Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Radio and X-ray Observations of the Transitional Supernova 2019yvr: Insights into the Progenitor Mass-Loss History

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Radio and X-ray data show SN 2019yvr hit no sharp CSM density jump when hydrogen lines appeared, only a mildly decreasing mass-loss rate.

desk verdict Solid multi-year radio+X-ray campaign of SN 2019yvr that cleanly shows an optical Ib o IIn transition without the density jump seen in 2014C; absolute Ṁ scale is conventional but the comparative claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05500 v1 pith:HNAY2ELD submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Raphael Baer-way , Poonam Chandra , Maryam Modjaz , A.J. Nayana , Keiichi Maeda , Katie Auchettl , Maria R. Drout , Charles D. Kilpatrick
show 2 more authors
Alak K. Ray Stuart D. Ryder
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords stripped-envelopesupernovaecircumstellarmatterstellarmasslossradiosynchrotronX-rayemissionSN2019yvrprogenitorevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Stripped-envelope supernovae leave open when and how their massive progenitors lose their outer layers. SN 2019yvr began as a helium-rich Type Ib and later showed shock-driven hydrogen lines of a Type IIn, so it is a natural test case for whether that spectral change marks a sudden change in the surrounding gas. Five years of GMRT, VLA, Swift and Chandra data show the radio light curves are well described by synchrotron self-absorption in a density profile that declines only gently with radius. The inferred mass-loss rate stays roughly 1–3 imes 10^{-5} solar masses per year (for a 100 km/s wind) both before and after the hydrogen lines appear, and the early shock speed exceeds 30 000 km/s, pointing to a compact progenitor. The same data therefore rule out the dramatic density jump that was seen in the otherwise similar event SN 2014C, and they constrain the progenitor’s mass-loss history over the last few hundred years.

What carries the argument

Joint SSA modeling of the full radio SED in frequency and time (plus single-epoch broken-power-law fits), converted to shock radius, magnetic field and mass-loss rate under fixed microphysical parameters and an assumed 100 km s^{-1} CSM speed.

What would settle it

A direct spectroscopic measurement of the unshocked CSM velocity, or a late-time radio/X-ray rebrightening that reveals a dense outer shell, would overturn the claim of a smooth, only mildly declining density profile.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The multi-wavelength data set for SN 2019yvr is best described by a synchrotron-self-absorbed shock expanding into a CSM density profile ho o r^{-1.65 igoplus 0.25}, corresponding to a mildly decreasing mass-loss rate of order 10^{-5} M⊙ yr^{-1}. That profile shows no order-of-magnitude jump at the epoch when optical hydrogen emission emerges, in clear contrast to SN 2014C.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of radio radius and magnetic field into a mass-loss rate rests on an assumed wind speed of 100 km/s and fixed electron and magnetic energy fractions that were never measured for this object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Appearance of shock-driven hydrogen lines does not require a sudden jump in CSM density.
  • The high early shock speed favors a compact rather than extended progenitor for this Ib o IIn event.
  • Mass loss at ~10^{-5} M⊙ yr^{-1} continued for hundreds of years, consistent with either binary stripping or a Wolf-Rayet wind.
  • Transitional SNe are not a single class: 2019yvr, 2014C, 2004dk and 2019oys probe different CSM histories.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same smooth profile is common, many ordinary Type Ib events may be interacting with low-density H-rich material that simply never produces visible narrow lines.
  • The lack of a density jump weakens the idea that common-envelope ejection within the last ~1000 years is the usual path to Ib o IIn transitions.
  • A systematic early-time radio survey of Type Ib events could test whether the mildly declining profile of 2019yvr is typical or exceptional.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents multi-year GMRT+VLA radio and Swift+Chandra X-ray observations of the transitional SN 2019yvr (Ib → IIn at ~100 d). Joint and single-epoch SSA modeling of the radio SEDs yields a CSM density profile ρ ∝ r^{-1.65 ± 0.25}, shock speeds ≳ 30 000 km s^{-1} at early times, and mass-loss rates ~1–3 imes 10^{-5} M_⊙ yr^{-1} (v_CSM = 100 km s^{-1}, ε_B = 0.01). The continuous radio coverage and lack of a secondary peak or free-free optical-depth jump across the optical transition are used to argue that SN 2019yvr did not experience the dramatic CSM density jump seen in SN 2014C. The X-ray detection at 42 d is interpreted as thermal emission from an adiabatic reverse shock and yields a consistent (within uncertainties) mass-loss rate. The authors place the object among other Ib → IIn events and discuss binary versus wind-driven mass-loss scenarios for a compact progenitor.

