Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

On the photometric and spectroscopic diversity of Type II supernovae

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper demonstrates that a standard 15-solar-mass red supergiant with a small surface shell of circumstellar gas reproduces slow-declining Type II supernovae, while fast decliners require 0.5 to 1 solar masses of that shell.

desk verdict A thorough forward-modeling study that cleanly separates reduced envelope mass from confined CSM as drivers of Type II SN diversity, with a self-flagged caveat that the fast-decliner CSM masses depend on an assumed geometry. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02973 v1 pith:AC7P4YUS submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

D. John Hillier , Luc Dessart This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords typeIIsupernovaeredsupergiantprogenitorscircumstellarmediuminteractionsupernovalightcurvesspectraH-alphalineprofileshydrogenenvelopemassphotosphericphaseduration
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

Hydrogen-rich supernovae range from slow decliners, which show a long flat plateau, to fast decliners, which brighten sharply and fade quickly. This paper argues that the entire range can be produced from one standard 15-solar-mass red supergiant progenitor by varying two things: how much hydrogen envelope remains at death and how much circumstellar material sits just outside the star. The slow decliners SNe 1999em, 2012aw, and 2004et are matched by a compact ~600-solar-radius red supergiant exploding with $1.2\times10^{51}$ erg and less than 0.2 solar masses of circumstellar material. The fast decliners SNe 2013ej and 2014G require 0.5 to 1 solar masses of such material, producing featureless early spectra, weak H-$\alpha$ absorption, and an extended blue phase. If this is right, ordinary stellar evolution and modest mass loss, not exotic progenitors, explain the normal events, and the fast-decliner class is a signature of a dense shell ejected shortly before collapse.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a systematic grid of progenitor-plus-explosion models, all from one 15-solar-mass star, split into two families: the mdot models, which differ only in hydrogen envelope mass, and the ext models, which differ only in the mass and radial extent of a smooth CSM shell placed just above the stellar surface. The dynamical engine is the dense shell created when the ejecta crashes into that CSM: under optically thick conditions some kinetic energy is converted to radiation that escapes, which boosts the luminosity, brakes the outer ejecta, and places the photosphere in a steep, slowly moving density shell. The spectroscopic consequences follow from that placement: a weak or absent P-Cygni absorption (the blue-shifted absorption and red-shifted emission signature of expanding ejecta) at 10-20 days, weak H-alpha absorption during recombination, and a bluer color for longer. A companion piece of machinery is the simultaneous non-LTE time-dependent radiative transfer used to produce both multi-band light curves and optical spectra, rather than photometry alone.

What would settle it

Find a fast-declining Type II SN whose H-alpha line at 10-20 days shows a broad, deep P-Cygni absorption and whose photospheric phase is much shorter than that of a typical II-P; the paper's CSM-interaction scenario predicts featureless spectra, weak H-alpha absorption, and an unshortened photospheric phase, so such an object would instead point to hydrogen-envelope stripping as the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a $1.2\times10^{51}$ erg explosion, the model grid shows two clean and separable levers. Lowering the H-rich envelope mass from 9.5 to 0.9 solar masses shortens the photospheric phase, accelerates the light-curve decline, and broadens early line profiles, but it changes the early-time optical brightness by less than a magnitude. Adding a spherical CSM shell at the stellar surface, with mass from 0.02 to 1.97 solar masses, is far more efficient at boosting early brightness: it delays the onset of hydrogen recombination, keeps the optical color bluer for longer, slows the fastest ejecta, and weakens or removes the H-$\alpha$ absorption, sometimes leaving a pure emission profile. The comparison to observed events identifies the slow decliners with the no-CSM or low-CSM branch and the fast decliners with the high-CSM branch. The paper also concludes that the most luminous fast decliners, such as SNe 1979C and 1998S, demand a CSM that is detached from or extended far above the stellar surface.

