Mass discrepancy analysis for a select sample of Type II-Plateau supernovae

Laureano Martinez; Melina C. Bersten

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 96 references

Mass discrepancy analysis for a select sample of Type II-Plateau supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hydrodynamic modelling of six well-observed SNe II-P yields progenitor masses in agreement with direct detections, not the systematic overestimate previously reported.

desk verdict A transparent re-analysis that undercuts its own central claim: the one object that fails the paper's 'secured progenitor' criterion is the only outlier under the preferred mass-loss calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01828 v2 pith:BO3ZJFWI submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Laureano Martinez , Melina C. Bersten This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE

keywords TypeII-Plateausupernovaesupernovaprogenitorsredsupergiantshydrodynamicmodellinglightcurvesstellarmasslossdiscrepancyexplosionenergy

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

Type II-Plateau supernovae—exploding red supergiants whose light stays near a plateau for roughly a hundred days—are common, but earlier studies found that masses inferred from explosion modelling came out systematically larger than masses derived from direct images of the progenitor star. This paper tests that claimed discrepancy on the six objects with the strongest evidence: well-sampled light curves and velocities, a directly detected progenitor, and confirmation that the detected star disappeared after the explosion. It models each explosion hydrodynamically with the progenitor radius fixed to the range from pre-explosion photometry, obtaining pre-supernova masses between 10 and 23 $M_\odot$, energies between 0.2 and 1.4 foe ($1\ \mathrm{foe}=10^{51}$ erg), and $^{56}$Ni masses between 0.0015 and 0.085 $M_\odot$. When the direct-detection masses are converted into pre-supernova masses with stellar-evolution models, the hydrodynamic masses are not systematically larger: with a reduced wind mass-loss efficiency only SN 2004et overestimates, and that object's progenitor identification is itself uncertain. The paper concludes that the long-reported mass discrepancy is not an intrinsic failure of hydrodynamic modelling, and that simple analytic scaling relations in common use give unreliable masses and radii.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a one-dimensional Lagrangian radiation-hydrodynamics code that simulates the explosion and predicts bolometric light curves and photospheric velocities. The pre-supernova structures are double-polytropic models—hydrostatic configurations built from a dense core plus an extended hydrogen-rich envelope—so that mass and radius can be treated independently; fixing the radius to the values from pre-explosion photometry breaks the mass–radius–energy degeneracy. The remaining free parameters (pre-supernova mass, explosion energy, and $^{56}$Ni mass) are adjusted until the light curve and velocity evolution match. The second load-bearing component is the conversion of directly detected zero-age main-sequence masses into pre-supernova masses using stellar-evolution calculations with a wind mass-loss prescription, evaluated at two wind efficiencies ($\eta = 1.0$ and $0.33$); the lower value is motivated by the factor of two to ten uncertainty in mass-loss rates. The radiative-transfer treatment also includes a minimum opacity floor to compensate for opacities underestimated under local thermodynamic equilibrium in rapidly expanding, non-thermally ionised ejecta.

