Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Insights into the Properties of Type Ibn/Icn Supernovae and Their Progenitor Channels through X-ray Emission

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that soft and hard X-ray light curves of Type Ibn/Icn supernovae carry separate information—composition versus density and ejecta properties—and uses that split to infer different envelope-stripping depths for SN 2006jc…

desk verdict Useful first systematic X-ray LC library for SNe Ibn/Icn; the hard/soft diagnostic split is solid, but the derived abundances are conditional on density assumptions and the photoionization section has an unresolved internal inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09066 v1 pith:KYN2XJZX submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Yusuke Inoue , Keiichi Maeda This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords TypeIbnsupernovaeIcncircumstellarmediumX-raylightcurvessupernova-CSMinteractionphotoionizationenvelopestrippingmassivestarmassloss
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 Ibn and Icn supernovae explode inside dense, hydrogen-poor shells shed by massive stars in their final years, and that shell material shapes everything we see. This paper builds a model of the X-rays produced when the supernova ejecta slam into the shell, and argues that the soft X-ray light curve is a fingerprint of the shell's chemical composition while the hard X-ray light curve measures the shell density and the explosion properties. On that basis, it reads the soft X-ray data of two Ibn supernovae as evidence that SN 2006jc's shell is carbon- and oxygen-enriched, while SN 2022ablq's shell is nearly pure helium, suggesting different amounts of envelope stripped before explosion. It also predicts a bright, possibly double-peaked soft X-ray phase in the first few days, powered by photoionization of the unshocked shell, making prompt X-ray follow-up a promising observational strategy.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics model of the supernova-CSM interaction, driven by the SNEC hydrodynamics code, with a post-processing step that follows electron and ion temperatures separately, including electron-ion coupling, adiabatic cooling, and radiative losses. From that, the model computes free-free emission behind the forward shock, Compton scattering in the shocked region, and photoelectric absorption in the unshocked CSM, using a power-law density profile $\rho_{\rm CSM} = 10^{-14}D'(r/5\times10^{14}\,{\rm cm})^{-s}\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}$ and a (He, C, O) mass-fraction composition. The key identity is that the observed soft X-ray light curve is the free-free luminosity attenuated by $\exp(-\tau(E_{\rm ph}))$, where $\tau$ is set by the column density of heavy elements, while the hard-X-ray light curve is nearly absorption-free. The photoionization analysis introduces the ionization parameter $\xi = L_{X,\rm soft}/(n_e r^2)$; when $\xi \gtrsim 100$ the carbon and oxygen K-shell electrons are stripped, photoelectric absorption temporarily switches off, and the light curve can show an early bright phase followed by a dip and re-rise as the shell recombines.

What would settle it

Point a soft-X-ray telescope at the next nearby Type Ibn/Icn within the first few days and a hard-X-ray telescope in the same window. The photoionization prediction fails if no bright early soft X-ray component and no dip-and-rerise structure is seen despite a detected hard X-ray that anchors the density. The density-anchoring claim fails if the measured hard X-ray peak time and luminosity require a density scale that differs from the optical-model value by more than the model's stated uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a practical diagnostic split. Because photoelectric absorption by the unshocked circumstellar medium is strong for soft X-rays and scales steeply with atomic number, the shape of the soft (0.2-10 keV) light curve is set by how much helium, carbon, and oxygen are in the shell; heavier elements absorb earlier and more. Hard X-rays (10-40 keV) are almost unaffected by that absorption, so their rise and decay trace only the total column density, the explosion energy, and the ejecta mass. This lets a single broad-band observation break the density-composition degeneracy that limits optical light-curve modeling. Applying the model, the paper finds that SN 2006jc's soft X-ray rise prefers a helium-poor, carbon-oxygen-rich shell, while SN 2022ablq's is consistent with a helium envelope, implying that even within the Ibn class the pre-explosion mass loss can strip to different depths. The paper also argues that in the first few days the X-ray flux ionizes the unshocked shell, opening a Compton-thin window and producing a bright early soft X-ray phase that may appear as a double-peaked light curve.