Significance. If the no-jump conclusion holds, the work cleanly separates optical spectral metamorphosis from a large change in CSM density and shows that the two need not be causally linked. The five-year radio light curve, the internally consistent derivation of m and s from R(t) and B(t), and the direct comparison with SN 2014C, 2004dk and 2019oys constitute a useful multi-wavelength benchmark for transitional SESNe. The high early shock speed also supplies an independent argument for a compact progenitor that complements the pre-explosion imaging debate. Absolute Ṁ values remain conventional (they scale with ε_B and v_CSM), but the relative density evolution that underpins the central claim does not.

major comments (2)
  1. Section 3.1.3–3.1.4 and Equation 8: the absolute Ṁ scale (and therefore the numerical comparison with optical and X-ray estimates) rests on the fixed choices ε_B = 0.01, ε_e = 0.1 and v_CSM = 100 km s^{-1}. While the paper notes that ε_B = 0.01 improves consistency with optical Ṁ, a short sensitivity table or paragraph showing how Ṁ and the density profile change for ε_B ∈ [0.001, 0.1] and for a plausible range of v_CSM would make the robustness of the absolute numbers transparent. The comparative no-jump statement itself is unaffected.
  2. Section 3.2 (X-ray analysis): the reverse-shock luminosity formula (Eq. 9) is evaluated with n = 7 and s = 1.65 taken from the radio fit, and with an assumed plasma temperature T = 5 keV. Because the X-ray spectrum has very low counts, these parameters are essentially unconstrained by the X-ray data alone. The resulting Ṁ is quoted as consistent with radio, but the uncertainty is dominated by the assumed n, s and T. A brief exploration of the allowed range (or an explicit statement that the X-ray Ṁ is only order-of-magnitude) would strengthen the multi-wavelength consistency claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 4 and Table 2: the joint SSA fit has χ^{2}_ u ≈ 5.4; the text correctly notes residual structure at 1.25 GHz. A short remark on whether a broken power-law density profile or a modest free-free contribution could reduce the residuals would be useful, even if the pure-SSA model remains preferred.
  2. Table 3 caption and Section 3.1.3: the extrapolation of non-contemporaneous GMRT band-4 points onto the VLA epochs is described only briefly. A one-sentence statement of the temporal index used for the extrapolation would improve reproducibility.
  3. Figure 8 and Table 4: the optical transition windows for the comparison objects are taken from the literature; adding the exact spectral epochs (or a reference to the Wiserep IDs) would make the timeline comparison fully self-contained.
  4. Section 2.2: the Swift host-galaxy subtraction uses a single pre-explosion power-law model. A sentence confirming that the AGN flux is stable between the 2014–2016 pre-explosion epochs and the post-explosion bins would address a possible systematic.
  5. Typographical: abstract and introduction use both “∼100 days” and “∼ 100 days”; standardize spacing. In Table 5 the final VLA epoch is listed as 1777 d while the text refers to 1722 d for the 5 GHz detection—clarify which date is used for the late-time Ṁ estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: density index s and no-jump claim follow from multi-epoch SSA fits and continuous light-curve coverage; absolute Ṁ scale depends on conventional microphysical choices but is not load-bearing for the central comparative result.

