pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.13128 · v2 · pith:FPTB2ZURnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Multi-Epoch X-Ray Detection of SLSN-I 2018bsz: Constraints on the Powering Mechanism and Ejecta Structure

Julia Ahlvind , Josefin Larsson , Dennis Alp , Ragnhild Lunnan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 06:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords superluminous supernovaeSN 2018bszX-ray observationsejecta-CSM interactionmagnetar central enginestripped supernovaecircumstellar material
0
0 comments X

The pith

X-ray detections of SN 2018bsz across five epochs are inconsistent with a magnetar central engine but match early ejecta interaction with circumstellar material.

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

The paper reports Chandra and XMM observations of the stripped superluminous supernova SN 2018bsz from 87 to 1253 days after explosion, making it only the second X-ray detected SLSN-I. A millisecond magnetar model underpredicts the observed X-ray luminosities and fails to produce the flat light curve shape, with the mismatch growing worse once ejecta absorption is included. The data instead align with interaction between the ejecta and circumstellar medium at early times, while any magnetar emission remains absorbed inside the ejecta. This interpretation draws support from the flat temporal evolution, prior optical findings, and mass-loss rates that resemble those of stripped supernovae that later become interacting systems. The results therefore place SN 2018bsz in a distinct subgroup of SLSNe-I in which interaction dominates the strong emission.

Core claim

SN 2018bsz is detected in X-rays at all four Chandra epochs and tentatively in the later XMM observation. The luminosities and relatively flat light curve are not reproduced by a millisecond magnetar central engine, even before accounting for absorption by the ejecta; adding absorption widens the discrepancy. The observations are instead more readily explained by early-time interaction between the ejecta and circumstellar medium, with magnetar emission absorbed by the ejecta. This picture is consistent with the flat temporal evolution, previous optical results, and inferred mass-loss rates that match those of stripped supernovae that evolve into interacting systems.

What carries the argument

Multi-epoch X-ray light curve and spectral comparison to magnetar spin-down and ejecta-CSM interaction models, including the effects of absorption within the ejecta.

If this is right

  • SN 2018bsz belongs to a distinct group of SLSNe-I in which interaction is required to produce the strong emission.
  • The inferred mass-loss rates match those of stripped supernovae that later evolve into interacting systems.
  • Magnetar emission is absorbed by the ejecta during the observed window, while interaction powers the detected X-rays.
  • The flat light curve and luminosity evolution are signatures of early ejecta-CSM interaction rather than central-engine spin-down.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar X-ray monitoring of other nearby SLSNe-I could reveal how common early interaction is within the class.
  • If interaction dominates a subset of SLSNe, their progenitors likely experienced enhanced mass loss shortly before explosion compared with non-interacting cases.
  • Late-time X-ray observations beyond 1253 days could test whether magnetar emission eventually emerges once the ejecta become transparent.

Load-bearing premise

The X-ray source coincides with the supernova rather than nearby contaminants and the magnetar and interaction models correctly capture absorption and other relevant physics.