What would settle it

Measure the actual mass-loss rates of nearby red supergiants comparable to these progenitors using multi-epoch high-resolution spectroscopy at optical and infrared wavelengths; if the measured rates are close to the standard unclumped values rather than a factor of three lower, the reduced-efficiency comparison that produces the claimed agreement would fail, and the hydrodynamic masses would again sit above the direct estimates for SN 2012aw and SN 2004et.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that for six SNe II-P (SN 2004A, SN 2004et, SN 2005cs, SN 2008bk, SN 2012aw, and SN 2012ec) hydrodynamic modelling of bolometric light curves together with Fe ii 5169 Å photospheric velocities can reproduce the observations with pre-supernova masses that agree with the masses from direct progenitor detections. Since the detected-star masses are zero-age main-sequence values while the hydrodynamic masses are pre-explosion values, the comparison needs a mass-loss calculation in between; using the standard wind prescription causes two of the six models to overestimate, whereas reducing the wind efficiency to one third—justified by evidence that computed mass-loss rates are too high by factors of two to ten—leaves only SN 2004et discrepant, an object whose progenitor identification is not secure. This is offered as evidence against the systematic offset claimed in earlier hydrodynamical studies, and the paper also finds a strong mass–explosion-energy correlation (correlation coefficient $\rho = 0.91$) and shows that the widely used 1980s analytic scaling relations overestimate ejected mass and underestimate radius for this sample.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the stellar wind mass-loss rates used to convert directly measured initial masses into pre-supernova masses are known well enough; if the true rates are close to the standard high values rather than the reduced value used here, the agreement for SN 2012aw disappears and for SN 2004et worsens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For each of the six best-observed II-P supernovae there exists a hydrodynamic model that satisfies the light curve, the velocity evolution, and the directly measured progenitor radius and mass, so the previously claimed systematic disagreement is not forced by the observations.
The deciding layer is stellar mass loss, not explosion physics: with standard wind rates two objects disagree (SN 2004et and SN 2012aw), while with the reduced rate only the uncertain-identification object SN 2004et remains discrepant.
Simple analytic relations that estimate mass, radius, and energy from a few plateau observables are not reliable for this sample: they overestimate ejected mass by about a factor of 1.75 and underestimate pre-supernova radius by about a factor of 3.3.
Progenitor mass and explosion energy are strongly correlated (correlation coefficient $\rho = 0.91$), and correlations involving nickel mass tighten once SN 2004A's uncertain explosion epoch is set aside.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the factor-of-three reduction in wind mass-loss rates is independently confirmed, then the historical II-P mass discrepancy may be best described as a calibration artifact of stellar winds, and direct-imaging and hydrodynamic masses can be treated as mutually validating measurements.
Beyond the paper: the need for radii above the photometric range in SNe 2004A and 2004et suggests that bolometric-correction radii for dusty or crowded red-supergiant environments could be systematically low; this is testable with resolved multi-band imaging of other nearby red supergiants.
Beyond the paper: a calibrated mass–explosion-energy correlation derived from a larger set of modelled II-P could be used to estimate progenitor masses for distant II-P where no progenitor is detected, effectively turning light-curve modelling into a population-level mass estimator.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper re-derives physical parameters for six well-observed SNe II-P with a published hydrodynamic code, then compares the hydrodynamic masses against pre-SN masses from MESA tracks. The stated conclusion is that the long-discussed mass discrepancy disappears once you restrict to objects with confirmed progenitor identifications. That conclusion is more conditional than the abstract admits, and the paper's own text gives you the tools to see why.

What it does well: the modeling is careful, the paper is refreshingly honest about the degeneracies, the informal error bars, and the places where it had to tune inputs. The comparison with the LN85 scaling relations is a useful cautionary tale, and the appendix on model sensitivity is worth reading. If you work on SNe II-P progenitor masses, this is a legitimate touchstone.

Now the soft spots. The sample is supposed to satisfy criterion (iii): post-explosion confirmation of the progenitor's disappearance. But Section 2.2 says SN 2004et fails exactly that — the original candidate was resolved into three sources, and the adopted progenitor is just an R/I-band flux excess with a tentative ZAMS mass that the authors themselves say needs future confirmation. Yet Section 5.4 states that "all our objects have secured progenitor identifications." That sentence is contradicted by their own earlier account. And it matters: under the preferred eta=0.33 wind efficiency, SN 2004et is the only object sitting above the pre-SN mass range. Under eta=1.0, SN 2012aw joins it. So the central agreement effectively depends on two intertwined choices: keeping an object that doesn't meet the stated selection rule, and preferring the lower mass-loss rate despite the acknowledged factor-of-two-to-ten uncertainty in wind rates. The paper shows the eta dependence, which is honest, but the conclusion should have been framed as "consistent for five objects under a reduced wind efficiency," not as a clean resolution.

The other adjustments — three explosion epochs shifted to fit the models, radii for 2004A and 2004et raised above the literature ranges — are acknowledged and are minor compared to the sample-selection issue. The explosion epoch for 2004A is outside the literature error bars, but they admit it and give a justification.