Load-bearing premise

The inferred shell compositions for SN 2006jc and SN 2022ablq are conditional on the circumstellar density profile taken from prior optical light-curve modeling; if that density is wrong, the compositions and the claimed stripping-depth difference are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Broad-band X-ray monitoring of SNe Ibn/Icn can break the degeneracy between CSM density and CSM composition that limits optical light-curve modeling.
  • If the inferred compositions are right, SN 2006jc and SN 2022ablq bracket a diversity in envelope stripping: the 2006jc progenitor lost almost its entire helium layer, while the 2022ablq progenitor kept most of it.
  • A prompt soft X-ray observation within a few days of explosion should catch a bright photoionized phase, possibly a double-peaked light curve, that would not be seen if the unshocked CSM were simply neutral.
  • NuSTAR-class hard X-ray observations of a nearby SN Ibn/Icn should detect it if started within days, and would provide the density anchor needed to make the soft-X-ray composition measurement reliable.
  • The existing soft X-ray nondetection of SN 2019hgp is consistent with any of the considered shell compositions, so current data cannot yet constrain its stripping depth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the composition split is real, spectroscopic classes like Ibn may not map one-to-one onto a single stripping depth; the same narrow helium lines could hide a range of envelope remnant masses, complicating progenitor identification from optical spectra alone.
  • The early photoionized bright phase could be confused with other early components such as shock breakout or radioactive heating, so multi-band time series or spectral color information will be needed to identify it unambiguously.
  • A natural extension of the paper's method is to fit the full soft-X-ray spectrum, not just the light curve: line emission or absorption edges of carbon and oxygen in the 0.3-1 keV range could directly fingerprint the shell composition and test the (He, C, O) ratios inferred from the light-curve shape.
  • The same hard-X-ray-as-density-anchor strategy should transfer to other interacting stripped-envelope transients, including SNe Icn and possibly SNe IIn, where photoelectric absorption in soft X-rays is similarly composition-sensitive.
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 develops a one-dimensional SN-CSM interaction model for Type Ibn/Icn supernovae, using SNEC adiabatic hydrodynamics plus a post-process two-temperature (electron/ion) thermal evolution with free-free and line cooling, and then computes broad-band X-ray light curves (0.2-10 keV and 10-40 keV) including Compton and photoelectric absorption. It argues that soft X-rays trace CSM composition through photoelectric absorption in the unshocked CSM, while hard X-rays robustly measure CSM density, ejecta mass, and explosion energy. The model is applied to SN 2006jc, SN 2019hgp, and SN 2022ablq, leading to the claim of different CSM compositions (He,C,O) = (0.4,0.3,0.3) for 2006jc and (0.95,0.025,0.025) for 2022ablq, implying different stripping depths. The paper also predicts a bright early soft-X-ray phase and possible double-peaked light curves due to photoionization and recombination in the unshocked CSM, and discusses NuSTAR/Swift detection strategies.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable step: it provides the first systematic broad-band X-ray light-curve predictions for SNe Ibn/Icn from a physically coherent forward model, and it offers a concrete, falsifiable route to separate CSM density from composition using X-ray data. The model's structure is largely transparent, and Appendix A's estimate that neglected radiation feedback changes the unabsorbed luminosity by at most a factor of 1.6 is a useful quantitative check. The predicted bright soft-X-ray phase in the first few days and the double-peaked light-curve morphology are genuinely testable with Swift and NuSTAR, giving the paper practical value for observational target selection. The application to SN 2006jc and SN 2022ablq is suggestive, but the inferred composition difference is not yet established because it rests on sparse data and on assumed CSM density profiles from optical modeling; the paper's own hedges correctly identify this conditionality.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1-4.3, Appendix B, Figs. 16-17] The composition determinations for SN 2006jc and SN 2022ablq are made by visual comparison of synthetic light curves to two or three X-ray data points that are plotted without error bars, and the text reports best values such as (He,C,O)=(0.4,0.3,0.3) and (0.95,0.025,0.025) with no quantitative goodness-of-fit or uncertainty estimate. Appendix B says the 40% helium model is "plausible" and the 95% helium model is "plausible," but the grid spacings (0.2-0.6 in steps of 0.1 for 2006jc; 0.85/0.95/0.98 for 2022ablq) do not justify the quoted precision, and the absence of error bars means the discrimination among adjacent models is not demonstrated. This is load-bearing because the paper's headline conclusion of different stripping depths depends on these specific abundance values.