Load-bearing premise

The fast-decliner conclusions rest on assuming the CSM is a smooth, spherical shell of known density structure attached to the stellar surface; real clumpy, detached, or asymmetric shells would change the inferred masses and the predicted spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Slow-declining Type II-P supernovae can be explained by an evolutionary 15-solar-mass red supergiant model; crafted or non-evolutionary progenitors are not required.
  • Fast-declining events like SN 2013ej and SN 2014G require roughly 0.5 to 1 solar masses of confined circumstellar material, and that shell produces a distinctive spectral fingerprint: featureless early spectra, weak H-alpha absorption, and a lingering blue color.
  • Brightness boost and line width are anticorrelated when CSM drives the fast decline, and correlated when envelope stripping drives it, giving a two-channel test for classifying Type II supernovae.
  • A few tenths of a solar mass of CSM near the stellar surface can shorten the V-band rise time without requiring an extremely compact progenitor.
  • Extremely luminous fast decliners such as SNe 1979C and 1998S need a more extended or detached CSM, so the same physics at larger radii explains the brightest members of the class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the real CSM around fast-declining progenitors is clumpy, asymmetric, or detached, the inferred 0.5 to 1 solar-mass values are upper limits at best, since the paper's own models show the required mass depends on the shell's density structure and that a more confined shell reduces the persistent blue offset.
  • A statistical survey of early rise times, H-alpha absorption depths, and photospheric-phase durations could separate the envelope-stripping channel from the CSM-interaction channel across the whole Type II population, a test the paper does not carry out.
  • The need for compact ~600-solar-radius red supergiants implies that the mixing-length treatment of convection in stellar evolution models matters for supernova predictions: varying it by a factor of two changes the emergent color and line widths in ways that can be checked against large samples.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a controlled grid of one-dimensional explosion and non-LTE time-dependent radiative-transfer models for Type II supernovae, built from a 15 solar-mass initial model evolved with MESA. Two model families are compared: one with reduced H-rich envelope masses ('mdot') and one with increasing amounts of CSM attached directly above the stellar surface ('ext'). The authors simultaneously compare multi-band light curves and multi-epoch optical spectra against a dozen well-observed Type II SNe, ranging from slow decliners (SNe 1999em, 2012aw, 2004et) to luminous fast decliners (SNe 2013ej, 2014G, 1979C, 1998S). The central results are that reducing the H-rich envelope mass yields faster declining light curves, shorter photospheric phases, broader line profiles, but only a modest early-time brightness boost, whereas increasing the CSM mass boosts early-time brightness strongly, makes colors bluer, delays recombination, and weakens H-alpha absorption. The paper argues that slow decliners are consistent with a compact (~600 solar radii) RSG progenitor with at most ~0.2 solar masses of CSM, while fast decliners may require ~0.5-1.0 solar masses of CSM, with the caveat that this depends on the CSM density structure.