Who gets value from this: anyone modeling SNe II-P light curves, and anyone who uses LN85 without checking it. It deserves a serious referee — the central question is real and the paper is well-executed, but the referee should push on the contradiction between the selection criterion and the inclusion of 2004et, and ask for a conclusion that is accurately scoped to what the five-object sample plus the chosen wind efficiency actually shows. I would send it out.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper models the bolometric light curves and photospheric velocity evolution of six Type II-Plateau supernovae (SN 2004A, SN 2004et, SN 2005cs, SN 2008bk, SN 2012aw, and SN 2012ec) using the 1D Lagrangian hydrodynamic code of Bersten et al. (2011). The authors adopt double-polytropic pre-SN models, fix the progenitor radius to values from pre-explosion imaging where possible, and derive hydrodynamic masses Mhydro, explosion energies, and nickel masses. They then compare Mhydro with pre-SN masses MpreSN obtained by evolving the ZAMS mass ranges from direct progenitor detections with MESA stellar models under two wind-efficiency choices (eta=1.0 and eta=0.33). The central claim is that, contrary to previous literature, the hydrodynamic masses are not systematically larger than the masses derived from direct detections; the paper concludes that the two methods give good agreement for this sample.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide an important counterexample to a widely discussed mass discrepancy between hydrodynamic modeling and direct progenitor detections for SNe II-P. The work has several strengths: it uses a published hydrodynamic code with a documented history, it models both light curves and photospheric velocities, it compares against multiple previous modeling efforts (Morozova et al. 2018; Pumo et al. 2017; Utrobin & Chugai 2008, 2009), it tests a stellar-evolution pre-SN model for SN 2008bk in Appendix A, and it gives explicit parameter ranges with a candid discussion that they are not statistical errors. The sample is small but deliberately selected for data quality, and the comparison with direct detections is a genuine empirical test. However, the strength of the conclusion is weakened by two intertwined issues: one object (SN 2004et) does not appear to meet the paper's own selection criterion, and the agreement depends on which wind efficiency is adopted in the MESA conversions.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.2 and Section 5.4] SN 2004et does not satisfy the paper's stated selection criterion (iii). Section 2.2 reports that Crockett et al. (2011) found the original Li et al. candidate still visible after the SN faded and resolved into at least three sources, with the progenitor detected only as an excess of R- and I-band flux and a tentative ZAMS mass of 8+5-1 Msun that the authors say still needs confirmation. This directly contradicts the statement in Section 5.4 that 'all our objects have secured progenitor identifications.' The issue is load-bearing because Figure 11 shows SN 2004et is the clearest outlier under both wind efficiencies: under eta=1.0 it lies above the MpreSN range together with SN 2012aw, and under eta=0.33 it is the only object that does so. The authors should either present additional evidence that justifies keeping SN 2004et in the sample or repeat the comparison on the five objects that actually meet criterion (iii), reporting the outcome for both eta values.
[Section 5.4 and Figure 11] The 'good agreement' conclusion is not robust to the adopted wind efficiency in the MESA mass-loss prescription. With eta=1.0, two objects (SN 2004et and SN 2012aw) have hydrodynamic masses above the pre-SN mass ranges, while with eta=0.33 the overestimate remains only for SN 2004et. Section 5.4 itself states that mass-loss rates are uncertain by a factor of two to ten, so the choice eta=0.33 is not uniquely forced by the quoted literature. Since the entire mass-discrepancy verdict depends on this choice, the paper needs either a principled argument for why eta=0.33 is the physically appropriate value for these RSG progenitors, or an explicit sensitivity statement showing how the number of discrepant objects changes as eta is varied within the stated uncertainty range.
[Section 4 and Table 3] The quantitative basis of the comparison is limited by the model-selection procedure and by parameter adjustments that are not part of the direct-detection constraints. The paper states in Section 4 that the preferred models were chosen by visual comparison and that the ranges in Table 3 are not statistical errors. In addition, for SNe 2004A, 2008bk, and 2012ec the explosion epoch was adjusted based on the modelling, and for SNe 2004A and 2004et the progenitor radius was set to values outside the ranges listed in Table 2. These adjustments are described as necessary to fit the observations, but their covariance with Mhydro is not quantified. Because the claim is that the two mass-determination methods agree, the authors should show, at least for the discrepant objects, that the conclusion is unchanged when the literature radius or explosion epoch is used, or provide a justification for why the adjusted values should be preferred.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and Section 2] The abstract and Section 2 state that all six objects satisfy criterion (iii), but Section 2.2 shows that SN 2004et does not; the wording should be corrected or the criterion relaxed and the sample description revised accordingly.
[Section 4, Figure 3] The dashed line for the CSM model of SN 2004et is described in the text as improving the early light curve, but the figure caption does not define the dashed line; please add a legend or caption note for clarity.
[Section 5.3 and Table 5] The comparison with previous hydrodynamic modeling results in Table 5 would be easier to interpret if the table included the explosion energies and radii from those works, since the degeneracy between Mhydro, R, and E is a central theme of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hydrodynamic masses are fitted to light curves and velocities, which are independent of the direct-detection masses; the comparison is a genuine two-method test.