  2. [§5.3, Fig. 15] Figure 15 contains an unresolved note in Japanese questioning the internal consistency of the recombination timing argument, explicitly asking why the early approximate estimate leads to a more easily neutral CSM than the model that reproduces the later data and suggesting "there may be a hole in the argument." This is not a minor annotation: the paper relies on the claim that the unshocked CSM is effectively neutral during the observed epochs (Sections 4.1 and 4.3) to interpret the soft-X-ray rise as photoelectric absorption, so the reasoning behind the recombination epoch must be fully resolved and presented in a language accessible to the readership before the composition conclusions can be considered established.
  3. [Abstract and §4.1/Summary item 3] The abstract states that "the soft X-ray LC provides information about the CSM compositions" as a robust finding, but the application of this idea to real objects is explicitly conditional on the CSM density profile taken from optical LC modeling. Section 4.1 concedes that the composition result "is sensitive to the assumed CSM density" and that optical LC modeling "may involve several uncertainties and possible systematic errors," and Summary item 3 warns against over-interpretation. The paper should either temper the abstract to reflect this conditionality (e.g., "can provide information" under model assumptions) or demonstrate with a density-perturbation study how much the derived (He,C,O) fractions change for a reasonable range of D' and s. As written, the abstract overstates the established evidence for the 2006jc vs 2022ablq composition difference.
  4. [§5.1, eqs. (10)-(14)] The photoionization treatment uses the unabsorbed soft X-ray luminosity to compute the ionization parameter, ignores X-ray attenuation in the radial direction, and neglects advection in the recombination timescale of eq. (12). The paper acknowledges these approximations, but they directly affect the quantitative estimates in Figures 12-15, including the claimed recombination epochs of 3-14 days for SN 2006jc and 5-15 days for SN 2022ablq. Because the double-peaked light-curve prediction and the confirmation that the neutral-CSM assumption holds at observed epochs are based on these order-of-magnitude estimates, the quantitative aspects of the photoionization discussion should be framed more cautiously, and the authors should state which of their conclusions survive if the critical ionization parameter is taken at the edge of the adopted 100-200 range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and editorial errors: "originated" should be "originating" in the abstract; "herium" instead of "helium" in Section 1; "opacites" in Section 2.3; "dose not treat" in Section 6.2; "harx X-ray" in Section 4.2; "the the" in Section 5.3; and "straighten this conclusion" should be "strengthen this conclusion" in Section 4.3.
  2. [Figures 13-15] The figure captions contain placeholder text "Inoue&Maeda2024のポンチ絵" (Japanese for "Inoue & Maeda 2024 sketch") that should be replaced with the actual figure descriptions or removed before submission.
  3. [Section 2.3] The X-ray absorption database is referred to both as "xlaylib" and "xraylib" in the same section; the spelling should be made consistent.
  4. [Figure 9 caption] The caption reads "fully ionizedneutralfully ionized" with no spaces or separators; this should be rephrased as a proper sentence.
  5. [Section 4.2] The sentence "SNe Icn show lines from elements heavier than SNe Ibn" is unclear; it should be "from elements heavier than those seen in SNe Ibn" to avoid the implication that the lines themselves are heavier.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The object-by-object CSM compositions are grid fits to the same soft X-ray LCs, conditional on same-group optical density priors; the broad-band diagnostic framework itself remains a forward model with genuine predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Section 4.3, Appendix B, Summary item 2]
    "Thanks to the data point of SN 2006jc at ~40 days since the explosion, we find that our X-ray LC model prefers the low helium composition models ... we conclude that the 40% helium model is plausible for the CSM composition of SN 2006jc. ... we conclude that the 95% helium model is plausible for the CSM composition of SN 2022ablq."