What would settle it

A deeper, higher-resolution X-ray image that shows the emission arises from a position offset from the supernova or from a separate contaminating source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13128 by Dennis Alp, Josefin Larsson, Julia Ahlvind, Ragnhild Lunnan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a)–(d): Chandra images in the 0.5–8 keV energy range. (e) and (f): XMM EPIC-pn image in the 0.5–10 keV energy range. In panels (a) to (e) the solid circles indicate the source regions used in each observation, while dashed circles mark the reference source regions from the other telescope. In the Chandra panels (a–d), the solid white regions correspond to Chandra source and the dashed cyan circles to the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fits for SN 2018bsz. The top panels show the spectra (points) and fitted model (thicker lines), the middle panels show the full model (and different model components for XMM), and the bottom panels show the log ratio of data to model. 2004; Li et al. 2008), but foremost, it does not change the temporal luminosity evolution, which is the main discrepancy between our MCMC results and BPoptical. 4.1.1. Impact… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Magnetar evolution models compared with observational data. The black solid line shows the best-fitted B and P0 with fixed η from the MCMC fit. The green line and shaded region show the pulsar model with best-fit values of B and P0 for the optical light curve fit of SN 2018bsz from Gomez et al. (2024). The diamonds are the power-law luminosities from Chandra and the triangles (3σ upper limits) and dots (de… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot of the MCMC run for B and P0. The black dashed lines in the top left and bottom right show the median and 1σ ranges for the best fit parameters, which are given at the top of respective histogram. The contour lines in the bottom left panel represent 1σ and 2σ. The green regions correspond to BPoptical with 1σ distribution and best-fit optical values marked as a dark-green cross and lines. The p… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Excluded pulsar/magnetar parameter space for three cases: negligible ejecta absorption (black), ejecta prop￾erties corresponding to the best-fit Mej and vej inferred from optical data for SN 2018bsz (magenta; Gomez et al. 2024), and a minimum-absorption scenario defined by the lowest Mej and highest vej within the 1σ confidence intervals (blue; Gomez et al. 2024). All lines are derived from the XMM luminos… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

SN 2018bsz is the closest known stripped superluminous supernova (SLSN-I) to date, making it an ideal laboratory for investigating the physical mechanisms powering this class of extreme explosions. We present a multi-epoch X-ray spectroscopic study of SN 2018bsz based on four Chandra observations followed by one XMM observation, spanning 87 to 1253 days after explosion. The source is detected at all Chandra epochs and is also tentatively detected in the late XMM observation, although more uncertain due to nearby contaminating sources. Regardless of the XMM detection, this makes SN 2018bsz the second X-ray detected SLSN-I and the third X-ray detected SLSN overall. We explore potential power sources for the observed X-ray emission and find that a millisecond magnetar central engine underpredicts most of the observed X-ray luminosities and fails to reproduce the relatively flat light curve. Accounting for ejecta absorption further increases the discrepancy. While asymmetries and magnetar-driven ionization could reduce the effective absorption, ionization breakout is expected years after our observational window. Instead, the observations are more readily explained by early-time interaction between the ejecta and the circumstellar medium, while the magnetar emission is absorbed by the ejecta. This scenario is supported by the flat temporal evolution, previous optical results, and inferred mass-loss rates which resemble those of stripped supernovae that later evolve into interacting systems. Our results thus favor the scenario where SN 2018bsz is part of a distinct group of SLSNe-I, where interaction is crucial for the strong emission.

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 manuscript reports multi-epoch X-ray detections of the stripped-envelope SLSN-I 2018bsz with Chandra (four epochs, 87–1253 d) and a tentative XMM detection. It compares the observed luminosities and flat light-curve shape against magnetar spin-down plus ejecta absorption and against ejecta-CSM interaction, concluding that the data favor early-time CSM interaction while magnetar emission remains absorbed, consistent with prior optical results and inferred mass-loss rates.

Significance. If the X-ray source is confirmed to be intrinsic, the work adds the second X-ray-detected SLSN-I and supplies direct constraints on powering mechanisms. The multi-epoch coverage and linkage to stripped SNe that later show interaction are strengths that would help delineate a distinct interaction-dominated subclass of SLSNe-I.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / XMM observation] Abstract and XMM-epoch description: the detection is flagged as tentative owing to nearby contaminants. It is unclear whether analogous flux contributions from nearby sources affect any of the four Chandra epochs; if so, both the absolute luminosities and the claimed flat temporal evolution become unreliable, directly weakening the quantitative statement that magnetar models underpredict the data.
  2. [Model comparison section] Model-comparison discussion: the claim that magnetar spin-down plus ejecta absorption increases the discrepancy with the observed luminosities requires explicit reporting of the absorption optical-depth calculation, the adopted magnetar parameters (period, B-field, etc.), and the precise luminosity values with uncertainties used in the comparison; without these the central rejection of the magnetar scenario cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (2)
  1. A table listing net counts, exposure times, absorbed and unabsorbed fluxes, and luminosities (with 1σ errors) for each epoch would improve clarity and allow direct assessment of the flatness claim.
  2. The data-reduction steps (source extraction regions, background subtraction, pile-up checks, and handling of nearby sources) should be described in sufficient detail for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate clarifications and additional details in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / XMM observation] Abstract and XMM-epoch description: the detection is flagged as tentative owing to nearby contaminants. It is unclear whether analogous flux contributions from nearby sources affect any of the four Chandra epochs; if so, both the absolute luminosities and the claimed flat temporal evolution become unreliable, directly weakening the quantitative statement that magnetar models underpredict the data.