Significance. If the qualitative trends hold, the paper provides a valuable discriminator between two physical channels for Type II SN diversity: envelope stripping versus confined CSM interaction. Its main strengths are the simultaneous modeling of photometry and spectra, the controlled comparison of two model families with fixed kinetic energy, an explicit energy-conservation check in Appendix A, and a transparent discussion of the model limitations. The predicted anticorrelation between brightness boost and H-alpha width, the persistent blue color in CSM models, and the flat photospheric-velocity evolution in fast decliners are falsifiable predictions that can guide future observations. However, the quantitative claim that SNe 2013ej and 2014G require roughly 0.5-1.0 solar masses of CSM is not robust to the assumed CSM geometry, a limitation the paper itself acknowledges; the presented grid samples only one family of smooth, spherical, attached CSM structures.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, Table 2] The inference that SNe 2013ej and 2014G require 0.5-1.0 solar masses of CSM is degenerate with the assumed CSM structure. The grid spans only a single family of smooth, spherical, attached CSM density profiles with one density scale height (Table 2: x3p0ext1 through x3p0ext6). The paper states in Section 6.2.1 that a more confined CSM distribution 'would probably help resolving the color offset while preserving a fraction of the boost to the brightness', and the Conclusions repeat that the exact value depends on the CSM mass distribution. Because a more confined CSM could produce a similar early-time brightness boost with less mass and a better color match, the quoted 0.5-1.0 solar mass interval is not a unique inference even within the authors' own framework. I recommend reframing the claim as an order-of-magnitude or upper limit, or adding a small exploration of the scale-height dimension to quantify the degeneracy.
  2. [Section 6.1.3, Table 1] The adoption of E(B-V) = 0.3 mag for SN 2004et, rather than the literature values of 0.36 or 0.41 mag, is a post hoc choice that directly affects the agreement with model x1p5ext3. Table 1 and Section 6.1.3 justify the lower value as 'more compatible with the color evolution' of the SN, but since the comparison is not a fit, this selection drives the conclusion that SN 2004et is well represented by the same model as SN 2012aw. The manuscript should present the comparison also for the literature reddening values, or at least quantify how the inferred progenitor/CSM parameters shift with E(B-V). Without that, the claim that SN 2004et is explained by the standard evolutionary model is partly an artifact of the reddening choice.
  3. [Section 6, Figures 8-12] The model-data comparisons are presented without a quantitative metric or uncertainty estimates. The reported V-band magnitude offsets in Figures 8-12 reach -0.34 mag for SN 2013ej vs x3p0ext4 at 14.5 d and -0.37 mag for SN 2014G vs x3p0ext5 at 17.8 d, and the spectral residuals are described only visually. The authors explicitly state that these are comparisons, not fits, which is a reasonable approach, but the main claims (e.g., that a model 'matches' a given SN) would be more robust if the paper specified an acceptable tolerance or reported a simple chi-square-type statistic per band and epoch. At minimum, the large early-time offsets in the preferred models should be discussed as quantitative limitations of the CSM family, not just as qualitative agreement.
  4. [Section 3, Appendix B] The cmfgen simulations are started only at 10-15 d after explosion, while the v1d radiation-hydrodynamics code is used for earlier epochs. The early-time brightness boost from CSM, which is central to the fast-decliner interpretation, is therefore constrained in the figures primarily by the gray, LTE v1d models before about 10-15 d, with the non-LTE cmfgen comparison beginning only at the epochs shown in Figures 11-12. The paper should state more explicitly that the earliest-time photometric comparisons (e.g., the '<10 d improvement' claimed for slow decliners in Section 6.1) rest on the hydrodynamics code alone, and should note the associated model dependence, since the v1d and cmfgen bolometric light curves differ slightly (Appendix B).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] There is a typo in the text: 'P Cgyni' should be 'P-Cygni'.
  2. [Appendix C] The model name 'x3poext4' appears in the caption text of Figure C.1; it should be 'x3p0ext4'.
  3. [Figure 5] The U-V and V-I color panels in Figure 5 are small and difficult to read; enlarging them or splitting into separate figures would improve clarity.
  4. [Section 2.2] The term 'rise time' is used without an explicit definition; since the paper discusses discrepancies with literature rise-time measurements, a short definition (e.g., time from explosion to V-band maximum) would help the reader.
  5. [Equations (1)-(2)] The notation change from V in Eq. (1) to V-nu in Eq. (2) is described in the text, but the subscripted form 'V_nu' in Eq. (2) is easy to confuse with a frequency-dependent velocity; a brief explicit statement of the dimensions of V would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper uses forward radiation-hydrodynamics and radiative-transfer simulations compared against external SN observations, explicitly disclaims fitting, and its hedged CSM-mass inferences are not presented as independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from forward simulations (mesa stellar evolution, v1d radiation hydrodynamics, cmfgen non-LTE time-dependent radiative transfer) with stated physical inputs, and are compared to external multi-band photometry and optical spectra. There is no step in which an output is defined in terms of an input or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The authors explicitly state that Section 6 'presents comparisons and not fits to observations,' and they describe the model grid as a 'handful of models with sizable differences between them so a good fit to data would be largely incidental.' The quantitative CSM statements for the fast decliners are hedged: the abstract says SNe 2013ej and 2014G 'may require 0.5–1.0 M_sun of CSM, although this depends on the CSM structure,' and the text notes that 'the exact value depends on the CSM mass distribution' and that a more confined CSM 'would probably help resolving the color offset while preserving a fraction of the boost to the brightness.' These are explicitly acknowledged degeneracies and limitations, not circular reductions. The self-citations to the authors' prior work (e.g., Dessart et al. 2013 for the compact RSG radius produced by alpha_MLT=3, and Dessart et al. 2017 for early CSM-interaction hydrodynamics) are methodologically load-bearing but not circularly so: the present paper recomputes the relevant models with its own v1d and cmfgen runs, and the compact-radius choice is tested against observed color evolution in this paper rather than being imported as a forced uniqueness theorem. No ansatz is smuggled in by citation, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The conditional nature of the CSM-mass estimates is a robustness concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a standard but unverified chain of codes (mesa, v1d, cmfgen), on 1D geometry, and on ad hoc choices for the CSM structure, mixing length, explosion energy, and one reddening value. These are the costs the reader pays upstream; the model grid itself is internally consistent.