    The (He,C,O) values are free grid parameters chosen by matching the rising and peak soft X-ray LCs of these same objects, and the same soft X-ray LCs are then cited as the basis for the claim that soft X-ray modeling reveals a compositional difference between SN 2006jc and SN 2022ablq. The composition result is therefore a fit to the data, not an independent prediction tested by the data. Furthermore, the CSM density profile (D'=4.0, s=3) that controls the soft X-ray rise is imported from optical LC modeling by Maeda & Moriya (2022) and Nagao et al.

full rationale

The paper's central framework is a forward SN-CSM interaction X-ray model with stated physical assumptions: free-free emission from the forward shock, Compton and photoelectric absorption, and an order-of-magnitude photoionization estimate for the unshocked CSM. The separation of diagnostics (hard X-rays trace density/energy/mass, soft X-rays trace composition, and an early bright/double-peaked soft phase is predicted) is a genuine model output, not a circular reduction, because the X-ray data are external and the hard-X-ray sensitivity follows from the energy dependence of the opacities rather than from any fit. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the application: the CSM compositions for SN 2006jc and SN 2022ablq are selected from a small grid to match the same soft X-ray light curves that are then said to reveal composition, and the adopted density parameters come from prior optical LC models co-authored by the present author. The paper explicitly hedges this in Section 4.1, Section 6.1, and Summary item 3, calling for hard-X-ray observations to anchor the density. Additionally, the unresolved Japanese note in Figure 15 ('why is it easier to become neutral... there may be a hole in the argument?') flags an internal inconsistency in the ionization/recombination timing argument; this is a correctness/limitation concern rather than a self-definitional circularity. Overall, the broad-band diagnostic claim and the early-phase predictions have independent content, but the demonstrated object-by-object composition difference is a fitted, density-conditional result, so the paper earns a moderate circularity score rather than a clean zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new entities. The analysis rests on ten assumptions, three of which are ad hoc to this paper (temperature-binned ionization ladder, neutral-CSM absorption baseline, unabsorbed-luminosity ionization proxy). The free parameters are dominated by the CSM density profile and composition grid inherited from or matched to optical and X-ray data; none of the key quantities are measured independently here.