full rationale

The central claim—that hydrodynamic masses agree with pre-explosion masses for this sample—is a genuine comparison, not a derivation from its own inputs. Mhydro is obtained by matching bolometric light curves and Fe ii 5169 Å velocity evolution (Section 4) to a grid of double-polytropic models in which mass and radius are independent parameters; the paper explicitly avoids evolutionary pre-SN models because they would tie M and R together (Section 3: 'For parametric models, the progenitor mass and radius can be treated as independent parameters, as opposed to the evolutionary models. This is the main motivation to use double polytropic models as pre-SN structures.'). The only direct-detection input to the hydro models is the progenitor radius range (Table 2), and radius is not the quantity being compared: the paper notes that radius, not mass, is the most direct observable from pre-explosion SEDs. The comparison quantity MpreSN is computed separately with MESA from the literature MZAMS ranges using the Dutch wind scheme, and the two wind efficiencies are motivated by external mass-loss studies (Puls et al. 2008; Smith 2014; Renzo et al. 2017), not fitted to the Mhydro–MpreSN residuals. The self-citations (Bersten & Hamuy 2009 bolometric correction; Bersten et al. 2011 hydro code) are published, externally usable tools and do not encode the conclusion. There is a real sample-integrity problem—SN 2004et does not meet criterion (iii) because Crockett et al. (2011) found the original candidate still visible and resolved into at least three sources, yet Section 5.4 calls all identifications secured—but that is a selection and reporting flaw, not a circular reduction of the mass comparison to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling assumptions: spherically symmetric hydrodynamics with LTE opacities, double polytropic pre-SN structures, a bolometric correction, and MESA stellar evolution with uncertain mass-loss rates. The free parameters are the per-SN hydrodynamic mass, energy, nickel mass, adjusted explosion epochs for three SNe, and wind efficiency. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

Hydrodynamic progenitor mass Mhydro per SN = 10 to 23 Msun (Table 3)
Adjusted to reproduce the bolometric light curve and photospheric velocity evolution; degenerate with radius and energy, so radius was fixed where possible.
Explosion energy E per SN = 0.2 to 1.4 foe
Adjusted to reproduce plateau luminosity and length; uncertainties from visual inspection, not statistical.
Nickel mass MNi per SN = 0.0015 to 0.085 Msun
Set by the radioactive tail luminosity; depends on the adopted distance and explosion epoch.
Progenitor radius R for SNe 2004A and 2004et = 1000 and 1250 Rsun
For these two SNe, no model with the literature radius reproduced the observed plateau luminosity, so larger radii were adopted; this weakens the fixed-radius strategy.
Wind efficiency eta in MESA = 1.0 and 0.33
Two values used for mass-loss rates, motivated by uncertainty in clumping; the central agreement for SN 2004et only holds for eta=0.33.
Explosion epoch texp for SNe 2004A, 2008bk, 2012ec = Table 1 values, adjusted from literature
Adjusted based on the modeling because literature values did not produce acceptable fits; for SN 2004A the adopted value is outside the literature error bars.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Spherical symmetry is a valid approximation for the bulk of SNe II-P ejecta.
Invoked in Section 3 to justify the 1D Lagrangian code despite asymmetric explosion mechanisms; relies on Leonard & Filippenko (2005) for smoothing by the extended hydrogen envelope.
domain assumption LTE with an opacity floor adequately approximates radiation transport in the ejecta.
Section 3 states LTE underestimates ionization and the opacity floor is an ad hoc approximation; the paper notes this may introduce the largest uncertainties in derived parameters.
domain assumption Double polytropic models faithfully represent the pre-SN density structure of red supergiants.
Section 3 and Appendix A; chosen to allow independent mass and radius, but the paper acknowledges the existence of degeneracy with evolutionary models and shows a single comparison for SN 2008bk.
domain assumption The MESA Dutch wind scheme with Z=0.02 and wind efficiency eta maps ZAMS mass to pre-SN mass correctly.
Section 5.4; mass-loss rates are uncertain by factors of 2 to 10, and the central agreement for SN 2004et depends on choosing eta=0.33.
domain assumption The compact remnant mass is 1.4 Msun for all progenitors.
Section 3: 'we assume that the mass of the compact remnant is 1.4 Msun'; affects the ejecta mass comparison with LN85 relations.
domain assumption The Fe ii 5169 Angstrom line traces the photospheric velocity.
Section 2; standard practice per Dessart & Hillier (2005), used for all velocity comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass discrepancy analysis for a select sample of Type II-Plateau supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BO3ZJFWI

