An optimized radio follow-up strategy for stripped-envelope core-collapse supernovae

Alessandra Corsi; Dario Carbone

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

An optimized radio follow-up strategy for stripped-envelope core-collapse supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Five radio observations, timed 2, 8, 18, and 30 days after the first detection, identify about 97% of nearby detectable relativistic supernovae.

desk verdict A practical, clearly-written extension of the Carbone & Corsi optimization framework to stripped-envelope SNe, with real new data (iPTF17cw upper limit) but classification efficiencies that are probably optimistic because they are in-sample retrieval rates. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06190 v1 pith:CZHZCYWE submitted 2019-08-16 astro-ph.HE

Dario Carbone , Alessandra Corsi This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords stripped-envelopesupernovaecore-collapseradiofollow-uprelativisticcircumstellarmediumoff-axisgamma-rayburstsVeryLargeArrayMonteCarlooptimization

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 core-collapse supernovae include some of the rarest explosions known: those that launch relativistic jets, those seen slightly off the jet axis, and those that shock a dense shell of circumstellar gas. Radio emission tracks the fastest ejecta, but each type has a different radio rise-and-fall, so the paper asks how few radio observations can tell them apart. Simulating ten thousand light curves per template with VLA-like sensitivity, it finds that five observations placed about 2, 8, 18, and 30 days after the first radio detection uniquely and correctly identify 97% of detectable relativistic supernovae at $z=0.01$, and that CSM-interacting SNe need only three epochs. The value of the result is practical: it converts limited telescope time into reliable classification of events that optical surveys will soon find in large numbers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the template bank and the Monte Carlo classifier built around it: four observed relativistic SNe, two observed CSM-interacting SNe, and BOXFIT model light curves for off-axis long GRBs. For each simulated target the classifier matches noisy synthetic observations against this bank, counts a source as identified only when exactly one template fits all epochs within $3\sigma$ and that template is the true one, then greedily picks the next observation delay (in two-day steps, up to ten epochs) that maximizes the number of such unique and correct associations. The early-time behavior of two templates is extrapolated from other SNe to test how much the recommended cadence depends on the rising part of the light curve.

What would settle it

Apply the proposed cadence to a radio-detected stripped-envelope supernova of spectroscopically known subtype and compare the classification: a single event whose observed flux pattern is uniquely matched to the wrong template, or that is not detected at an epoch where its template predicts a clear detection, would show the 97% figure does not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fixed, small number of radio epochs is enough to classify the explosion type of radio-emitting stripped-envelope SNe, provided the first observation is early and the cadence is chosen by simulation rather than by habit. With the sensitivity of a two-hour VLA observation, five epochs at delays of 2, 8, 18, and 30 days after the first detection identify $97\%$ of the detectable relativistic (engine-driven) targets at $z=0.01$, while avoiding confusion with CSM-interacting supernovae and off-axis GRBs; at $z=0.1$ the same strategy identifies $78\%$ of detectable targets. For CSM-interacting SNe, a low-urgency first observation plus delays of about 6 and 90 days classifies all detectable simulated sources. For off-axis GRBs, five epochs with a high-urgency start give $99\%$ efficiency at $z=0.01$ for detectable sources. The paper also reports a new VLA upper limit on the late-time radio emission of iPTF 17cw and projects X-ray detectability under a synchrotron radio-to-X-ray extrapolation.