free parameters (7)
  • CSM density scale D' = 0.4, 1.6, 6.4 in grid; 4.0 for SN 2006jc and SN 2022ablq; 2.3 for SN 2019hgp
    Sets CSM density normalization via rho_CSM = 1e-14 D' (r/5e14 cm)^-s. Values for individual objects are taken from prior optical LC modeling, not fitted to X-ray data.
  • CSM density power-law index s = 3 in most models; 2.9 for SN 2019hgp
    Steep power-law profile is central to LC shapes and is adopted from optical LC modeling or assumed typical for SNe Ibn.
  • Ejecta mass Mej = 2-6 Msun in grid; 6 Msun for SN 2006jc and SN 2022ablq; 3 Msun for SN 2019hgp
    Determines shock dynamics and timescales; adopted from optical LC modeling by Maeda & Moriya (2022) and Nagao et al. (2023).
  • Ejecta kinetic energy Ekin,ej = 1 B in reference grid; 0.8 B for SN 2006jc; 0.6 B for SN 2022ablq; 2.5 B for SN 2019hgp
    Sets shock velocity and luminosity scale; adopted from optical LC modeling.
  • CSM composition mass fractions (He, C, O) = Reference (0.5, 0.25, 0.25); inferred (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) for SN 2006jc and (0.95, 0.025, 0.025) for SN 2022ablq
    The composition is the target quantity of the soft X-ray analysis; it is effectively fitted by comparing a small grid of mass fractions to observed soft X-ray LCs by eye (Appendix B).
  • CSM velocity VCSM = 1000 km/s in reference; 3000 km/s for SN 2006jc; 1500 km/s for SN 2022ablq
    Taken from narrow line widths in optical spectra; affects shock kinematics and optical depth.
  • Critical ionization parameter xi for C/O K-shell ionization = 100-200
    Threshold adopted from Hatchett et al. (1976) and Kallman & McCray (1982); the range 100-200 is chosen by hand and determines when photoelectric absorption turns on in Section 5.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption SNe Ibn/Icn are powered solely by SN-CSM interaction; radioactive decay is negligible
    Stated at the start of Section 2; optical LC modeling (Maeda & Moriya 2022) supports interaction dominance, but an additional power source would alter X-ray predictions.
  • domain assumption CSM density follows a single power law rho_CSM proportional to r^-s with s approximately 3
    Assumed in Section 2.1 following Maeda & Moriya (2022); all derived LC shapes and composition inferences depend on this profile.
  • domain assumption Outer ejecta density power-law index n = 7 for a compact Wolf-Rayet-like progenitor
    Section 2.1 after Tominaga et al. (2008); affects shock dynamics and is not varied in the study.
  • domain assumption Electrons and ions reach thermal equilibrium immediately at the shock front
    Upper term of eq. 3; justified by short relaxation timescale (Chevalier & Fransson 2003), but it simplifies the two-temperature physics.
  • domain assumption Reverse-shock X-ray emission is negligible; forward-shock free-free emission dominates
    Argued in Section 2.2 through photoelectric absorption in cooled shocked ejecta and rapid RS cooling; if wrong, soft X-ray LC interpretation changes.
  • domain assumption Half of isotropically emitted X-rays go outward (factor 0.5 in eq. 8)
    Adopted following Chevalier & Fransson (2003) and Maeda & Moriya (2022); affects absolute luminosity by a factor of two.
  • ad hoc to paper Shocked-region ionization follows a temperature-binned ladder: neutral below 1e4 K, He-like until 1e7 K, fully ionized above
    Section 2.3; used for opacities and emissivities. The authors claim results are insensitive to it, but the simplified ladder is specific to this work.
  • ad hoc to paper Unshocked CSM is effectively neutral in Sections 3-4, and photoionization in Section 5 is treated with an ionization parameter using unabsorbed luminosity
    Section 5.1 states this overestimates ionization and omits attenuation; the early-bright and double-peak predictions depend on this approximation.
  • domain assumption CSM is composed of H-poor elements (He, C, O, Ne, Mg) with mass fractions guided by stellar evolution models
    Section 2.3; follows Nomoto & Hashimoto (1988) and Tominaga et al. (2008). The composition grid is restricted to a few elements.
  • standard math Coulomb logarithm ln Lambda = 30 and gaunt factor gff = 1
    Fixed approximations in eqs. 4 and 5; standard choices that introduce order-unity errors but do not affect qualitative trends.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insights into the Properties of Type Ibn/Icn Supernovae and Their Progenitor Channels through X-ray Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYN2XJZX

@misc{pith2026241209066,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insights into the Properties of Type Ibn/Icn Supernovae and Their Progenitor Channels through X-ray Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYN2XJZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09066}
}
read the original abstract

