pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18962 · v1 · pith:TPIYDM6Znew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

The flash-ionised SN Ibn 2025kzr: H-free CSM formed during a precursor outburst 55 days prior to explosion

S. de Wet , G. Leloudas , D. A. H. Buckley , N. Erasmus , P. J. Groot , E. A. Zimmerman , P. Chen , Y. Tampo
show 28 more authors
M. Pursiainen T. Killestein F. Stoppa G. K. Jaisawal A. Gal-Yam K. Maeda J. Anderson T.-W. Chen M. Gromadzki C. P. Guti\'errez E. Kankare T. E. M\"uller-Bravo T. Pessi S. Smartt J. Sollerman L. Tartaglia D. R. Young M. R. Alarcon K. W. Smith H. F. Stevance T. de Boer K. Chambers C.-C. Lin T. B. Lowe P. Minguez M. Nicholl G. S. H. Paek R. J. Wainscoat
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords Type Ibn supernovaSN 2025kzrprecursor outburstcircumstellar materialmass lossWolf-Rayet progenitorflash ionizationhelium lines
0
0 comments X

The pith

A precursor outburst 55 days before SN 2025kzr produced its hydrogen-free CSM

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

The paper reports observations of Type Ibn supernova SN 2025kzr at 51 Mpc, including a precursor outburst peaking at Mr ~ -13.6 that began 55 days before explosion. Early spectra show flash-ionized helium features that disappear after roughly 10 days, with a blueshift in He II lines and a Pickering decrement analysis confirming the CSM is fully hydrogen-free. The timing of feature disappearance together with the 1500 km/s CSM velocity places the ejection event at about 66 days before explosion. This close agreement with the precursor timing indicates a physical connection, yielding a CSM mass of 0.03-1.7 solar masses and a mass-loss rate above 0.1 solar masses per year. The authors conclude this favors a single Wolf-Rayet progenitor of initial mass 30-40 solar masses, possibly with wave-driven mass loss during oxygen burning.

Core claim

The flash-ionised features in SN 2025kzr trace a hydrogen-free CSM shell ejected during the precursor outburst 55 days before explosion. The 1500 km/s velocity and the ~10-day duration of the flash phase imply the mass-loss event occurred ~66 days pre-explosion, matching the precursor timing and establishing a direct physical link. This yields a CSM mass of 0.03-1.7 M_sun at a rate ≳10^{-1} M_sun/yr and supports a single massive Wolf-Rayet progenitor with M_ZAMS ~30-40 M_sun.

What carries the argument

The timing match between the observed precursor and the mass-loss episode inferred from flash-feature disappearance combined with CSM velocity, which links the two events.

If this is right

  • The CSM mass of 0.03-1.7 solar masses requires a mass-loss rate exceeding 0.1 solar masses per year shortly before explosion.
  • The fully hydrogen-free CSM and lack of hydrogen lines support a completely stripped Wolf-Rayet progenitor.
  • The precursor timescale and brightness are consistent with wave-driven mass loss during the oxygen-burning phase.
  • A single massive star is favored to explain the event, though a binary channel remains possible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This case supplies a direct observational example of how a precursor can supply the dense CSM that produces the narrow helium lines in Type Ibn supernovae.
  • Repeating the timing analysis on other well-observed Type Ibn events could test whether such pre-explosion ejections are typical.
  • If the link holds, it constrains the final nuclear-burning stages of massive stars by showing that extreme mass loss can occur only weeks before core collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the precursor outburst and the mass-loss event inferred from the flash features are the same physical episode rests on their close timing agreement.