@misc{pith2026190801828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass discrepancy analysis for a select sample of Type II-Plateau supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BO3ZJFWI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01828}
}

read the original abstract

The detailed study of supernovae (SNe) and their progenitors allows to better understand the evolution of massive stars and how these end their lives. Despite its importance, the range of physical parameters for the most common type of explosion, the type II supernovae (SNe II), is still unknown. In particular, previous studies of type II-Plateau supernovae (SNe II-P) showed a discrepancy between the progenitor masses inferred from hydrodynamic models and those determined from the analysis of direct detections in archival images. Our goal is to derive physical parameters (progenitor mass, radius, explosion energy and total mass of nickel) through hydrodynamical modelling of light curves and expansion velocity evolution for a select group of 6 SNe II-P (SN 2004A, SN 2004et, SN 2005cs, SN 2008bk, SN 2012aw, and SN 2012ec) that fulfilled the following three criteria: 1) they have enough photometric and spectroscopic monitoring to allow for a reliable hydrodynamical modelling; 2) there is a direct progenitor detection; and 3) there is a confirmation of the progenitor identification via its disappearance in post-explosion images. We then compare the masses obtained by our hydrodynamic models with those obtained by direct detections of the progenitors to test the existence of such a discrepancy. As opposed to some previous works, we find a good agreement between both methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01828 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Bolometric LCs of our SN sample. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 v [10 3 km s−1] Days since explosion 2004A 2004et 2005cs 2008bk 2012aw 2012ec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Photospheric velocity evolution of our SN sample. We use the Fe ii λ 5169 Å line as an indicator of the photospheric velocity. 2.1. SN 2004A SN 2004A was discovered by K. Itagaki (Teppo-cho, Yamagata, Japan) using a 0.28-m f/10 reflector on 2004 January 9.84 UT and later confirmed on 2004 January 10.75 UT (Nakano et al. 2004). SN 2004A was located at RA = 16h43m01.90s , Dec. = +36◦50012.500 (equinox 2000.0), around … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison between models and observations for our SN sample. (Left) Bolometric light curves. (Right) Evolution of the photospheric velocity. From top to bottom: SN 2004A, SN 2004et, SN 2005cs, and SN 2008bk. Article number, page 7 of 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison between models and observations for SN 2012aw (top) and SN 2012ec (bottom). (Left) Bolometric light curves. (Right) Evolution of the photospheric velocity. cated much lower plateau luminosities than those observed. The largest discrepancy is found for SN 200…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Analysis of possible correlations between different physical parameters. We present MNi as a function of Mhydro. 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 MNi [M⊙] E [foe] 04A 04et 05cs 08bk 12aw 12ec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Analysis of possible correlations between different physical parameters. In this case we present MNi as a function of explosion energy. alised by Popov (1993). Numerical calibrations of these relations were then given by Litvinova & Nadëzhin (1983, 1985, hereafter LN8…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Ejected masses obtained with the LN85 relations compared to those obtained by hydrodynamical modelling of LCs and photospheric velocities. the LN83 models do not include the effect of heating due to radioactive decay; they use old opacity tables without considering an…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Progenitor radii obtained with the LN85 relations compared to those obtained by our analysis. 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Explosion energy using LN85 relations [foe] Explosion energy using hydrodynamic models [foe] 04A 04et 05cs 08bk 12aw 12ec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Explosion energy obtained with the LN85 relations compared with those obtained by our modelling. Although Morozova et al. (2018) use a hydrodynamic code similar to the one used in this work and a detailed analysis of the confidence regions in parameter space to reach …

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: compares our hydrodynamic masses and pre-SN masses for the different wind efficiencies. When using η = 1.0 (upper panel) we can see that for SNe 2004et and 2012aw, our hydrodynamical mass overestimates the pre-explosion mass. Using η = 0.33 (bottom panel), we notice …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

[1]

P., González-Gaitán, S., Hamuy, M., et al

Anderson, J. P., González-Gaitán, S., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 67