    Authors: We appreciate this concern regarding potential contamination. The Chandra observations benefit from significantly higher angular resolution than XMM-Newton, and our analysis confirms that the source position shows no detectable contribution from nearby contaminants in any of the four epochs; the detections are robust with source counts well above the local background. Nevertheless, to strengthen the presentation we will add an explicit discussion of the contaminant analysis for the Chandra data, including any upper limits on nearby source contributions and confirmation that the reported luminosities and flat light-curve shape remain unchanged. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Model comparison section] Model-comparison discussion: the claim that magnetar spin-down plus ejecta absorption increases the discrepancy with the observed luminosities requires explicit reporting of the absorption optical-depth calculation, the adopted magnetar parameters (period, B-field, etc.), and the precise luminosity values with uncertainties used in the comparison; without these the central rejection of the magnetar scenario cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the model comparison section would be strengthened by greater transparency. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly report the adopted magnetar parameters (initial spin period and magnetic field strength), the calculated ejecta absorption optical depths at each observational epoch, and the precise observed and model-predicted X-ray luminosities together with their uncertainties. These additions will allow readers to reproduce and evaluate the comparison directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation on optical support; X-ray model comparisons remain independent.

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on direct comparison of observed Chandra and XMM X-ray luminosities and the flat light-curve shape against standard magnetar spin-down and ejecta-CSM interaction model predictions drawn from the literature. No parameters are fitted to the X-ray data itself, and the models are not redefined in terms of the present observations. The reference to 'previous optical results' is a minor self-citation that provides supporting context but does not carry the load of the X-ray-based preference for interaction. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract does not describe any free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the analysis relies on standard astrophysical modeling of supernovae and circumstellar interaction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5843 in / 1082 out tokens · 29386 ms · 2026-06-27T06:02:14.549476+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

76 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7c

    Ahlvind, J., Larsson, J., & Alp, D. 2026, ApJ, 997, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7c 2026

  2. [2]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad737

    Alp, D., Larsson, J., Fransson, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad737

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad737 2018

  3. [3]

    P., Pessi, P

    Anderson, J. P., Pessi, P. J., Dessart, L., et al. 2018a, A&A, 620, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833725

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833725

  4. [4]

    A., Antoranz, P., et al

    Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526853

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526853 2016

  5. [5]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et a...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  6. [6]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/12

    Boroson, B., Kim, D.-W., & Fabbiano, G. 2011, ApJ, 729, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/12 2011

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Brethauer, D., Margutti, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14 2022

  8. [8]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11660, 1 16Ahlvind et al

    Brimacombe, J., Castro, N., Clocchiatti, A., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11660, 1 16Ahlvind et al

    2018

  9. [9]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ae6

    Chatzopoulos, E., & Tuminello, R. 2019, ApJ, 874, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ae6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ae6 2019

  10. [10]

    C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z. L., & Nagy, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/76 2013

  11. [11]

    2018, ApJL, 867, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeb2e

    Chen, T.-W., Inserra, C., Fraser, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 867, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeb2e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaeb2e 2018

  12. [12]