What would settle it

A precise velocity or ionization measurement showing the CSM ejection occurred at a time differing by more than a few days from the observed precursor, or detection of hydrogen in the early spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18962 by A. Gal-Yam, C.-C. Lin, C. P. Guti\'errez, D. A. H. Buckley, D. R. Young, E. A. Zimmerman, E. Kankare, F. Stoppa, G. K. Jaisawal, G. Leloudas, G. S. H. Paek, H. F. Stevance, J. Anderson, J. Sollerman, K. Chambers, K. Maeda, K. W. Smith, L. Tartaglia, M. Gromadzki, M. Nicholl, M. Pursiainen, M. R. Alarcon, N. Erasmus, P. Chen, P. J. Groot, P. Minguez, R. J. Wainscoat, S. de Wet, S. Smartt, T. B. Lowe, T. de Boer, T. E. M\"uller-Bravo, T. Killestein, T. Pessi, T.-W. Chen, Y. Tampo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Colour-composite image showing the location of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SALT high-resolution spectrum of SN 2025kzr. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Multi-band photometry of SN 2025kzr from -210 to 75 days post-explosion. The explosion epoch of MJD 60816.0 is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Second-order polynomial fit to our early [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: UV/optical light curves of SN 2025kzr along with smooth cubic spline fits to each band. Due to the poor sampling in the ATLAS c band we vertically shift the V-band model until a sat￾isfactory fit is obtained. Upper limits are shown as upside-down triangles and are at the 3σ (5σ) level for UVOT (ATLAS) data. Vertical markers indicate the times of our spectroscopic obser￾vations. Pursiainen et al. 2023; Dong… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of R/r-band absolute magnitude light curves of a number of SNe Ibn. We include three SNe showing promi￾nent flash features: SNe 2010al (Pastorello et al. 2015a), 2019uo (Gangopadhyay et al. 2020), and 2019wep (Gangopadhyay et al. 2022); and three with confirmed precursors: SNe 2006jc (Pastorello et al. 2007), 2019uo (Strotjohann et al. 2021), and 2023fyq (Dong et al. 2024). We show the Ibn templ… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Interpolated SEDs from our light curve fits ranging from 1.9 to 63.7 days post-explosion, along with the best-fitting, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Blackbody luminosity along with the best-fit ejecta-CSM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Low-resolution spectra of SN 2025kzr spanning 1.85 d to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: First four continuum-normalised spectra for SN 2025kzr highlighting the most prominent spectral lines. Vertical grey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top panel: SALT spectrum demonstrating the Pickering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Line profiles for selected lines in our SALT 3.8 day spectrum. The black and red vertical dashed lines indicate velocities of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fits to the He ii λ5411 and He ii λ6560 lines using a model comprising the sum of a broad Lorentzian for the wings and Gaussian for the core. We include an additional nar￾row Gaussian to account for the narrow host Hα line in the He ii λ6560 profile. itors with massive H envelopes and little to no CNO-processed material at the stellar surface; the CNO-processed models corre￾spond to massive RSGs, yellow h… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Evolution of the EW (top) and centroid velocity (bottom) for the most prominent flash-ionisation and He [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Spectral comparison during the flash (a), Helium P Cygni (b), ejecta (c), and late-time phases (d). The comparison SN Ic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Our normalised Mookodi 1.9 day and SALT 3.8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evolution of the He i λλ5875, 6678, and λ7065 lines between 1.9 and 23.8 days post-explosion. Red vertical lines in￾dicate a velocity of −1500 km s−1 , which coincides with the P Cygni absorption minimum. -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Velocity (1000 km/s) 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 F /Fc He II 4686 He I 5876 He I 7065 He I 6678 N III 4103 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: presents the results of our polarimetric observations. For both epochs at 4.9 and 10.9 days, SN 2025kzr is offset from the comparison stars and therefore shows evidence for intrinsic polarisation, although we note that the first epoch is still con￾sistent with Galactic ISP. The first epoch polarisation degree of P = 0.21±0.12% suggests a high degree of spherical symmetry, and implies that the flash-ionise… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Left: X-ray upper limits for SN 2025kzr compared to the three previous SNe Ibn with X-ray detections: SNe 2006jc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Type Ibn supernovae (SNe) are a class of interacting SNe characterised by narrow helium lines in their spectra. We present an extensive observational dataset of the Type Ibn SN 2025kzr at 51 Mpc, including the discovery of a precursor outburst with a peak brightness of M_r~-13.6 mag beginning ~55 days before explosion. Our photometry indicates the SN was discovered within the first day of explosion, showing fast-rising, ultraviolet-bright emission peaking at M_r=-19.26+/-0.09 mag and a peak blackbody temperature of T~29000 K, consistent with shock breakout within a region of dense and confined circumstellar material (CSM). Our high-cadence spectroscopic dataset spanning 1.9-58.5 days post-explosion shows flash-ionised emission features during the first 10 days. In our SALT spectrum at 3.8 days we observe a pronounced blueshift of the He II lines by 460 km/s compared to the He I lines at zero velocity, while a Pickering-decrement analysis reveals a CSM that is fully hydrogen-free. The timing of the disappearance of the flash features combined with the CSM velocity of 1500 km/s imply a mass-loss event ~66 days before explosion, in close agreement with the timing of the precursor observed 55 days before explosion and strongly suggestive of a physical link. We derive a CSM mass of 0.03-1.7 M_sun and a corresponding high mass-loss rate >~10^{-1} M_sun/yr. The precursor timescale and energetics suggest an extreme mass-loss event that might be explained by wave-driven mass loss during the late stages of nuclear burning, in particular the oxygen-burning phase. Overall, we favour a single massive Wolf-Rayet progenitor with M_ZAMS~30-40 M_sun to explain SN 2025kzr, although a binary origin cannot be excluded.