free parameters (6)
  • Explosion kinetic energy = 1.2e51 erg (fixed)
    Chosen to match slow-decliner brightness. The paper notes degenerate combinations of energy, mass, and radius can give the same light curve, so this is a free calibration rather than a first-principles value.
  • H-rich envelope mass (mass-loss scaling factor) = 0.91 to 9.48 M_sun (mdot set); x2p0 for SN 1999em, x1p5 for SN 2012aw/2004et
    Varied by scaling RSG mass-loss rate by 1.5 to 10. This is the main free parameter of the mdot set and determines plateau duration.
  • CSM mass = 0.022 to 1.973 M_sun; x1p5ext3=0.246, x3p0ext4=0.496, x3p0ext5=0.937
    Ad hoc mass added above the stellar surface; chosen per object to reproduce early-time brightness. The paper admits the value depends on CSM structure.
  • CSM density scale height = 0.05 to 1.0 R_star
    Controls the CSM radial distribution. Directly affects the luminosity boost, the color, and the H-alpha profile strength. There is no independent constraint on this parameter.
  • Mixing length parameter alpha_MLT = 3
    Chosen over the solar-calibrated 1.6 to produce compact ~600 R_sun RSG progenitors. The compact radius is essential for the slow-decliner matches and rise times.
  • Reddening of SN 2004et E(B-V) = 0.3 mag
    Adopted instead of literature value 0.41 mag to make SN 2004et similar to SN 1999em and SN 2012aw, improving the match. This is a post hoc adjustment.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry is adequate.
    All models are 1D; observed SNe show polarization and asymmetric line profiles, and the paper notes a clumpy or asymmetric CSM would affect predictions (Section 7).
  • ad hoc to paper Piston-triggered explosions at 1.6 M_sun mass cut reliably represent core-collapse explosions.
    Section 3: piston placed at 1.6 M_sun to deliver 1.2e51 erg; 56Ni masses vary from 0.007 to 0.056 M_sun without correction. The explosion mechanism itself is not modeled.
  • domain assumption cmfgen free expansion in vacuum from 10-15 d onward captures the observable evolution.
    Section 3: cmfgen assumes free expansion in vacuum, ignoring ongoing wind interaction. The paper argues early interaction imprints are still visible for weeks, but this is an approximation.
  • domain assumption MESA with alpha_MLT=3 yields physical RSG radii.
    The compact radius (~600 R_sun) is central to matching the rise time and colors of slow decliners. The default alpha_MLT=1.6 gives larger radii that the paper argues are in tension with observations.
  • ad hoc to paper The added CSM is spherical and smooth with a single density scale height.
    Section 3: the ext models add an atmosphere with scale height 0.05 to 1.0 R_star. This structure is not derived from observations or stellar evolution.
  • domain assumption Non-LTE time-dependent radiative transfer with gray gamma-ray deposition is accurate for these ejecta.
    Section 3 and Appendix A: cmfgen uses standard approximations (opacity 0.06 Y_e cm2/g, non-thermal processes as in Li et al. 2012). The energy conservation check supports internal consistency but not physical completeness.
  • domain assumption Literature distances, reddenings, and explosion epochs are correct (except 2004et).
    Table 1 values are adopted from published sources; errors would shift the absolute magnitude comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the photometric and spectroscopic diversity of Type II supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AC7P4YUS