full rationale

The paper applies the standard Chevalier (1998) SSA formalism to multi-frequency radio data spanning the optical Ib→IIn transition. Single-epoch broken-power-law fits yield R(t) and B(t); an MCMC fit then gives m = 0.70^{+0.13}_{-0.07} and α_B ≈ −0.87, from which s = 1.65 ± 0.25 is obtained via the textbook relation α_B = [m(2−s)/2]−1. This is a genuine derivation from the observed temporal evolution, not a quantity forced by construction or by a self-citation uniqueness theorem. The absolute mass-loss rate (Eq. 8) does depend on the conventional choices ε_B = 0.01, ε_e = 0.1 and an assumed v_CSM = 100 km s^{-1}, but these overall scale factors cancel in the relative density evolution that underpins the paper’s strongest claim—the absence of a dramatic CSM density jump of the kind seen in SN 2014C. That claim is supported by continuous SSA coverage across the ~100-day transition (epochs at 52, 198, 287, 419 d plus late detections), the single power-law index, and the lack of a secondary radio peak or free-free optical-depth jump. Minor self-citations (Baer-Way et al. 2025a,b; Nayana et al. 2022, 2025) supply standard formulae or comparison objects and are not load-bearing for the no-jump result. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks; score 1 reflects only the conventional microphysical assumptions that affect absolute Ṁ normalization.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central no-jump claim rests on standard synchrotron-shock theory plus three conventional but unmeasured microphysical/kinematic parameters. No new physical entities are invented; the free parameters are the usual ones of radio SN modeling.

free parameters (5)
  • ε_B (magnetic energy fraction) = 0.01
    Fixed at 0.01 to convert B and R into Ṁ; equipartition (ε_B = 0.1) is also tested but the preferred value is chosen for consistency with optical rates.
  • ε_e (electron energy fraction) = 0.1
    Fixed at 0.1; enters the ratio f_eB used in the Chevalier radius and B formulae.
  • v_CSM (CSM outflow speed) = 100 km s^{-1}
    Assumed 100 km s^{-1} throughout; never measured for SN 2019yvr; scales all absolute mass-loss rates linearly.
  • volume filling factor f = 0.5
    Fixed at the conventional value 0.5 in the Chevalier (1998) radius and B equations.
  • electron power-law index p (via α) = p=3
    Constrained to p ≈ 3 (α ≈ 1) from the joint SSA fit and then fixed for single-epoch modeling.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Synchrotron self-absorption (SSA) dominates free-free absorption and the Chevalier (1998) self-similar formalism applies (ν_m < ν_a < ν_c).
    Justified by brightness temperature < 10^{11} K and by χ^{2} comparison, but remains an assumption of the modeling framework (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The CSM density follows a single power-law ρ ∝ r^{-s} with constant microphysical parameters over the entire five-year baseline.
    Implicit in the joint frequency-time MCMC fit; the authors note mild deviations but still adopt a single s (Section 3.1.2).
  • domain assumption X-ray emission at 42 d is thermal free-free from an adiabatic reverse shock.
    Synchrotron and inverse-Compton origins are argued against, but the thermal identification rests on limited counts and assumed temperature T = 5 keV (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Distance = 14.7 Mpc and explosion date = 2019 Dec 22.
    Taken from prior optical work (Shappee et al. 2016; Ferrari et al. 2024) and used for all luminosities and radii.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio and X-ray Observations of the Transitional Supernova 2019yvr: Insights into the Progenitor Mass-Loss History." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNAY2ELD

@misc{pith2026260705500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio and X-ray Observations of the Transitional Supernova 2019yvr: Insights into the Progenitor Mass-Loss History},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNAY2ELD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05500}
}
abstract