    W., Brennan, S

    Chen, T. W., Brennan, S. J., Wesson, R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.07942, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.07942

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.07942 2021

  13. [13]

    H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al

    Chen, Z. H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca162

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca162 2023

  14. [14]

    S., Taam, R

    Cheng, K. S., Taam, R. E., & Wang, W. 2004, ApJ, 617, 480, doi: 10.1086/425295

    work page doi:10.1086/425295 2004

  15. [15]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 875, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 34 De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., Rubin, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9b6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 2017

  16. [16]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Blondin, S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, L76, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01329.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01329.x 2012

  17. [17]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/30

    Dexter, J., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 772, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/30

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/30 2013

  18. [18]

    Dwarkadas, V. V. 2016, IAU Focus Meeting, 29B, 223, doi: 10.1017/S1743921316005019

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921316005019 2016

  19. [19]

    2019, ApJL, 876, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5

    Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Margalit, B., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5 2019

  20. [20]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag306

    Eiden, K., & Kasen, D. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag306

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag306 2026

  21. [21]

    N., Evans, J

    Evans, I. N., Evans, J. D., Mart´ ınez-Galarza, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319 2024

  22. [22]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  23. [23]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  24. [25]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006b, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760

  25. [26]

    2026, A&A, 707, A338, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557673

    Gkini, A., Fransson, C., Lunnan, R., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A338, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557673

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557673 2026

  26. [27]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2270 2024

  27. [28]

    P., Heckman, T., Strickland, D., & Ptak, A

    Grimes, J. P., Heckman, T., Strickland, D., & Ptak, A. 2005, ApJ, 628, 187, doi: 10.1086/430692

    work page doi:10.1086/430692 2005

  28. [29]

    Array programming with NumPy,

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  29. [30]

    A., Kasen, D., Lidman, C., et al

    Howell, D. A., Kasen, D., Lidman, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/98

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/98 2013

  30. [31]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 4642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx834

    Inserra, C., Nicholl, M., Chen, T.-W., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx834

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx834 2017

  31. [32]

    J., Inserra, C., et al

    Jerkstrand, A., Smartt, S. J., Inserra, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/13 2017

  32. [33]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  33. [34]

    Justham, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Vink, J. S. 2014, ApJ, 796, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/121 2014

  34. [35]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/245 2010

  35. [36]

    J., et al

    Kuncarayakti, H., Maeda, K., Ashall, C. J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 854, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa1a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa1a 2018

  36. [37]

    2012, A&A, 541, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118498

    Leloudas, G., Chatzopoulos, E., Dilday, B., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118498

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118498 2012

  37. [38]

    J., Read, A

    Levan, A. J., Read, A. M., Metzger, B. D., Wheatley, P. J., & Tanvir, N. R. 2013, ApJ, 771, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/136 2013

  38. [39]

    2008, ApJ, 682, 1166, doi: 10.1086/589495

    Li, X.-H., Lu, F.-J., & Li, Z. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1166, doi: 10.1086/589495

    work page doi:10.1086/589495 2008

  39. [40]

    M., et al

    Lunnan, R., Fransson, C., Vreeswijk, P. M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 887, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0568-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0568-z 2018

  40. [41]

    K., Forster, K., Grefenstette, B

    Madsen, K. K., Forster, K., Grefenstette, B. W., Harrison, F. A., & Stern, D. 2017, ApJ, 841, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6970

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6970 2017

  41. [42]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1069, doi: 10.1086/520054

    Maeda, K., Tanaka, M., Nomoto, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1069, doi: 10.1086/520054

    work page doi:10.1086/520054 2007

  42. [43]

    D., et al

    Margutti, R., Chornock, R., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad2df 2018

  43. [44]

    S., Matthews, D

    Margutti, R., Bright, J. S., Matthews, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf1fd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf1fd 2023

  44. [45]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Mauerhan, J. C., Filippenko, A. V., Zheng, W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1307

