]

    2018, A&A, 615, A136 Thöne, C

    Tanga, M., Krühler, T., Schady, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A136 Thöne, C. C., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Izzo, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A66 Thöne, C. C., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Leloudas, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A129 Thöne, C. C., Michałowski, M. J., Leloudas, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1307 Van Dyk, S. D. 2013, AJ, 146, 24 Van Dyk, S. D., de Graw, A., Ba...

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    Walter, F., Brinks, E., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2563

    work page 2008

  59. [59]

    Wang, J., Kauffmann, G., Józsa, G. I. G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 270

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    E., Salo, H., Laurikainen, E., et al

    Watkins, A. E., Salo, H., Laurikainen, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A69

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

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

    work page 2006

  62. [62]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 122 Article number, page 7 of 14 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Yamanaka, I., Hatsukade, B., Egusa, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 122 Article number, page 7 of 14 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda Appendix A: Long Figures and Tables Moment 0 Himaps are shown in Fig. A.1, for each host galaxy. Tab. A.1 shows the redshifts, resolutions, and thef p andf f statistics for individual SN. The linear resolutions were de- termined ...

    work page 2024