Load-bearing premise

All efficiencies rest on the template light curves being representative of the true stripped-envelope supernova population; where early-time data are missing, early rises are borrowed from other SNe, so a real event that rises or fades outside the template range could break the optimized cadence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A relativistic supernova needs its first radio observation within roughly 1 hour to 2 days of optical discovery; waiting a week or more lowers the identifiable fraction noticeably.
The five-epoch campaign for relativistic SNe at $z=0.01$ costs about ten hours of VLA time per target, so a season of follow-up can cover a sizable sample rather than one or two objects.
For CSM-interacting SNe the cadence is much slower: a first observation followed by delays near 6 and 90 days identifies every detectable simulated source, so these events do not force an urgent telescope response.
Off-axis GRB afterglows with isotropic energy above $10^{51}$ erg are detected and uniquely identified near 100% of the time at $z=0.01$, while low-energy models below $10^{49}$ erg are mostly undetectable.
If the radio-to-X-ray spectral index is about 0.7, Chandra-class 20 ks exposures should see the X-ray counterparts of nearby ($z=0.01$) relativistic and CSM-interacting SNe for hundreds of days.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: The same optimization machinery could be re-run for a next-generation array with roughly ten times the VLA sensitivity; the paper notes such an instrument would reach about three times farther and increase detections by a factor of order thirty, but it does not simulate its optimal cadence.
Inference: Because the recommended epochs are derived from a small set of bright historical events, the 2-8-18-30-day pattern should be read as a starting point rather than a law; the paper's own early-time extrapolation exercise shows how much the cadence moves when the rising part of the light curve is filled in.
Inference: Joint radio-X-ray scheduling is a natural extension of the paper's approach; a single campaign that picks radio epochs while also predicting X-ray visibility could break the degeneracy between environment density and the fraction of shock energy in magnetic fields.

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

Quick take: this is a legitimate, useful extension of the authors' own earlier optimization work, and the optimized epoch tables are the kind of thing a PI planning VLA time would actually want. The headline 97% association rate should be read as an upper bound, not a measured field performance, because the simulated targets are drawn from the same template bank the classifier matches against. The paper is transparent about some of this but not all of it.

What's new: application of the Carbone & Corsi method to stripped-envelope SNe; a genuinely new radio upper limit for iPTF17cw (late-time 3σ limits of 10 µJy at 5 GHz, 15 µJy at 3 GHz) that is consistent with the 1998bw-like decay; optimized cadence tables for three target classes; and X-ray detectability calculations that give some useful distance horizons. The Monte Carlo is straightforward and large (10,000 realizations per target), and the authors explicitly test high/medium/low urgency strategies. The early-time extrapolation section (4.1.1) is a nice touch—it addresses a real gap and shows the importance of early observations.

Soft spots, in proportion: The main one is the in-sample nature of the efficiency numbers. The simulated observations are generated by adding noise to the same templates that form the association bank, so 'unique and correct association' is a retrieval test, not a generalization test. With only four relativistic templates, two CSM templates, and a grid of off-axis GRB models, the bank covers a tiny slice of the real stripped-envelope population. The authors acknowledge the CSM sample limitation but don't note this same concern for the relativistic SNe headline. A leave-one-out test—train on three templates, test on the fourth—would tell you how much the cadence depends on the exact shapes, and it's cheap to run. Also, the early-time treatment before the first detection is either non-detection or an extrapolation borrowed from a similar SN; both are reasonable, but they bracket rather than eliminate the uncertainty. The X-ray section is more of a rough estimate; the constant spectral index assumption is fine for a horizon estimate, but I wouldn't put much weight on the absolute numbers.

The citation pattern looks honest; this is a clear incremental step in their own program, not a repackaging. No invented entities, no load-bearing math errors that I could see.

Who it's for: people planning radio follow-up of rare stripped-envelope SNe in the ZTF/LSST era. It deserves serious peer review, but I'd push for the leave-one-out test or at least a sentence in the abstract that the efficiencies are relative to the template bank. Recommend: send to review, conditional on that.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Monte Carlo simulation framework to optimize radio follow-up observations of stripped-envelope core-collapse SNe with the VLA. The authors simulate light curves from template radio observations of known relativistic SNe (SN 1998bw, SN 2006aj, SN 2009bb, iPTF17cw), CSM-interacting SNe (PTF11qcj, SN2007bg), and BOXFIT models of off-axis GRBs, then determine the minimum number and timing of radio epochs that maximize the fraction of unique and correct associations between an observed target and its generating template. For relativistic SNe at z=0.01, they report that five observations at approximately 2, 8, 18, and 30 days after the first radio observation yield 97% efficiency. They also present a new late-time VLA upper limit on iPTF17cw and estimate X-ray detectability of the same sources. The paper includes a discussion of the importance of early-time observations and of the limited CSM-interacting sample.