Type Ibn/Icn supernovae (SNe Ibn/Icn), which are characterized by narrow helium or carbon lines originated in hydrogen-poor dense circumstellar medium (CSM), provide new insights into the final evolution of massive stars. While SNe Ibn/Icn are expected to emit strong X-rays through the strong SN-CSM interaction, the X-ray emission modeling effort has been limited so far. In the present study, we provide broad-band X-ray light curve (LC) predictions for SNe Ibn/Icn. We find that the soft X-ray LC provides information about the CSM compositions, while the hard X-ray LC is a robust measure of the CSM density, the explosion energy, and the ejecta mass. In addition, considering the evolution of the ionization state in the unshocked CSM, a bright soft X-ray is expected in the first few days since the explosion, which encourages rapid X-ray follow-up observations as a tool to study the nature of SNe Ibn/Icn. Applying our model to the soft X-ray LCs of SNe Ibn 2006jc and 2022ablq, we derive that the CSM potentially contains a larger fraction of carbon and oxygen for SN 2006jc than 2022ablq, highlighting the power of the soft X-ray modeling to address the nature of the CSM. We also discuss detectability and observational strategy, with which the currently operating telescopes such as NuSTAR and Swift can offer an irreplaceable opportunity to explore the nature of these enigmatic rapid transients and their still-unclarified progenitor channel(s).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09066 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dependence of the synthetic hard (10-40 keV; solid) and soft (0.2-10 keV; dash-dotted) X-ray LCs on the CSM composition. Shown here are the models with X(He)=0 (red), 0.5 (blue), and 0.85 (yellow) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The SED evolution for the model with (He, C, O)=(0.5, 0.25, 0.25). The blue, orange, green, red, and violet solid lines show the SED at 2, 7, 20, 65, 200 days since the explosion, respectively. 0.25, 0.25) is taken as a reference model, while ad￾ditional models are examined with (He, C, O)=(0.85, 0.03, 0.12) (helium-envelope composition) and (He, C, O)=(0.0, 0.5, 0.5) (carbon-layer composition) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The dependence of the optical depth on the CSM composition; (a) X (He)=0.85, (b) X (He)=0.5, and (c) X (He)=0. Shown here are the optical depth of Compton scattering within the region shocked by the FS (dotted), that of photoelectric absorption within the unshocked CSM (solid), and that of photoelectric absorption within the cooled shocked ejecta (dashed) . 4. APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL OBJECTS 4.1. SN 2006jc [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dependence of the synthetic hard (10-40 keV; solid) and soft (0.2-10 keV; dash-dotted) X-ray LCs on the ejecta properties. Shown here are the models with Ekin,ej=1 B and Mej=2 M⊙ (black), 3 B and 2 M⊙ (blue), and 1 B and 6 M⊙ (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dependence of the synthetic hard (10-40 keV; solid) and soft (0.2-10 keV; dash-dotted) X-ray LCs on the CSM density. Shown here are the models with D ′ = 0.4 (red), 1.6 (blue), and 6.4 (yellow). emphasize that the robustly-determined CSM density profile is needed t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The hard (10-40 keV; solid) and soft (0.2-10 keV; dash-dotted) synthetic X-ray LCs for SN 2019hgp, with dif￾ferent CSM compositions. Shown here are the models with He-envelope compositions (red), the C-layer compositions (blue), and the O-core compositions (yellow). Th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic illustration of the photoionization change, for ρ ∝ r −3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schematic illustration of the double-peak soft X-ray LC. The black-dashed line shows the unabsorbed soft X-ray LC. The red-solid line shows the absorbed (observed) soft X-ray LC. trons in the K or L-shell. Our numerical simulations in Sections 3 and 4 assume that ions…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The soft X-ray LCs the models with for D ′ = 0.4 (red and green lines) and 6.4 (yellow and blue lines), adopting X (He)=0.5 for CSM composition. The green and yellow lines show the synthetic LCs taking into account only Compton scattering. The red and blue lines are t…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The diagnosing plots for the ionization state in unshocked CSM, adopting D ′ = 0.4 (left) and 6.4 (right). The lines correspond to various timescales (see the legend). We assume Te = 106 K (e.g., Fransson et al. 1996). For D ′ = 0.4 (left), we adopt the following cond…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The left panel shows the diagnosing plot for the ionization state in the unshocked CSM of SN 2006jc (see the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The left panel shows the diagnosing plot for the ionization state in the unshocked CSM of SN 2019hgp. We adopt the following conditions; Vsh = 1.7 × 109 cm s−1 , and LX,soft = 3.0 × 1039( t 100 days ) −1.7 erg s−1 . The right panels shows the model for the absorbed (o…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The left panel shows the diagnosing plot for the ionization state in the unshocked CSM of SN 2022ablq. We adopt the following conditions; Vsh = 0.55 × 109 cm s−1 , and LX,soft = 1.2 × 1040( t 100 days ) −1.7 erg s−1 . The right panels shows the model for the absorbed …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The synthetic soft (0.2-10 keV) X-ray LCs for SN 2006jc with the (effectively) neutral unshocked CSM, as compared to the X-ray data of SN 2006jc. Shown here are the models with (He, C, O)=(0.2, 0.4, 0.4) (red), (He, C, O)=(0.3, 0.35, 0.35) (blue), (He, C, O)=(0.4, 0.3…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The synthetic soft (0.2-10 keV) X-ray LCs for SN 2022ablq with the (effectively) neutral unshocked CSM, as compared to the X-ray data of SN 2022ablq. Shown here are the models with (He, C, O)=(0.85, 0.075, 0.075) (red), (He, C, O)=(0.95, 0.025, 0.025) (blue), and (He,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bell, A. R. 1978a, MNRAS, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 —. 1978b, MNRAS, 182, 443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.3.443

    doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

  2. [2]

    J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449350

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449350 2024

  3. [3]

    2004, Spectrochimica Acta - Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 59, 1725, doi: 10.1016/j.sab.2004.03.014

    Brunetti, A., Sanchez del Rio, M., Golosio, B., Simionovici, A., & Somogyi, A. 2004, Spectrochimica Acta - Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 59, 1725, doi: 10.1016/j.sab.2004.03.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.sab.2004.03.014 2004

  4. [4]

    A., Chugai, N., et al

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Chugai, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/110

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/2/110 2012

  5. [5]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790, doi: 10.1086/160126

    doi:10.1086/160126 1982

  6. [6]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2003, in Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. K. Weiler, Vol. 598, 171–194, doi: 10.1007/3-540-45863-8 10 —. 2006, ApJ, 651, 381, doi: 10.1086/507606 —. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 875, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 34

    doi:10.1007/3-540-45863-8 2003

  7. [7]

    A., & Irwin, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Irwin, C. M. 2012, ApJL, 747, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L17

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/l17 2012

  8. [8]

    Chugai, N. N. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 866, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15506.x

    arXiv 2009

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    P., & Tucker, W

    Cox, D. P., & Tucker, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1157, doi: 10.1086/150144

    1969 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Taggart, K., Tinyanont, S., et al

    Davis, K. W., Taggart, K., Tinyanont, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1433

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2141, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16611.x

    2010

  4. [12]

    J., & Kuncarayakti, H

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2022, A&A, 658, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142436

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Drury, L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    1983 doi

  6. [14]

    1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169

    Fermi, E. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169

    1949 doi

  7. [15]

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

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al

    Foley, R. J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 657, L105, doi: 10.1086/513145

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    1982, A&A, 111, 140

    Fransson, C. 1982, A&A, 111, 140

    1982

  10. [18]

    1998, ApJ, 509, 861, doi: 10.1086/306531

    Fransson, C., & Bj¨ ornsson, C.-I. 1998, ApJ, 509, 861, doi: 10.1086/306531

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

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

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    J., et al

    Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/118

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 76, 1

    Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., Pastorello, A., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 76, 1

    2021

  14. [22]

    2022, Nature, 601, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1

    Gal-Yam, A., Bruch, R., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hiramatsu, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    1976, ApJ, 206, 847, doi: 10.1086/154448

    Hatchett, S., Buff, J., & McCray, R. 1976, ApJ, 206, 847, doi: 10.1086/154448

    1976 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Arcavi, I., Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, ApJL, 674, L85, doi: 10.1086/529373

    Immler, S., Modjaz, M., Landsman, W., et al. 2008, ApJL, 674, L85, doi: 10.1086/529373