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 the discovery and analysis of Type Ibn supernova 2025kzr at 51 Mpc, featuring a precursor outburst peaking at M_r ~ -13.6 mag ~55 days before explosion. The SN shows fast rise, UV-bright peak at M_r = -19.26 mag, high temperature ~29000 K, and flash-ionized He features in the first 10 days post-explosion. Using the timing of flash feature disappearance and CSM velocity of 1500 km/s, they infer a mass-loss event ~66 days pre-explosion, linking it to the precursor. They derive CSM mass 0.03-1.7 M_sun, mass-loss rate ≳0.1 M_sun/yr, and favor a single massive Wolf-Rayet progenitor of 30-40 M_sun ZAMS.

Significance. If the claimed physical connection between the precursor and the mass-loss event is robust, this work provides important constraints on extreme mass-loss mechanisms in the final stages of massive star evolution, particularly wave-driven mass loss during oxygen burning. The high-cadence spectroscopic coverage and the hydrogen-free CSM determination via Pickering decrement are notable strengths. The timing agreement (55 vs 66 days) offers a falsifiable prediction for similar events, though the result's impact depends on confirming the single-shell interpretation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / spectral analysis] Abstract and SALT spectrum at 3.8 days: The derivation of the ~66-day pre-explosion mass-loss timing (t_pre = t_flash × v_ej / 1500 km/s) assumes a thin, single-velocity CSM shell with uniform 1500 km/s velocity. However, the reported 460 km/s blueshift of He II lines relative to He I at zero velocity indicates possible ionization stratification or multiple components. This directly affects whether the adopted velocity uniquely traces one ejection episode, weakening the physical link to the 55-day precursor unless addressed with explicit justification for the velocity choice.
  2. [CSM properties derivation] CSM mass and mass-loss rate: The reported range 0.03-1.7 M_sun and rate ≳10^{-1} M_sun/yr are load-bearing for the extreme mass-loss and progenitor conclusions. The manuscript must detail the derivation method, including any equations for mass estimation, assumed density profile, and how the broad range is obtained from the data.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract gives peak temperature as T~29000 K without uncertainty; include the error if reported in the main text for consistency.
  2. [Timing analysis] Clarify the exact post-explosion epoch used for 'disappearance of the flash features' (~10 days) and the ejecta velocity value adopted in the timing calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report, which has helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / spectral analysis] Abstract and SALT spectrum at 3.8 days: The derivation of the ~66-day pre-explosion mass-loss timing (t_pre = t_flash × v_ej / 1500 km/s) assumes a thin, single-velocity CSM shell with uniform 1500 km/s velocity. However, the reported 460 km/s blueshift of He II lines relative to He I at zero velocity indicates possible ionization stratification or multiple components. This directly affects whether the adopted velocity uniquely traces one ejection episode, weakening the physical link to the 55-day precursor unless addressed with explicit justification for the velocity choice.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this subtlety in the velocity interpretation. The 1500 km/s value is taken from the FWHM of the narrow He I emission lines, which we interpret as the bulk expansion velocity of the CSM shell. The 460 km/s blueshift in He II is noted in the manuscript and may reflect ionization stratification or the location of the ionization front rather than a distinct velocity component. We agree that explicit justification for adopting a single velocity is warranted to strengthen the single-shell interpretation and the link to the precursor. In the revised manuscript we will expand the spectral analysis section with a dedicated discussion of this point, including why we consider the He I velocity the most appropriate tracer for the timing calculation while addressing the possible implications of the blueshift. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [CSM properties derivation] CSM mass and mass-loss rate: The reported range 0.03-1.7 M_sun and rate ≳10^{-1} M_sun/yr are load-bearing for the extreme mass-loss and progenitor conclusions. The manuscript must detail the derivation method, including any equations for mass estimation, assumed density profile, and how the broad range is obtained from the data.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation of the CSM mass and mass-loss rate requires additional methodological detail to allow readers to assess the robustness of the quoted range. The broad interval arises from varying assumptions on the radial extent of the CSM (constrained by the duration of the flash-ionization phase) and on the density profile (steady wind versus discrete shell). In the revised version we will insert a new subsection (or expanded paragraph) that explicitly presents the equations used (e.g., M_CSM ≈ 4π r^2 Δr ρ with ρ derived from the observed luminosity and line optical depths), states the assumed density profile (ρ ∝ r^{-2} for a wind-like outflow), and explains how the lower and upper bounds are obtained from the observational constraints. This addition will make the load-bearing conclusions more transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in timing or mass-loss derivations.

full rationale

The paper calculates the ~66-day pre-explosion mass-loss epoch directly from the observed ~10-day flash-feature disappearance combined with the spectroscopically measured CSM velocity of 1500 km/s (t_pre = t_flash * v_ej / v_csm), then notes its proximity to the independently observed 55-day photometric precursor. This is an observational comparison, not a reduction of any result to a fitted input or self-defined quantity. CSM mass (0.03-1.7 M_sun) and mass-loss rate (>~10^{-1} M_sun/yr) follow from standard luminosity and density estimates without equations that force the output by construction from the same data. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions of supernova distance, extinction, and line-formation physics plus the interpretation that timing coincidence indicates physical linkage. No new particles or forces are introduced. Derived quantities such as CSM mass and mass-loss rate are estimates rather than free parameters fitted inside a model.

free parameters (2)
  • CSM mass
    Range 0.03-1.7 solar masses derived from observed luminosity and velocity; exact value depends on assumed geometry and filling factor not fixed by data alone.
  • Mass-loss rate
    Lower limit >0.1 solar masses per year inferred from CSM mass and ejection timescale; depends on the adopted duration of the mass-loss episode.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard supernova distance and extinction corrections apply without significant host-galaxy peculiarities.
    Required to convert observed magnitudes to absolute luminosities and temperatures used for CSM mass estimate.
  • domain assumption The blueshifted He II lines and zero-velocity He I lines trace the same physical shell whose velocity sets the ejection timing.
    Invoked when combining the 460 km/s offset and 1500 km/s CSM velocity to obtain the ~66-day pre-explosion ejection time.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6113 in / 1984 out tokens · 39366 ms · 2026-06-26T19:55:15.724212+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

167 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Anderson, J. P. 2019, A&A, 628, A7

    2019

  2. [2]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag404

    Aster, C., Inserra, C., Pastorello, A., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag404

    2026

  3. [3]