Significance. If the reported efficiencies were robust, the proposed cadence would be a practical guideline for upcoming transient surveys (ZTF, LSST) and for VLA/ngVLA follow-up, using only 5 epochs. The simulation strategy is transparent, uses large Monte Carlo sets (10,000 realizations), and the authors explicitly test the effect of early-time extrapolations. The new upper limit on iPTF17cw is a modest but useful observational contribution. However, the central quantitative claims are currently based on in-sample template retrieval, which means the headline efficiencies are likely upper bounds. With a leave-one-out validation or appropriately softened claims, the paper would offer a useful planning tool, but in its present form the significance of the specific numbers is unclear.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3, Table 2] The definition of a 'correct' association is that the unique matching template is 'the same template/model from which the observations were simulated' (Section 3.3). Since the simulated light curves are generated from the same templates that form the classification bank, every simulated event is, by construction, a member of the bank. The reported efficiencies (Table 2, e.g., 97% at z=0.01) are therefore retrieval rates from a closed set of known templates, not classification rates for real events. A real stripped-envelope SN with a light curve that is not well represented by one of the four relativistic templates (or two CSM templates) could be uniquely matched to a wrong template, and such failures are absent from the simulation. I recommend either (a) a leave-one-out test in which each template is excluded from the bank and then used to generate simulated targets, or (b) an explicit statement that the quoted efficiencies are conditional on the template bank being representative of the true population, and should be regarded as upper bounds. This point is load-bearing because the paper's abstract and conclusions present these efficiencies as the basis for the proposed follow-up cadence.
[Section 3.1, Table 1] The relativistic SN template bank comprises only SN 1998bw, SN 2006aj, SN 2009bb, and iPTF17cw. These are extreme events: two are very bright nearby explosions, one is very faint and rapidly fading, and one is at higher redshift with sparse early-time sampling. The simulation assumes linear interpolation/extrapolation of fluxes (Section 3.1), including extrapolation of early-time behavior from other SNe in Section 4.1.1, but there is no test of how the optimized epochs perform for light curves with, e.g., intermediate peak luminosities, different rise times, or different spectral indices. The CSM-interacting class is even more limited (only PTF11qcj and SN2007bg; the authors acknowledge this in Section 4.2). Because the proposed cadence (Table 2) is selected to maximize discrimination among these specific templates, it may not generalize to the broader stripped-envelope SN population. I would like to see a sensitivity study with perturbed template shapes (e.g., varying peak luminosity, rise time, decay rate) to demonstrate that the optimized cadence is not tailored to the individual events.
[Section 3.3] The epoch-selection procedure optimizes the delays M2, M3, ... by maximizing the number of unique and correct associations computed on the same Monte Carlo realizations that are later used to evaluate the strategy. There is no separation between the data used to choose the epochs and the data used to measure the efficiency; thus the reported percentages are in-sample and expected to be optimistically biased. A cross-validation approach, in which the 10000 realizations are split into a training set for epoch selection and a test set for evaluation, would quantify the degree of optimism. Without this, the reader cannot tell how much of the 97% is a genuine property of the cadence and how much is overfitting to the particular realizations and templates.

minor comments (6)

[Table 1] There is a typo in the reference line for SN 2009bb: 'Strauss et al. (1992) anf Soderberg et al. (2010)' should read 'and'.
[Figure 2] The caption contains the typo 'campiagn'; it should be 'campaign'.
[Sections 2 and 4] The source is referred to inconsistently as both 'iPTF17cw' and 'PTF 2017cw'; the standard naming 'iPTF 17cw' should be used throughout.
[Section 3.3] The notation for time delays is not fully consistent: the text defines 'Delta Tn = tn - tradio,0 = Mn x 2 d' but later uses 'Delta t2 = M2 x 2 d' and 'Delta t3'; harmonize the notation for readability.
[Section 5, Eq. (1)] The spectral index convention F_nu proportional to nu^{-beta} is stated earlier for SN 2006aj but not near Eq. (1); it should be explicitly restated when the radio-to-X-ray spectral index is introduced.
[Sections 4.1-4.3] The efficiencies are computed after excluding non-detectable targets, which is a reasonable choice; however, it would also be informative to report the absolute fraction of all simulated targets that are correctly associated (including non-detections), since in a real follow-up one does not know detectability a priori.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

In-sample template retrieval: the reported 97% efficiency is the objective used to choose the optimized epochs, not an out-of-sample prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 (Monte Carlo optimization); Table 2 in Section 4.1]
"Thus, we optimize the value of M2 by maximizing the number of associations that in epoch two become unique (only one model/template fits the observed target in both epochs) and correct (the model/template that fits the observations uniquely is also the correct one, i.e. it is the same template/model from which the observations were simulated)."