2014
[2]

M., et al

Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 777

2010
[3]

Arnett, W. D. 1980, ApJ, 237, 541

1980
[4]

Barbarino, C., Dall’Ora, M., Botticella, M. T. et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2312

2015
[5]

1979, A&A, 72, 287

Barbon, R., Ciatti, F., & Rosino, L. 1979, A&A, 72, 287

1979
[6]

C., & Hamuy, M

Bersten, M. C., & Hamuy, M. 2009, ApJ, 701, 200

2009
[7]

C., Benvenuto, O

Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. & Hamuy, M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 61

2011
[8]

C., Benvenuto, O

Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. G., Nomoto, K. et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 31

2012

Show all 96 references

[9]

Bose, S., Kumar, B., Sutaria, F. et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1871

2013
[10]

Bouret, J., Lanz, T., & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 438, 301 Childress M., Scalzo R., Yuan F., Schimdt B. 2012, CBET, 3201, 2

2005
[11]

N., & Utrobin, V

Chugai, N. N., & Utrobin, V . P. 2000, A&A, 354, 557

2000
[12]

M., Smartt, S

Crockett, R. M., Smartt, S. J., Pastorello, A., Eldridge, J. J. et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2767 Dall’Ora, M., Botticella, M. T., Pumo, M. L. et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 139

2011
[13]

Davies, B., & Beasor, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2116 de Jaeger, T., González-Gaitán, S., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 121 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259

2018
[14]

Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 439, 671

2005
[15]

Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2019, A&A, 625, A9

2019
[16]

J., Crowther, P

Evans, C. J., Crowther, P. A., Fullerton, A. W., & Hillier, D. J. 2004, ApJ, 610, 1021

2004
[17]

2012, CBET, 3054, 1

Fagotti, P., Dimai, A., Quadri, U., et al. 2012, CBET, 3054, 1

2012
[18]

W., & Arnett, W

Falk, S. W., & Arnett, W. D. 1977, ApJS, 33, 515

1977
[19]

Filippenko, A. V . 1997, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 309

1997
[20]

2016, MNRAS, 456, 16

Fraser, M. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 16

2016
[21]

R., Smartt, S

Fraser, M., Maund, J. R., Smartt, S. J. et al. 2012, ApJL, 759, L13

2012
[22]

W., Massa, D

Fullerton, A. W., Massa, D. L., & Prinja, R. K. 2006, ApJ, 637, 1025

2006
[23]

E., Pols, O

Glebbeek, E., Gaburov, E., de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2009, A&A, 497, 255

2009
[24]

A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B

Goldberg, J. A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2019, ApJ, 879, 3

2019
[25]

K., Imshennik, V

Grassberg, E. K., Imshennik, V . S., & Nadyozhin, D. K. 1971, Ap&SS, 10, 28

1971
[26]

K., Sahu, D

Gurugubelli, U. K., Sahu, D. K., Anupama, G. C., Chakradhari, N.K. 2008, Bul- letin of the Astronomical Society of India, 36, 79

2008
[27]

2001, PhD thesis, Univ

Hamuy, M. 2001, PhD thesis, Univ. Arizona

2001
[28]

Hamuy, M., & Pinto, P. A. 2002, ApJ, 566, L63

2002
[29]

Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, ApJ, 528, 368

2000
[30]

A., Smartt, S

Hendry, M. A., Smartt, S. J., Crockett, R. M., Maund, J. R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1303

2006
[31]

2012, A&A, 546, A28

Jerkstrand, A., Fransson, C., Maguire, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A28

2012
[32]

J., Fraser, M., et al

Jerkstrand, A., Smartt, S. J., Fraser, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3694

2014
[33]

H., Lasher, G., Chan, K

Karp, A. H., Lasher, G., Chan, K. L., & Salpeter, E. E. 1977, ApJ, 214, 161

1977
[34]

E., 2009, ApJ, 703, 2205 Kawakita H., Kinugasa K., Ayani K., Yamaoka H., 2004, IAUC, 8266, 2

Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E., 2009, ApJ, 703, 2205 Kawakita H., Kinugasa K., Ayani K., Yamaoka H., 2004, IAUC, 8266, 2

2009
[35]

P., & Kwan, J

Kirshner, R. P., & Kwan, J. 1974, ApJ, 193, 27

1974
[36]