    J., N., Jacobson-Galán, W., et al

    Baer-Way, R., A. J., N., Jacobson-Galán, W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, L49

    2025

  4. [4]

    R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994

    2020

  5. [5]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    2019

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 30

    Ben-Ami, T., Arcavi, I., Newsome, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 30

    2023

  7. [7]

    1994, A&A, 285, L13

    Benetti, S., Patat, F., Turatto, M., et al. 1994, A&A, 285, L13

    1994

  8. [8]

    & Groh, J

    Boian, I. & Groh, J. H. 2019, A&A, 621, A109

    2019

  9. [9]

    & Groh, J

    Boian, I. & Groh, J. H. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1325

    2020

  10. [10]

    A., Pearson, J., Shrestha, M., et al

    Bostroem, K. A., Pearson, J., Shrestha, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, L5

    2023

  11. [11]

    J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L18

    2024

  12. [12]

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

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

    2021

  13. [13]

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

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

    2023

  14. [14]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Swart, G. P., & Meiring, J. G. 2006, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 6267, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes, ed. L. M. Stepp, 62670Z

    2006

  15. [15]

    N., Hill, J

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

    2005

  16. [16]

    2026, A&A, 707, A157

    Cai, Y .-Z., Pastorello, A., Maeda, K., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A157

    2026

  17. [17]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    C., & Vinko, J

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., & Vinko, J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 121

    2012

  19. [19]

    2024, Nature, 625, 253

    Chen, P., Gal-Yam, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 253

    2024

  20. [20]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790 Article number, page 23 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    1982

  21. [21]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 875

    2017

  22. [22]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Irwin, C. M. 2011, ApJ, 729, L6

    2011

  23. [23]

    Chugai, N. N. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1448

    2001

  24. [24]

    Chugai, N. N. 2022, Astronomy Letters, 48, 163

    2022

  25. [25]

    N., Blinnikov, S

    Chugai, N. N., Blinnikov, S. I., Cumming, R. J., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1213

    2004

  26. [26]

    N., Blinnikov, S

    Chugai, N. N., Blinnikov, S. I., Fassia, A., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 473

    2002

  27. [27]

    S., Leep, M

    Conti, P. S., Leep, M. E., & Perry, D. N. 1983, ApJ, 268, 228

    1983

  28. [28]

    A., Gilbank, D., Gend, C

    Crause, L. A., Gilbank, D., Gend, C. v., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical

    2019

  29. [29]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177 de Wet, S., Leloudas, G., & Erasmus, N. 2025, Transient Name Server As- troNote, 154, 1

    2007

  30. [30]

    J., & Audit, E

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Audit, E. 2017, A&A, 605, A83

    2017

  31. [31]

    J., Audit, E., Livne, E., & Waldman, R

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Audit, E., Livne, E., & Waldman, R. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2094

    2016

  32. [32]

    J., & Kuncarayakti, H

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2022, A&A, 658, A130

    2022

  33. [33]

    & Jacobson-Galán, W

    Dessart, L. & Jacobson-Galán, W. V . 2023, A&A, 677, A105

    2023

  34. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 254

    Dong, Y ., Tsuna, D., Valenti, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 254

    2024

  35. [35]

    A., Nugent, A., et al

    Dong, Y ., Villar, V . A., Nugent, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.03926

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    2011, PASP, 123, 288

    Dressler, A., Bigelow, B., Hare, T., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 288

    2011

  37. [37]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23

    2014

  38. [38]

    R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Soderberg, A. M., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 58

    2013

  39. [39]

    J., Fraser, M., Smartt, S

    Eldridge, J. J., Fraser, M., Smartt, S. J., Maund, J. R., & Crockett, R. M. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 774

    2013

  40. [40]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109

    2008

  41. [41]

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

    2016

  42. [42]

    B., van Gend, C

    Erasmus, N., Potter, S. B., van Gend, C. H. D., et al. 2025, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 59, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 201–207

    2025

  43. [43]