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1307 2018

  45. [46]

    A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., Greiner, J., & Kann, D

    Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., Greiner, J., & Kann, D. A. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw512

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw512 2016

  46. [47]

    D., Vurm, I., Hasco¨ et, R., & Beloborodov, A

    Metzger, B. D., Vurm, I., Hasco¨ et, R., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1922 Multi-Epoch X-Ray study of SLSN-I 2018bsz17

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1922 2014

  47. [48]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/120

    Milisavljevic, D., Margutti, R., Kamble, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/120 2015

  48. [49]

    2015, A&A, 584, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527515 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc)

    Langer, N. 2015, A&A, 584, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527515 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014a, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004. http://ascl.net/1408.004 —. 2014b, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527515 2015

  49. [50]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334 2017

  50. [51]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1522

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1522 2015

  51. [52]

    J., et al

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/39

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/39 2016

  52. [53]

    2020, A&A, 637, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936097

    Nyholm, A., Sollerman, J., Tartaglia, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936097

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936097 2020

  53. [54]

    O., Cameron, P

    Ofek, E. O., Cameron, P. B., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 659, L13, doi: 10.1086/516749

    work page doi:10.1086/516749 2007

  54. [55]

    O., Fox, D., Cenko, S

    Ofek, E. O., Fox, D., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/42

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/42 2013

  55. [56]

    P., & Gunn, J

    Ostriker, J. P., & Gunn, J. E. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1395, doi: 10.1086/150160

    work page doi:10.1086/150160 1969

  56. [57]

    E., & Quataert, E

    Owen, R. A., & Warwick, R. S. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1741, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14464.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14464.x 2009

  57. [58]

    J., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al

    Pessi, P. J., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452014

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452014 2025

  58. [59]

    2022, A&A, 666, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243256

    Pursiainen, M., Leloudas, G., Paraskeva, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243256

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243256 2022

  59. [60]

    Quimby, R. M. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 296, Supernova Environmental Impacts, ed. A. Ray & R. A. McCray, 68–76, doi: 10.1017/S1743921313009253

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921313009253 2014

  60. [61]

    M., Guainazzi, M., & Sembay, S

    Read, A. M., Guainazzi, M., & Sembay, S. 2014, A&A, 564, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423422

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423422 2014

  61. [62]

    The physics of compact objects

    Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars. The physics of compact objects, doi: 10.1002/9783527617661

    work page doi:10.1002/9783527617661 1983

  62. [63]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/48 2014

  63. [64]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/59

    Shibata, S., Watanabe, E., Yatsu, Y., Enoto, T., & Bamba, A. 2016, ApJ, 833, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/59 2016

  64. [65]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 2014

  65. [66]

    2008, ApJ, 686, 467, doi: 10.1086/591021

    Smith, N., Chornock, R., Li, W., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 467, doi: 10.1086/591021

    work page doi:10.1086/591021 2008

  66. [67]

    Filippenko, A. V. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 773, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18763.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18763.x 2011

  67. [68]

    J., et al.\ 2006, , 666, 1116, doi:10.1086/519949

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

    work page doi:10.1086/519949 2007

  68. [69]

    Frail, D. A. 2006, ApJ, 651, 1005, doi: 10.1086/507571

    work page doi:10.1086/507571 2006

  69. [70]

    But only one really shows it

    Sollerman, J., Fransson, C., Barbarino, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038960

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038960 2020

  70. [71]

    Stanek, K. Z. 2018, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-655, 1

    2018

  71. [72]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  72. [73]

    Willingale, R., Starling, R. L. C., Beardmore, A. P., Tanvir, N. R., & O’Brien, P. T. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt175

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt175 2013

  73. [74]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  74. [75]

    Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/l204 2010

  75. [76]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/108

    Yan, L., Quimby, R., Ofek, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/108 2015

  76. [77]

    A., et al

    Yan, L., Lunnan, R., Perley, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8993

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8993 2017