@misc{pith2026190802973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the photometric and spectroscopic diversity of Type II supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AC7P4YUS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02973}
}
abstract

Hydrogen-rich (type II) supernovae (SNe) exhibit considerable photometric and spectroscopic diversity. Extending previous work that focused exclusively on photometry, we simultaneously model the multi-band light curves and optical spectra of Type II SNe using RSG progenitors that are characterized by their H-rich envelope masses or the mass and extent of an enshrouding cocoon at the star's surface. Reducing the H-rich envelope mass yields faster declining light curves, a shorter duration of the photospheric phase, broader line profiles at early times, but only a modest boost in early-time optical brightness. Increasing the mass of the circumstellar material (CSM) is more effective at boosting the early-time brightness and producing a fast-declining light curve while leaving the duration of the photospheric phase intact. It also makes the optical color bluer, delays the onset of recombination, and can severely reduce the speed of the fastest ejecta material. The early ejecta interaction with CSM is conducive to producing featureless spectra at $10-20$ d and a weak or absent H$\alpha$ absorption during the recombination phase. The slow decliners SNe 1999em, 2012aw, and 2004et can be explained with a $1.2 \times 10^{51}$ erg explosion in a compact ($\sim$600 R$_\odot$) RSG star from a 15 M$_\odot$ stellar evolution model. A small amount of CSM ($<0.2$ M$_\odot$) improves the match to the SN photometry at times $<$ 10 d. With more extended RSG progenitors, one predicts lower ejecta kinetic energies, but the SN color stays blue for too long and the spectral line widths are too narrow. The fast decliners SNe 2013ej and 2014G may require $0.5-1.0$ M$_\odot$ of CSM, although this depends on the CSM structure. A larger boost to the luminosity (as for fast decliners SNe 1979C or 1998S) requires interaction with a more spatially extended CSM, which might also be detached from the star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample of observed V-band light curves, corrected for extinction and reddening, illustrating the well known diversity of Type II SNe (e.g., Patat et al. 1994; Pastorello et al. 2004). This diversity is representative of that shown in Anderson et al. (2014), revealing Type II SNe with a range of brightness, decline rate, and duration in their high-brightness phase. The plotting order progresses from faint to bright e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of spectra in the Hα region at about 15 and 60 d after the inferred time of explosion for a set of observed Type II SNe with a range of V-band decline rates during the photospheric phase. The spectra have been normalized so that the peak value (in the spectral window shown) is unity, with an additional offset of unity for the upper spectrum. The left-most two columns correspond to standard Type II SNe wit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Mass density versus lagrangian mass (top) and radius (bottom) at the onset of core collapse for the set of 15 M simulations produced with mesa using a mixing-length parameter of 3 and a variety of mass-loss rate scalings during the RSG phase. Right: Same as left, but now for variants of model x3p0 in which some CSM has been added. The corresponding model properties are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Evolution of the bolometric luminosity (top), the photospheric velocity (middle), and the photospheric temperature (bottom) for the explosion models computed by v1d and based on the mdot model set. Right: Same as left, but now for the ext model set. [See Section …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Illustration of the absolute V-band light curves (top), the spectral region centered on Hα at about 20 d after explosion (middle), and the U − V and V − I color curves (bottom) for the mdot simulations performed with cmfgen. Right: Same as left, but now for the e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of spectra in the Hα region at about 15 and 50 d after explosion for the model set with decreasing H-rich envelope mass (from x1p5 to x1e1). 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 19.3d 50.0d x3p0 20.0d 51.8d x3p0ext3 19.2d 50.1d x3p0ext5 −2 −1 0 1 2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 18.9d 53.8d x3…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of multi-band light curves (top) and multi-epoch spectra (bottom) for SN 1999em and model x2p0. The time origin is the inferred time of explosion. For the spectral comparison, the model is redshifted and reddened, and the label ∆MV gives the V-band magnitude…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The ALMA carbon monoxide supernova (ACOS) survey II. Turbulent giant molecular clouds at the positions of core-collapse supernovae