Correctness is defined, by construction, as recovering the exact template that generated the simulated light curve. The same 10,000 simulated realizations are used both to fit the epoch delays (maximizing the number of unique+correct associations) and to compute the efficiency reported in Table 2. The 97% figure is therefore the in-sample training objective, not a held-out accuracy: it quantifies how well the chosen cadence separates the four specific relativistic SN templates from the contaminants under the assumed noise, and any real stripped-envelope SN not represented by these templates is outside the evaluation. The cadence recommendation may still be useful, but the headline efficiency is inflated by construction and should be read as an upper bound.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a Monte Carlo optimization: it generates simulated light curves from template radio light curves, chooses follow-up epochs to maximize unique+correct associations, and reports the resulting efficiency. The one significant circular step is that the efficiency is evaluated on the same simulated data used to fit the epochs, with 'correct' defined as identity with the generating template. This makes the 97% (z=0.01) and related efficiencies in-sample retrieval scores rather than out-of-sample predictions. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem occurs: Carbone & Corsi (2018) is cited only as the methodological predecessor and the method is fully restated; the iPTF17cw data are observational. The physical timing conclusions (early radio observations for relativistic SNe, later for CSM-interacting SNe) are independently motivated by the shapes of the observed light curves and remain plausible, so the circularity is partial, not total. The paper is transparent about its small template sample, but the headline association rates should be labeled as training-set accuracy or validated with a held-out set of light-curve shapes.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The optimization depends on a small set of empirical templates and standard model parameters, all adopted from prior literature or chosen by hand; no new physical entities are introduced. The central free choices are the BOXFIT inputs, the assumed VLA sensitivity, and the discrete time grid.

free parameters (7)

Eiso of off-axis GRB models = 1e48 to 1e54 erg
Input grid to BOXFIT, spanning low-luminosity and cosmological long GRBs (Section 3.1).
Viewing angle theta_v = 24 deg and 45 deg
Two values chosen to explore viewing angle effects; directly shapes off-axis light curves (Section 3.1).
Afterglow microphysics (eps_B, eps_E, p, theta_j, n_ISM) = 1e-2, 1e-1, 2.5, 12 deg, 1 cm^-3
Standard values adopted from literature without fitting; control the off-axis GRB light curves (Section 3.1).
VLA observation RMS sigma_obs = 5 uJy at 5 GHz
Assumed sensitivity for a 2 hr observation; sets the detection threshold (Section 3.2).
Detection threshold = 3 sigma = 15 uJy
Standard 3-sigma threshold for radio source detection (Section 3.2).
Epoch grid step = 2 days
Observation delays are integer multiples of 2 days, which constrains the reported optimal epochs (Section 3.3).
Maximum number of epochs = 10
Assumed reasonable for one semester of VLA time (Section 3).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption BOXFIT v2 standard fireball afterglow model describes off-axis GRB radio emission.
Off-axis GRB templates are generated with BOXFIT; incorrect model would change the optimized schedules (Section 3.1).
ad hoc to paper The six observed SN light curves are representative of the stripped-envelope SN population.
Only four relativistic and two CSM-interacting templates are used; the paper itself notes limited CSM sample (Section 4.2).
domain assumption The set of contaminants (relativistic SNe, CSM-interacting SNe, off-axis GRBs) is complete.
If other radio-loud SN types exist, unique identification rates would be lower (Section 3.3).
ad hoc to paper Linear interpolation and extrapolation of template fluxes is valid at simulated epochs.
Stated in Section 3.1; the authors acknowledge possible major errors from extrapolation.
domain assumption The radio-to-X-ray spectrum is a single power law with beta 0.7-1 (Eq. 1).
Used for X-ray detectability; the paper notes evidence for spectral flattening in some SNe (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An optimized radio follow-up strategy for stripped-envelope core-collapse supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZHZCYWE

@misc{pith2026190806190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An optimized radio follow-up strategy for stripped-envelope core-collapse supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZHZCYWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06190}
}

read the original abstract

Several on-going or planned synoptic optical surveys are offering or will soon be offering an unprecedented opportunity for discovering larger samples of the rarest types of stripped-envelope core-collapse supernovae (SNe), such as those associated with relativistic jets, mildly-relativistic ejecta, or strong interaction with the circumstellar medium (CSM). Observations at radio wavelengths are a useful tool to probe the fastest moving ejecta, as well as denser circumstellar environments, and can thus help us identify the rarest type of core-collapse explosions. Here, we discuss how to set up an efficient radio follow-up program to detect and correctly identify radio-emitting stripped-envelope core-collapse explosions. We use a method similar to the one described in \citealt{Carbone2018}, and determine the optimal timing of GHz radio observations assuming a sensitivity comparable to that of the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array. The optimization is done so as to ensure that the collected radio observations can identify the type of explosion powering the radio counterpart by using the smallest possible amount of telescope time. We also present a previously unpublished upper-limit on the late-time radio emission from supernova iPTF17cw. Finally, we conclude by discussing implications for follow-up in the X-rays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06190 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** — Template and model 5 GHz light curves of relativistic SNe (red), CSM-interacting SNe (light blue), and off-axis GRBs (grey). All light curves are scaled to z = 0.01. The red star represents the upper limit derived from the new VLA observation of iPTF17cw presented in Section 2. TABLE 1 Summary of light curve templates and models used in this work. Data reported here are taken from: Foley et al. (2006) and Kulkarni… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** — Fraction of targets that are uniquely and correctly associated as a function of the total delay between the SN explosion and the first radio observation for sources with z = 0.01 − 0.1. TABLE 4 Summary of our results for CSM-interacting SNe. The efficiency quoted here is the average among all CSM-interacting SNe listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

K., Ag¨ ueros, M

Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al . 2006, ApJS, 162, 38

work page 2006
[2]

2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

2006
[3]

2002, A&A, 390, 81

Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81

2002
[4]

Bellm, E. C. 2016, PASP, 128, 084501

2016
[5]

Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A. J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3161

work page 2017
[6]

R., Frail, D

Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., & Soderberg, A. M. 2003, ApJ, 599, 408

work page 2003
[7]

2011, ApJ, 739, L55

Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2011, ApJ, 739, L55

work page 2011
[8]

N., Hill, J

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

2005

Show all 51 references

[9]

J., et al

Campana, S., Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature , 442, 1008

2006
[10]

2018, ApJ, 867, 135

Carbone, D., & Corsi, A. 2018, ApJ, 867, 135

2018
[11]

Chandra, P., & Frail, D. A. 2012, ApJ, 746, 156

2012
[12]

A., & Fransson, C

Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2006, ApJ, 651, 381

2006
[13]

O., Frail, D

Corsi, A., Ofek, E. O., Frail, D. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 76

2011
[14]

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

Corsi, A., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 42

2014
[15]

R., et al

Corsi, A., Gal-Yam, A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830 , 42

2016
[16]

B., Kasliwal, M

Corsi, A., Cenko, S. B., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847 , 54

2017
[17]

1999, ApJ, 521, L117

Eichler, D., & Levinson, A. 1999, ApJ, 521, L117

1999
[18]

C., Berezhko, E

Ellison, D. C., Berezhko, E. G., & Baring, M. G. 2000, ApJ, 540 , 292

2000
[19]

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

1997
[20]

2006, A&A, 447, 8 91

Foley, S., W atson, D., Gorosabel, J., et al. 2006, A&A, 447, 8 91

2006
[21]

A., Kulkarni, S

Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L55

2001
[22]