    A., Piascik, A

    Erasmus, N., Steele, I. A., Piascik, A. S., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomical

    2024

  44. [44]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 434

    Fang, Q., Maeda, K., Kuncarayakti, H., Sun, F., & Gal-Yam, A. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 434

    2019

  45. [45]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Chugai, N., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 907

    2001

  46. [46]

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

    1997

  47. [47]

    J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al

    Foley, R. J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, L105

    2007

  48. [48]

    J., et al

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

    2014

  49. [49]

    M., et al

    Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A37

    2018

  50. [50]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642

    Fuller, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642

    2017

  51. [51]

    Fuller, J. & Ro, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1853

    2018

  52. [52]

    D., Smartt, S

    Fulton, M. D., Smartt, S. J., Huber, M. E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 541

    2025

  53. [53]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

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

    2017

  54. [54]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471

    2014

  55. [55]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 170

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hiramatsu, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 170

    2020

  56. [56]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 127

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 127

    2022

  57. [57]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, staf1517

    Gangopadhyay, A., Sollerman, J., Tsalapatas, K., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 547, staf1517

    2026

  58. [58]

    Garnavich, P. M. & Ann, H. B. 1994, AJ, 108, 1002 Gräfener, G. & Vink, J. S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 112

    1994

  59. [59]

    Groh, J. H. 2014, A&A, 572, L11

    2014

  60. [60]

    J., Bloemen, S., Vreeswijk, P

    Groot, P. J., Bloemen, S., Vreeswijk, P. M., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 115003

    2024

  61. [61]

    & Gräfener, G

    Hamann, W.-R. & Gräfener, G. 2004, A&A, 427, 697

    2004

  62. [62]

    1995, A&AS, 113, 459

    Hamann, W.-R., Koesterke, L., & Wessolowski, U. 1995, A&AS, 113, 459

    1995

  63. [63]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288

    2003

  64. [64]

    2000, The Astronomical Journal, 119, 923 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al

    Heiles, C. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 119, 923 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116

    2000

  65. [65]

    Hillier, D. J. 1991, A&A, 247, 455

    1991

  66. [66]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07287

    Hiramatsu, D., Berger, E., Gomez, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07287

    arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Ho, A. Y . Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120

    2023

  68. [68]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.16526

    Hong, X., Sun, N.-C., Shao, Y ., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.16526

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 158

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Arcavi, I., Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 158

    2017

  70. [70]

    I., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., McCully, C., Zabludoff, A. I., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, L9

    2019

  71. [71]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 62

    Hu, M., Yan, S., Wang, X., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 62

    2026

  72. [72]

    & Chevalier, R

    Huang, C. & Chevalier, R. A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1261

    2018

  73. [73]

    2008, ApJ, 674, L85

    Immler, S., Modjaz, M., Landsman, W., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, L85

    2008

  74. [74]

    & Maeda, K

    Inoue, Y . & Maeda, K. 2025, ApJ, 980, 86 Jacobson-Galán, W. V ., Dessart, L., Davis, K. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 189 Jacobson-Galán, W. V ., Dessart, L., Jones, D. O., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 15

    2025

  75. [75]

    2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 16

    Jiang, B., Jiang, S., & Ashley Villar, V . 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 16

    2020

  76. [76]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, L98

    2010

  77. [77]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 3

    Khazov, D., Yaron, O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 3

    2016

  78. [78]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 10

    Kiewe, M., Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 10

    2012

  79. [79]

    Y ., Gvaramadze, V

    Kniazev, A. Y ., Gvaramadze, V . V ., & Berdnikov, L. N. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3068

    2016

  80. [80]

    Y ., Gvaramadze, V

    Kniazev, A. Y ., Gvaramadze, V . V ., & Berdnikov, L. N. 2017, in Astronomi- cal Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 510, Stars: From Collapse to Collapse, ed. Y . Y . Balega, D. O. Kudryavtsev, I. I. Romanyuk, & I. A. Yakunin, 480

    2017

Showing first 80 references.