2005, IAUC 8553, 1

Kloehr, W., Muendlein, R., Li, W., et al. 2005, IAUC 8553, 1

2005
[37]

S., Khan, R., & Dai, X

Kochanek, C. S., Khan, R., & Dai, X. 2012, ApJ, 759, 20

2012
[38]

Kotak, R., Meikle, W. P. S., Farrah, D. et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 306

2009
[39]

M., & Hirschi, R

Kozyreva, A., Kromer, M., Noebauer, U. M., & Hirschi, R. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3106

2018
[40]

C., & Filippenko, A

Leonard, D. C., & Filippenko, A. V . 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 342, 1604–2004: Supernovae as Cosmological Lighthouses, ed. M. Turatto et al. (San Fran- cisco, CA: ASP), 330

2005
[41]

D., Filippenko, A

Li, W., Van Dyk, S. D., Filippenko, A. V ., & Cuillandre, J. C. 2005, PASP, 117, 121

2005
[42]

D., Filippenko, A

Li, W., Van Dyk, S. D., Filippenko, A. V . et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1060

2006
[43]

D., Filippenko, A

Li, W., Van Dyk, S. D., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2008, CBET, 1319, 1

2008
[44]

2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

Li, W., Leaman, J., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

2011
[45]

Litvinova, I. Y . & Nadëzhin, D. K. 1983, Ap&SS, 89, 89

1983
[46]

Litvinova, I. Y . & Nadëzhin, D. K. 1985, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 11, 145

1985
[47]

D., Bersier, D., James, P

Lyman, J. D., Bersier, D., James, P. A., Mazzali, P. A. et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 328

2016
[48]

Maguire, K., Di Carlo, E., Smartt, S. J. et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 981

2010
[49]

Martinez, L., & Bersten, M. C. 2018, Boletín de la Asociación Argentina de Astronomía, 60, 23

2018
[50]

J., Eldridge, J

Mattila, S., Smartt, S. J., Eldridge, J. J., Maund, J. R. et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, L91

2008
[51]

J., Maund, J., Benetti, S., & Ergon, M

Mattila, S., Smartt, S. J., Maund, J., Benetti, S., & Ergon, M. 2010, arXiv:1011.5494

2010 arXiv
[52]

Maund, J. R. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2202

2017
[53]

R., Smartt, S

Maund, J. R., Smartt, S. J., & Danziger, I. J. 2005, MNRAS, 364, L33

2005
[54]

R., Fraser, M., Smartt, S

Maund, J. R., Fraser, M., Smartt, S. J. et al. 2013, MNRASL, 431, L102

2013
[55]

Misra, K., Pooley, D., Chandra, P. et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 280

2007
[56]

Modjaz, M., Kirshner R., Challis, P. et al. 2005, IAUC, 8555, 1

2005
[57]

Monard, L. A. G. 2008, CBET, 1315, 1

2008
[58]

Monard, L. A. G., Childress, M., Scalzo, R., et al. 2012, CBET, 3201, 1

2012
[59]

Morozova, V ., Piro, A. L. & Valenti, S. 2018, ApJ, 858, 15

2018
[60]

2008, CBET, 1335, 1 Munari U., Vagnozzi A., Castellani F

Morrell, N., & Stritzinger, M. 2008, CBET, 1335, 1 Munari U., Vagnozzi A., Castellani F. 2012, CBElT, 3054, 3

2008
[61]

2004, IAUC, 8265, 1

Nakano, S., Itagaki, K., Kushida, R., & Kushida, Y . 2004, IAUC, 8265, 1

2004
[62]

Pastorello, A., Sauer, D., Taubenberger, S. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1752

2006
[63]

2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266

Pastorello, A., Valenti, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266

2009
[64]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

2011
[65]

2013, ApJS, 208, 4

Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

2013
[66]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

2015
[67]

B., et al

Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

2018
[68]

Pejcha, O., & Prieto, J. L. 2015, ApJ, 806, 225

2015
[69]

2009, AIP Conference Proceedings 1111, 551

Pignata, G., Maza, J., Antezana, R., et al. 2009, AIP Conference Proceedings 1111, 551

2009
[70]

Popov, D. V . 1993, ApJ, 414, 712

1993
[71]

S., & Najarro, F

Puls, J., Vink, J. S., & Najarro, F. 2008, A&A Rev., 16, 209

2008
[72]