2017, Observational and Physical Classiﬁcatio n of Supernovae, 195

Gal-Yam, A. 2017, Observational and Physical Classiﬁcatio n of Supernovae, 195

2017
[23]

J., Vreeswijk, P

Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998 , Nature, 395, 670

1998
[24]

2004, ApJ, 61 1, 1005

Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 61 1, 1005

2004
[25]

2005, MNRAS, 36 1, L10

Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Firmani, C. 2005, MNRAS, 36 1, L10

2005
[26]

2004, ApJ, 616, 331

Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Lazzati, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 331

2004
[27]

J., Kulkarni, S

Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP , 131, 078001

2019
[28]

Granot, J., & van der Horst, A. J. 2014, PASA, 31, e008

2014
[29]

Ho, A. Y. Q., Goldstein, D. A., Schulze, S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.11009

2019 arXiv
[30]

Kellermann, K. I. 1964, ApJ, 140, 969

1964
[31]

R., Frail, D

Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., Wieringa, M. H., et al. 1998, Na ture, 395, 663

1998
[32]

M., Kulkarni, S

Law, N. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Dekany, R. G., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1395 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al . 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201

2009 arXiv
[33]

D., Chornock, R., et al

Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., Chornock, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 18

2019
[34]

2014, MNRAS, 443, 67

Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 67

2014
[35]

P., W aters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap , K

McMullin, J. P., W aters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference

2007
[36]

J., Bolatto, A., Chatterjee, S., et al

Murphy, E. J., Bolatto, A., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy, 3

2018
[37]

2012, MNRAS, 421, 1256

Nava, L., Salvaterra, R., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1256

2012
[38]

T., Corsi, A., Frail, D

Palliyaguru, N. T., Corsi, A., Frail, D. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 201

2019
[39]

A., Cenko, S

Perley, D. A., Cenko, S. B., Corsi, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 3 7

2014
[40]

1998, ApJ, 509, L85

Perna, R., & Loeb, A. 1998, ApJ, 509, L85

1998
[41]

2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

Piran, T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

2004
[42]

J., Maguire, K., Smartt, S

Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, L3

2018
[43]

Rhoads, J. E. 1997, ApJ, 487, L1

1997
[44]

E., Stockdale, C., & Prieto, J

Salas, P., Bauer, F. E., Stockdale, C., & Prieto, J. L. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1207

2013
[45]

2017, PASP, 129, 054201

Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201

2017
[46]

M., Dekany, R

Smith, R. M., Dekany, R. G., Bebek, C., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, 914779 Optimized radio follow-up strategy for rare Ib/c SNe 9

2014
[47]

M., Chakraborti, S., Pignata, G., et al

Soderberg, A. M., Chakraborti, S., Pignata, G., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 513

2010
[48]

O., Fynbo, J

Sollerman, J., Jaunsen, A. O., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2006, A& A, 454, 503

2006
[49]

A., Huchra, J

Strauss, M. A., Huchra, J. P., Davis, M., et al. 1992, ApJS, 83 , 29 van Eerten, H., van der Horst, A., & MacFadyen, A. 2012, ApJ, 749, 44

1992
[50]

2017, X-Ray Emission Properties of Supernova Remnants, ed

Vink, J. 2017, X-Ray Emission Properties of Supernova Remnants, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 2063 W axman, E. 2004, ApJ, 602, 886 W oosley, S. E., & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 507

2017
[51]

2003, ApJ, 594, L7 9

Yamazaki, R., Yonetoku, D., & Nakamura, T. 2003, ApJ, 594, L7 9

2003

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

K., Ag¨ ueros, M

Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al . 2006, ApJS, 162, 38

work page 2006

[2] [2]

2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

2006

[3] [3]

2002, A&A, 390, 81

Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81

2002

[4] [4]

Bellm, E. C. 2016, PASP, 128, 084501

2016

[5] [5]

Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A. J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3161

work page 2017

[6] [6]

R., Frail, D

Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., & Soderberg, A. M. 2003, ApJ, 599, 408

work page 2003

[7] [7]

2011, ApJ, 739, L55

Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2011, ApJ, 739, L55

work page 2011

[8] [8]

N., Hill, J

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

2005