Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Investigation of the Progenitors of the Type Ia Supernovae Associated With the LMC Supernova Remnants 0505-67.9 and 0509-68.7

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Ashley Pagnotta, Bradley E. Schaefer

Solar and Stellar Astrophysics · Submitted 3 Jan 2015

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Both remnants have a number of potential ex-companion stars near their centers; all possible single and double degenerate progenitor models remain viable for these two supernovae.

how it is stated · asserted 0.86 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1501.00517 (version 1)
Pith IDP65LUJQ6, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAshley Pagnotta, Bradley E. Schaefer. "Investigation of the Progenitors of the Type Ia Supernovae Associated With the LMC Supernova Remnants 0505-67.9 and 0509-68.7." arXiv:1501.00517 (2015). https://pith.science/paper/P65LUJQ6
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,437 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.94 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.70 · compares with prior results 0.13 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Although Type Ia supernovae have been heavily scrutinized due to their use in making cosmological distance estimates, we are still unable to definitively identify the progenitors for the entire population. While answers have been presented for certain specific systems, a complete solution remains elusive. We present observations of two supernova remnants (SNRs) in the Large Magellanic Cloud, SNR 0505-67.9 and SNR 0509-68.7, for which we have identified the center of the remnant and the 99.73% containment central region in which any companion star left over after the supernova must be located. Both remnants have a number of potential ex-companion stars near their centers; all possible single and double degenerate progenitor models remain viable for these two supernovae. Future observations may be able to identify the true ex-companions for both remnants.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Although Type Ia supernovae have been heavily scrutinized due to their use in making cosmological distance estimates, we are still unable to definitively identify the progenitors for the entire population. background 0.69 0.04 0.03 asserted 1.00
s1 While answers have been presented for certain specific systems, a complete solution remains elusive. background 0.56 0.05 0.03 asserted 1.00
s2 We present observations of two supernova remnants (SNRs) in the Large Magellanic Cloud, SNR 0505-67.9 and SNR 0509-68.7, for which we have identified the center of the remnant and the 99.73% containment central region in which any companion star left over after the supernova must be located. contribution 0.90 0.97 0.12 asserted 1.00
s3 Both remnants have a number of potential ex-companion stars near their centers; all possible single and double degenerate progenitor models remain viable for these two supernovae. result 0.71 0.81 0.80 asserted 0.86
s4 Future observations may be able to identify the true ex-companions for both remnants. future work 1.00 0.05 0.09 hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.93.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Although Type Ia supernovae have been heavily scrutinized due to their use in making cosmological distance estimates, we are still unable to definitively identify the progenitors for the entire population. While answers have been presented for certain specific systems, a complete solution remains elusive. We present observations of two supernova remnants (SNRs) in the Large Magellanic Cloud, SNR 0505-67.9 and SNR 0509-68.7, for which we have identified the center of the remnant and the 99.73% containment central region in which any companion star left over after the supernova must be located. Both remnants have a number of potential ex-companion stars near their centers; all possible single and double degenerate progenitor models remain viable for these two supernovae. Future observations may be able to identify the true ex-companions for both remnants.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.