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Core-collapse supernovae are found in molecular gas with median CO(2-1) velocity dispersion of about 9 km/s, versus 3.8 km/s for typical host-galaxy pixels.

  2. Surrogate models for type II supernovae: Probing low-energy explosions and interaction-free regimes

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Trained on STELLA grids, two autoencoder-plus-emulator surrogates reconstruct type II SN SEDs at ~1e-4 MSE and recover progenitor masses for SN 2005cs, SN 2012aw, and SN 1999em in minutes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S., Rizzi, L., & Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Rizzi, L., & Tully, R. B. 2018, AJ, 156, 105

    2018

  2. [2]

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

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

    2014

  3. [3]

    E., Branch, D., & Hauschildt, P

    Baron, E., Nugent, P. E., Branch, D., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2004, ApJL, 616, L91

    2004

  4. [4]

    Bartunov, O. S. & Blinnikov, S. I. 1992, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 18, 43

    1992

  5. [5]

    C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M

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

    2011

  6. [6]

    Blinnikov, S. I. & Bartunov, O. S. 1993, A&A, 273, 106

    1993

  7. [7]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1871

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

    2013

  8. [8]

    A New Method to Classify Type IIP/IIL Supernovae Based on their Spectra

    Chen, X., Kou, S., & Liu, X. 2018, ArXiv e-prints [[arXiv]1811.03022]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Chugai, N. N. 2006, Astronomy Letters, 32, 739

    2006

  2. [10]

    N., Chevalier, R

    Chugai, N. N., Chevalier, R. A., & Utrobin, V . P. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1136 Dall’Ora, M., Botticella, M. T., Pumo, M. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 139

    2007

  3. [11]

    & Beasor, E

    Davies, B. & Beasor, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2116

    2018

  4. [12]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 3

    Davies, B., Kudritzki, R.-P., Plez, B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 3

    2013

  5. [13]

    J., et al

    Dessart, L., Blondin, S., Brown, P. J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 644

    2008

  6. [14]

    P., Hamuy, M., et al

    Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1856

    2014

  7. [15]

    & Hillier, D

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

    2005

  8. [16]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2006, A&A, 447, 691

    2006

  9. [17]

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

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

    2016

  10. [18]

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

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1745

    2013

  11. [19]

    2017, A&A, 605, A83

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

    2017

  12. [20]

    Eldridge, J. J. & Xiao, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L58

    2019

  13. [21]

    J., Xiao, L., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Xiao, L., Stanway, E. R., Rodrigues, N., & Guo, N.-Y . 2018, ArXiv e-prints [[arXiv]1811.00282]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J., Chugai, N., et al

    Elmhamdi, A., Danziger, I. J., Chugai, N., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 939

    2003

  15. [23]

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

    2001

  16. [24]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Vacca, W. D., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1093 Förster, F., Moriya, T. J., Maureira, J. C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy

    2000

  17. [25]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, L16

    Fraser, M. 2016, MNRAS, 456, L16

    2016

  18. [26]

    R., Smartt, S

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

    2012

  19. [27]

    R., Smartt, S

    Fraser, M., Maund, J. R., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, L56

    2014

  20. [28]

    Gall, E. E. E., Polshaw, J., Kotak, R., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A3 González-Gaitán, S., Tominaga, N., Molina, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2212 Gräfener, G. & Vink, J. S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 112 Article number, page 17 of 20 A&A proofs: manuscript no. ms

    2015

  21. [29]

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

    2014

  22. [30]

    Z., & Margutti, R

    Guillochon, J., Parrent, J., Kelley, L. Z., & Margutti, R. 2017, ApJ, 835, 64 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 786, L15 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 850, 90 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al....

    2017

  23. [31]

    2010, A&A, 523, A7

    Guy, J., Sullivan, M., Conley, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A7

    2010

  24. [32]

    A., Maza, J., et al

    Hamuy, M., Pinto, P. A., Maza, J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, 615

    2001

  25. [33]

    1997, A&A, 327, 224

    Heger, A., Jeannin, L., Langer, N., & Baraffe, I. 1997, A&A, 327, 224

    1997

  26. [34]

    Hillier, D. J. & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 252 Hoflich, P. 1991, A&A, 246, 481 Jeffery, D. J. 1991, ApJ, 375, 264

    2012

  27. [35]

    2012, A&A, 546, A28

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

    2012

  28. [36]

    J., Fraser, M., et al

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

    2014

  29. [37]

    A., Kochanek, C

    Johnson, S. A., Kochanek, C. S., & Adams, S. M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1696

    2018

  30. [38]

    2013, ArXiv:1301.6766 [[arXiv]1301.6766]

    Katz, B., Kushnir, D., & Dong, S. 2013, ArXiv:1301.6766 [[arXiv]1301.6766]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kilpatrick, C. D. & Foley, R. J. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2536 Le Bertre, T., Matthews, L. D., Gérard, E., & Libert, Y . 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3433

    2018

  32. [40]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V ., Barth, A. J., & Matheson, T. 2000, ApJ, 536, 239

    2000

  33. [41]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V ., Ganeshalingam, M., et al. 2006, Nature, 440, 505

    2006

  34. [42]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Leonard, D. C., Filippenko, A. V ., Gates, E. L., et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 35

    2002

  35. [43]

    Leonard, P. b. D. C., Pignata, G., Dessart, L., et al. 2013, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 5275, 1

    2013

  36. [44]

    J., & Dessart, L

    Li, C., Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1671

    2012

  37. [45]

    R., Huber, D., et al

    Li, T., Bedding, T. R., Huber, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 981

    2018

  38. [46]

    M., Dessart, L., Hillier, D

    Lisakov, S. M., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E. 2017, MN- RAS, 466, 34

    2017

  39. [47]

    M., Dessart, L., Hillier, D

    Lisakov, S. M., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E. 2018, MN- RAS, 473, 3863

    2018

  40. [48]

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

    1985

  41. [49]

    V ., et al

    Mackey, J., Mohamed, S., Gvaramadze, V . V ., et al. 2014, Nature, 512, 282

    2014

  42. [50]

    C., Van Dyk, S

    Mauerhan, J. C., Van Dyk, S. D., Johansson, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 118

    2017

  43. [51]

    2015, A&A, 575, A60

    Meynet, G., Chomienne, V ., Ekström, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A60

    2015

  44. [52]

    2007, MNRAS, 381, 280

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

    2007

  45. [53]

    J., Pruzhinskaya, M

    Moriya, T. J., Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., Ergon, M., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 423

    2016

  46. [54]

    J., Yoon, S.-C., Gräfener, G., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Yoon, S.-C., Gräfener, G., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2017, MNRAS, 469, L108