The final life stages of the massive star progenitors of stripped-envelope supernovae (SESNe) are still an open question, especially when it comes to the timing and magnitude of the progenitor stripping. Observing SESNe across the electromagnetic spectrum allows for the most direct constraints on mass loss in the final stages of progenitor evolution. In this work, we present radio (GMRT+VLA) and X-ray (Swift+Chandra) observations of SN 2019yvr obtained from 18-1784 days post-explosion. SN 2019yvr was a type Ib supernova (SN Ib, with strong helium but no or little optical hydrogen features) that transitioned into a type IIn supernova (SN IIn, with shock-driven hydrogen features) at $\sim$ 100 days post-explosion. The radio evolution is best-fit by a synchrotron self-absorbed model with a $\rho \propto r^{-1.65 \pm 0.25}$ CSM density profile, suggesting a decreasing mass-loss rate from the progenitor in the years leading up to the explosion. The radio-derived shock speed is high, more than 30,000 km/s at early times, suggesting a compact progenitor star. The combined radio and X-ray data probe CSM that extends from less than $10^{16}$ cm up to $\sim$ 20$\times10^{16}$ cm and was created by mass-loss from $\sim 1-3 \times10^{-5} \rm{M_{\odot} yr^{-1}} $ (assuming a CSM speed of 100 km/s). The combined dataset rules out any dramatic jump in CSM density (which was seen in the optical analog SN 2014C) associated with the emergence of optical hydrogen emission in SN 2019yvr. We place SN 2019yvr in context with similar transitional SNe and discuss implications for the progenitor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05500 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radio and X-ray images of SN 2019yvr at various points in its evolution. The GMRT image has ∼ 2 ′′ resolution, while the VLA image has ∼ 0.4′′ resolution. We add the 20′′ region around the SN in the Swift image to show the region used to extract Swift pre- and post-explosion X-ray spectra. where the beam size at S band (7x7 arcsec2 ) and C band prevented the extraction of the SN flux density (the SN had grown too fa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison of the radio lightcurves at differ￾ent frequencies for SNe 2004dk, 2014C, 2019oys and 2019yvr. SN 2019oys, 2004dk and 2014C underwent similar metamor￾phoses at optical wavelengths to SN 2019yvr. Data for SN 2019oys are from Sfaradi et al. (2024) (with two additional datapoints from the VLA All-Sky Survey (VLASS) epoch 3 (extracting fluxes from the reduced image) and VLA pro￾posal 24B-448 (reducing this … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The X-ray evolution of SN 2019yvr from Swift and Chandra compared with SN 2014C, 2004dk and 2019oys (other SNe which underwent a Ib → IIn transition). We show limits we derived from reanalysis of Swift observations of SN 2019oys. We also show X-ray data points for SN 2004dk (rescaled to 0.3-10 keV luminosity using PIMMS) and for SN 2014C from Pooley et al. (2019) and Brethauer et al. (2022), respectively. where νm i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The radio lightcurves of SN 2019yvr at selected radio frequencies with the best-fitting SSA, FFA models to the entire dataset in frequency and time. We show the individual epochs at which we fit single-epoch SSA models with dashed lines. We do not fit non-detections. F…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A Chevalier diagram (peak spectral radio lumi￾nosity Lν, vs peak time, tp normalized to 5 GHz; Chevalier (1998)) with a variety of SESNe (data taken from Bietenholz et al. (2021), Anderson et al. (2017), Sfaradi et al. (2024) and Baer-Way et al. (2025a)). The peak time…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SSA single-epoch broken power-law fits for the four epochs we fit at. We extrapolate points from the near-contem￾poraneous GMRT data points at each epoch. For the exact details of the extrapolation calculation, see section 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolution of the post-shock magnetic field and the shock radius from the best-fit single epoch SSA mod￾eling described in §3. We show the best power-law fits. Furthermore, using the formalism of Katz (2012) we can use the radio SSA model+X-ray detection to calcu￾la…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The M˙ /vCSM inferred over time for SN 2019yvr measured from our radio SSA fits, optical modeling (Fer￾rari et al. 2024) and our X-ray modeling. The measured mass-loss rate (at radio and optical wavelengths; the X-ray estimate is highly uncertain due to assumptions) in…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A view of the CSM densities of SN 2019yvr we measured (from the derived CSM density profile with s = 1.65) in the context of other transition objects as well as other interacting and non-interacting SNe. Figure adapted from Kumar et al. (2026). Data for SN 2014C from B…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., M¨ uller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al

    Aguilera-Dena, D. R., M¨ uller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243519

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243519 2023

  2. [2]

    E., Horesh, A., Mooley, K

    Anderson, G. E., Horesh, A., Mooley, K. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3310

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3310 2017

  3. [3]

    E., & Smith, N

    Andrews, J. E., & Smith, N. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 74, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty584

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty584 2018

  4. [4]

    J., N., Jacobson-Gal´ an, W., et al

    Baer-Way, R., A. J., N., Jacobson-Gal´ an, W., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 995, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1cb8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1cb8

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

  6. [6]

    E., & Kassim, N

    Balasubramanian, A., Corsi, A., Polisensky, E., Clarke, T. E., & Kassim, N. E. 2021, ApJ, 923, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2154

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2154 2021

  7. [7]

    F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9 2021

  8. [8]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14 2022

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    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