L., Zampieri, L., Spiro, S., Pastorello, A

Pumo, M. L., Zampieri, L., Spiro, S., Pastorello, A. et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3013

2017
[73]

D., Shore, S

Renzo, M., Ott, C. D., Shore, S. N. & de Mink, S. E. 2017, A&A, 603, A118

2017
[74]

Ricks, W., & Dwarkadas, V . V . 2019, ApJ, 880, 59 Rodríguez, Ó., Clocchiatti, A., & Hamuy, M. 2014, AJ, 148, 107

2019
[75]

K., Anupama, G

Sahu, D. K., Anupama, G. C., Srividya, S. & Muneer, S. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1315

2006
[76]

E., de Koter, A

Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A. et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

2012
[77]

1990, ApJ, 360, 242 Siviero A., Tomasella, L., Pastorello, A., et al

Shigeyama, T., & Nomoto, K. 1990, ApJ, 360, 242 Siviero A., Tomasella, L., Pastorello, A., et al. 2012, CBET, 3054, 4

1990
[78]

Smartt, S. J. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 32, 16

2015
[79]

J., Maund, J

Smartt, S. J., Maund, J. R., Henry, M. A., Tout, C. A., Gilmore, G. F., Mattila, S., & Benn, C. R. 2004, Science, 303, 499

2004
[80]

J., Eldridge, J

Smartt, S. J., Eldridge, J. J., Crockett, R. M., & Maund, J. R. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1409

2009
[81]

2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

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

2014
[82]

J., Weiler, K

Stockdale, C. J., Weiler, K. W., Van Dyk, S. D. et al. 2004, IAUC, 8415, 1

2004
[83]

D., Bersten M., Baron, E

Taddia, F., Stritzinger M. D., Bersten M., Baron, E. et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A136

2018
[84]

Utrobin, V . P. 2007, A&A, 461, 233

2007
[85]

P., & Chugai, N

Utrobin, V . P., & Chugai, N. N. 2008, A&A, 491, 507

2008
[86]

P., & Chugai, N

Utrobin, V . P., & Chugai, N. N. 2009, A&A, 506, 829

2009
[87]

P., & Chugai, N

Utrobin, V . P., & Chugai, N. N. 2013, A&A, 555, A145

2013
[88]

P., & Chugai, N

Utrobin, V . P., & Chugai, N. N. 2015, A&A, 575, A100

2015
[89]

P., & Chugai, N

Utrobin, V . P., & Chugai, N. N. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 5004 Van Dyk, S. D. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 24 Van Dyk, S. D., Li, W., & Filippenko, A. V . 2003, PASP, 115, 1289 Van Dyk, S. D., Davidge, T. J., Elias-Rosa, N. et al. 2012a, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 19 Van ...

2017
[90]

S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574

2001
[91]

Gnuplot 5.0: an interactive plotting program

Williams, T., & Kelley, C. 2015, "Gnuplot 5.0: an interactive plotting program"

2015
[92]

Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181

1995
[93]

E., Heger, A

Woosley, S. E., Heger, A. & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015

2002
[94]

Yamaoka, H., Itagaki, K., Klotz, A. et al. 2004, IAUC, 8413, 2

2004
[95]

A., Gal-Yam, A

Yaron, O., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A. et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510

2017
[96]

Zwitter, T., Munari, U., & Moretti, S. 2004, IAUC, 8413, 1 Article number, page 14 of 17 Martinez & Bersten: Mass discrepancy analysis of SNe II-Plateau Appendix A: Pre-supernova models Here, we complete the description of the pre-SN models used in our sample. Figure A.1 shows...

2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., González-Gaitán, S., Hamuy, M., et al

Anderson, J. P., González-Gaitán, S., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 67

2014

[2] [2]

M., et al

Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 777

2010

[3] [3]

Arnett, W. D. 1980, ApJ, 237, 541

1980

[4] [4]

Barbarino, C., Dall’Ora, M., Botticella, M. T. et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2312

2015

[5] [5]

1979, A&A, 72, 287

Barbon, R., Ciatti, F., & Rosino, L. 1979, A&A, 72, 287

1979

[6] [6]

C., & Hamuy, M

Bersten, M. C., & Hamuy, M. 2009, ApJ, 701, 200

2009

[7] [7]

C., Benvenuto, O

Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. & Hamuy, M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 61

2011

[8] [8]

C., Benvenuto, O

Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. G., Nomoto, K. et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 31

2012