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    R., & McCray, R

    Kallman, T. R., & McCray, R. 1982, ApJS, 50, 263, doi: 10.1086/190828

    1982 doi

  20. [28]

    Longair, M. S. 2011, High Energy Astrophysics

    2011

  21. [29]

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

    Maeda, K. 2012, ApJ, 758, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/81 —. 2013, ApJ, 762, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/14

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/95

    Fukazawa, Y. 2014, ApJ, 785, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/95

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    Maeda, K., & Moriya, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4421

    Matsuoka, T., Maeda, K., Lee, S.-H., & Yasuda, H. 2019, ApJ, 885, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4421

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    J., & Maeda, K

    Moriya, T. J., & Maeda, K. 2016, ApJ, 824, 100, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/100

    2016 doi

  26. [35]

    J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., et al

    Moriya, T. J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1520, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1392 —. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu163

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/63

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    Beacom, J. F. 2019, ApJ, 874, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0422

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    2023, A&A, 673, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346084

    Nagao, T., Kuncarayakti, H., Maeda, K., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346084

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    1988, Physics Reports, 163, 13, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(88)90032-4

    Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M. 1988, Physics Reports, 163, 13, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(88)90032-4

    1988 doi

  31. [40]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 1343, doi: 10.1086/589961

    Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Tominaga, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1343, doi: 10.1086/589961

    2008 doi

  32. [41]

    O., Cameron, P

    Ofek, E. O., Cameron, P. B., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 659, L13, doi: 10.1086/516749

    2007 doi

  33. [42]

    O., Zoglauer, A., Boggs, S

    Ofek, E. O., Zoglauer, A., Boggs, S. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/42

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    J., Mattila, S., et al

    Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., Mattila, S., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 829, doi: 10.1038/nature05825

    2007 doi

  35. [44]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13602.x

    Pastorello, A., Mattila, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13602.x

    2008

  36. [45]

    A., Terreran, G., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Terreran, G., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 938, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff6 18

    doi

  37. [46]

    A., Vink´ o, J., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 926, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63

    doi

  38. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18291, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18291

    Pellegrino, C., Modjaz, M., Takei, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18291, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18291

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al

    Perley, D. A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac478e

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    2023, ApJL, 959, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad103d

    Pursiainen, M., Leloudas, G., Schulze, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad103d

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  42. [51]

    2009, ApJ, 692, 546, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/546

    Sakon, I., Onaka, T., Wada, T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 546, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/546

    2009 doi

  43. [52]

    2011, Spectrochimica Acta - Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 66, 776, doi: 10.1016/j.sab.2011.09.011

    Schoonjans, T., Brunetti, A., Golosio, B., et al. 2011, Spectrochimica Acta - Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 66, 776, doi: 10.1016/j.sab.2011.09.011

    2011 doi

  44. [53]

    K., Mauerhan, J., et al

    Shivvers, I., Zheng, W. K., Mauerhan, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1528

    2016 doi

  45. [54]

    D., et al

    Shivvers, I., Zheng, W., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1885

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 —

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 —. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 403, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 38

    2014 doi

  47. [56]

    J., et al

    Smith, N., Li, W., Foley, R. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1116, doi: 10.1086/519949

    2007 doi

  48. [57]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/173

    Stritzinger, M., Taddia, F., Fransson, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/173

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 6000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3431

    Podsiadlowski, P. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 6000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3431

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    B., Tucker, W

    Tarter, C. B., Tucker, W. H., & Salpeter, E. E. 1969, ApJ, 156, 943, doi: 10.1086/150026

    1969 doi

  51. [60]

    2008, ApJ, 687, 1208, doi: 10.1086/591782

    Tominaga, N., Limongi, M., Suzuki, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1208, doi: 10.1086/591782

    2008 doi

  52. [61]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfaf8

    Tsuna, D., Kashiyama, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2021, ApJ, 914, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfaf8

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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