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.25223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.25223

    Rose, K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.25223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.25223

    2026 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 302, doi: 10.1086/160167 —. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676

    1982 doi

  4. [13]

    A., & Soderberg, A

    Chevalier, R. A., & Soderberg, A. M. 2010, ApJL, 711, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/711/1/L40

    2010 doi

  5. [14]

    C., Phillips, M

    Clocchiatti, A., Wheeler, J. C., Phillips, M. M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 483, 675, doi: 10.1086/304268

    1997 doi

  6. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c26

    DeMarchi, L., Margutti, R., Dittman, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c26

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    Dessart, L., & Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V. 2023, A&A, 677, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346754

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    R., & Langer, N

    Dessart, L., Yoon, S.-C., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., & Langer, N. 2020, A&A, 642, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038763

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 316, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad710e

    Dong, Y., Valenti, S., Ashall, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 316, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad710e

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    Dwarkadas, V. V. 2025, Universe, 11, 161, doi: 10.3390/universe11050161

    2025 doi

  11. [20]

    V., & Gruszko, J

    Dwarkadas, V. V., & Gruszko, J. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19808.x

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    2026, A&A, 706, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557572 18Baer-way et al

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557572 18Baer-way et al

    2026 doi

  13. [22]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009 doi

  14. [23]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 434, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0710-6

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 434, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0710-6

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, L33, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad195

    Ferrari, L., Folatelli, G., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, L33, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad195

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    1997 doi

  17. [26]

    V., & Chornock, R

    Filippenko, A. V., & Chornock, R. 2001, IAUC, 7737, 3

    2001

  18. [27]

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

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

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

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

    1996 doi

  20. [29]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471, doi: 10.1038/nature13304

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    A., Jiang, Y.-F., Bildsten, L., & Cantiello, M

    Goldberg, J. A., Jiang, Y.-F., Bildsten, L., & Cantiello, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.12486, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.12486 Gr¨ afener, G., Owocki, S. P., Grassitelli, L., & Langer, N. 2017, A&A, 608, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731590

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    H., Georgy, C., & Ekstr¨ om, S

    Groh, J. H., Georgy, C., & Ekstr¨ om, S. 2013, A&A, 558, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322369

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  24. [33]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4e22 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W

    Hillenkamp, E., Baer-Way, R., Chandra, P., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4e22 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf2ec

    2026 doi

  25. [34]

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

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, L6, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01178.x

    Katz, B. 2012, MNRAS, 420, L6, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01178.x

    2012 doi

  27. [36]

    D., Drout, M

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Drout, M. R., Auchettl, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab838

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    P., et al

    Kumar, S., Baer-Way, R., Ravi, A. P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.19018, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.19018

    2026 doi

  29. [38]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    2012 doi

  30. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.11088, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.11088

    Podsiadlowski, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.11088, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.11088

    2025 doi

  31. [40]

    E., O’Brien, J

    Lu, J., Kerzendorf, W. E., O’Brien, J. T., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1002, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae5b8f

    2026 doi

  32. [41]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/81

    Maeda, K. 2012, ApJ, 758, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/81

    2012 doi

  33. [42]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Matsuoka, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    J., et al

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b7

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    Margutti, R., Kamble, A., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    2017 doi

  36. [45]

    C., Filippenko, A

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

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    McLaughlin, M., Walter, F., Hallinan, G., & Ravi, V. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #243, 261.17

    2024

  38. [47]

    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

    2007

  39. [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

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    P., & Arcavi, I

    Modjaz, M., Guti´ errez, C. P., & Arcavi, I. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 717, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0856-2

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    J., Chandra, P., Krishna, A., & Anupama, G

    Nayana, A. J., Chandra, P., Krishna, A., & Anupama, G. C. 2022, ApJ, 934, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c1e

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al

    Nayana, A. J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 993, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b4d —. 2025b, ApJ, 985, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc2fb

    doi

  43. [52]

    I., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T

    Nomoto, K. I., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 1995, PhR, 256, 173, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(94)00107-E

    1995 doi

  44. [53]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ea9

    Ouchi, R., & Maeda, K. 2017, ApJ, 840, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ea9

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    M., Aird, J., & Barlow-Hall, C