    2017

  47. [55]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V ., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 63

    2015

  48. [56]

    L., & Valenti, S

    Morozova, V ., Piro, A. L., & Valenti, S. 2017, ApJ, 838, 28

    2017

  49. [57]

    L., & Valenti, S

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

    2018

  50. [58]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 127 O’Gorman, E., Kervella, P., Harper, G

    Nakar, E., Poznanski, D., & Katz, B. 2016, ApJ, 823, 127 O’Gorman, E., Kervella, P., Harper, G. M., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, L10

    2016

  51. [59]

    2017, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Ohnaka, K. 2017, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 329, The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars, ed. J. J. Eldridge, J. C. Bray, L. A. S. McClelland, & L. Xiao, 97–103

    2017

  52. [60]

    1980, MNRAS, 192, 861

    Panagia, N., Vettolani, G., Boksenberg, A., et al. 1980, MNRAS, 192, 861

    1980

  53. [61]

    2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266

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

    2009

  54. [62]

    2004, MNRAS, 347, 74

    Pastorello, A., Zampieri, L., Turatto, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 74

    2004

  55. [63]

    1994, A&A, 282, 731

    Patat, F., Barbon, R., Cappellaro, E., & Turatto, M. 1994, A&A, 282, 731

    1994

  56. [64]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

    2011

  57. [65]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

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

    2013

  58. [66]

    B., et al

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

    2018

  59. [67]

    Pooley, D., Lewin, W. H. G., Fox, D. W., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 932

    2002

  60. [68]

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

    1993

  61. [69]

    K., Anupama, G

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

    2006

  62. [70]

    C., et al

    Sako, M., Bassett, B., Becker, A. C., et al. 2014, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/333

    2014

  63. [71]

    E., Soderberg, A

    Sanders, N. E., Soderberg, A. M., Gezari, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 208

    2015

  64. [72]

    Shapiro, P. R. & Sutherland, P. G. 1982, ApJ, 263, 902

    1982

  65. [73]

    C., Cenko, S

    Smith, N., Mauerhan, J. C., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1876

    2015

  66. [74]

    L., et al

    Spiro, S., Pastorello, A., Pumo, M. L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2873

    2014

  67. [75]

    E., Brown, J

    Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Brown, J. M., & Janka, H.-T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38

    2016

  68. [76]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 137

    Terreran, G., Jerkstrand, A., Benetti, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 137

    2016

  69. [77]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 69

    Ugliano, M., Janka, H.-T., Marek, A., & Arcones, A. 2012, ApJ, 757, 69

    2012

  70. [78]

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

    2007

  71. [79]

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

    2009

  72. [80]

    Utrobin, V . P. & Chugai, N. N. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 5004

    2017

  73. [81]

    P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & Müller, E

    Utrobin, V . P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & Müller, E. 2017, ApJ, 846, 37 Van Dyk, S. D., Cenko, S. B., Poznanski, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 131

    2017

  74. [82]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. 2007, Phys. Rep., 442, 269

    2007

  75. [83]

    & Gal-Yam, A

    Yaron, O. & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668

    2012

  76. [84]

    A., Gal-Yam, A., et al

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

    2017

  77. [85]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 10

    Yoon, S.-C., Dessart, L., & Clocchiatti, A. 2017, ApJ, 840, 10

    2017

  78. [86]

    E., & Langer, N

    Yoon, S.-C., Woosley, S. E., & Langer, N. 2010, ApJ, 725, 940

    2010

  79. [87]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 2003

    Yuan, F., Jerkstrand, A., Valenti, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2003

    2016

  80. [88]

    initially

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 639 Article number, page 18 of 20 D. John Hillier and Luc Dessart: Type II SN diversity Appendix A: Energy conservation For a homologous flow we have the global comoving-frame en- ergy constraint r2 maxH(rmax) = r2H(r) + ∫ ...

    2013

Pith tools

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