    Pennock, C. M., Aird, J., & Barlow-Hall, C. L. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 1779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1838

    2025 doi

  46. [55]

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

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98

    2020 doi

  47. [56]

    2004, A&A, 427, 35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041128

    Persic, M., Cappi, M., Rephaeli, Y., et al. 2004, A&A, 427, 35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041128

    2004 doi

  48. [57]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246, doi: 10.1086/171341

    1992 doi

  49. [58]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Poelarends, A. J. T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1044, doi: 10.1086/421713

    2004 doi

  50. [59]

    C., Vink´ o, J., et al

    Pooley, D., Wheeler, J. C., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e36

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

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

    2012 doi

  52. [61]

    D., Sadler, E

    Ryder, S. D., Sadler, E. M., Subrahmanyan, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1093, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07589.x

    2004 doi

  53. [62]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf067 Radio and X-ray Insights into SN 2019yvr19

    Scherbak, P., Lu, W., & Fuller, J. 2025, ApJ, 990, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf067 Radio and X-ray Insights into SN 2019yvr19

    2025 doi

  54. [63]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9e93

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Fender, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9e93

    2025 doi

  55. [64]

    2024, A&A, 686, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348761

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348761

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    J., Piro, A

    Shappee, B. J., Piro, A. L., Holoien, T. W.-S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/144

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    2017, PASP, 129, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a6

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a6

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    2017, Interacting Supernovae: Types IIn and Ibn (Springer International Publishing), 403–429, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 38

    Smith, N. 2017, Interacting Supernovae: Types IIn and Ibn (Springer International Publishing), 403–429, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 38

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    V., & Chornock, R

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

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    Soderberg, A. M. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 937, Supernova 1987A: 20 Years After: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. S. Immler, K. Weiler, & R. McCray, 492–499, doi: 10.1063/1.3682950

    2007 doi

  61. [70]

    M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B

    Soderberg, A. M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/78

    2012 doi

  62. [71]

    2020, A&A, 643, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038960

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

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    R., Crowther, P

    Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., Crowther, P. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3768

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    P., Wheeler, J

    Thomas, B. P., Wheeler, J. C., Dwarkadas, V. V., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fa6

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    Tsai, S.-H., Chen, K.-J., Maeda, K., Ou, P.-S., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.11635, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.11635

    2026 doi arXiv

  66. [75]

    Uomoto, A., & Kirshner, R. P. 1985, A&A, 149, L7 Van Dyk, S. D., Zheng, W., Clubb, K. I., et al. 2013, ApJL, 772, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/L32

    1985 doi

  67. [76]

    W., Panagia, N., & Sramek, R

    Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., & Sramek, R. A. 1990, ApJ, 364, 611, doi: 10.1086/169444

    1990 doi

  68. [77]

    W., Sramek, R

    Weiler, K. W., Sramek, R. A., Panagia, N., van der Hulst, J. M., & Salvati, M. 1986, ApJ, 301, 790, doi: 10.1086/163944

    1986 doi

  69. [78]

    M., & Chevalier, R

    Wellons, S., Soderberg, A. M., & Chevalier, R. A. 2012, ApJ, 752, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/17

    2012 doi

  70. [79]

    C., & Harkness, R

    Wheeler, J. C., & Harkness, R. P. 1990, Reports on Progress in Physics, 53, 1467, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/53/12/001

    1990 doi

  71. [80]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd244

    Williamson, M., Kerzendorf, W., & Modjaz, M. 2021, ApJ, 908, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd244

    2021 doi

  72. [81]

    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

    2013 doi

  73. [82]

    E., Langer, N., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Weaver, T. A. 1993, ApJ, 411, 823, doi: 10.1086/172886

    1993 doi

  74. [83]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Kasen, D

    Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Kasen, D. N. 2021, ApJ, 913, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3be

    2021 doi

  75. [84]

    2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    Yaron, O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    2012 doi

  76. [85]

    2025, A&A, 693, A307, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452214

    Yesmin, N., Pellegrino, C., Modjaz, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A307, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452214

    2025 doi

  77. [86]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9c76

    Zhai, Q., Zhang, J., Lin, W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9c76

    2025 doi

  78. [87]

    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

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.