Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Numerical and Physical Challenges to Nebular Spectroscopy in Thermonuclear Supernovae

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A full non-LTE radiation-hydrodynamics treatment, with detailed bound-free opacities and Monte Carlo non-thermal energy deposition, allows centrally ignited near-Chandrasekhar delayed-detonation models to reproduce the JWST mid-infrared…

desk verdict A useful progress report on SN Ia nebular modeling, but the claim of reproducing JWST spectra rests on an unvalidated transport closure and no quantitative comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07654 v1 pith:HVN5LKMN submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEphysics.space-ph

P. Hoeflich , E. Fereidouni , A. Fisher , T. Mera , C. Ashall , P. Brown , E. Baron , J. DerKacy
show 3 more authors
T. Diamond M. Shabandeh M. Stritzinger
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEphysics.space-ph
keywords TypeIasupernovaenebularspectroscopynon-LTEradiativetransferJWSTmid-infraredspectradelayed-detonationmodelswhitedwarfexplosionsbound-freeopacitiesnon-thermalenergydeposition
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

Nebular spectra of Type Ia supernovae are low-energy light emitted months to years after explosion, powered by radioactive decay that produces gamma rays and fast leptons; this paper argues that the conversion of those high-energy particles into optical and infrared photons must be modeled in detail before the spectra can be used to infer explosion physics. The authors show that common shortcuts, such as depositing non-thermal energy per element or using hydrogenic bound-free opacities, mispredict key mid-infrared line ratios, for example $[\mathrm{Co\,III}]$ at 11.8 µm relative to $[\mathrm{Co\,II}]$ at 10.3 µm, and over-excite argon. Using their HYDRA code as a testbed, they reproduce the JWST MIRI spectra of SN 2021aefx and SN 2022xkq with centrally ignited, off-center delayed-detonation models near the Chandrasekhar mass, and use line profiles to infer a central density near $10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$ and a central ignition point. The pith is that high-precision mid-infrared nebular spectroscopy can be a quantitative probe of white-dwarf explosion physics if the radiation transport and non-thermal deposition are treated with sufficient fidelity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the HYDRA code's nebular-phase coupling of atomic statistical equations with radiation transport. An accelerated Lambda iteration solves the low-energy radiation field where the envelope is semi-transparent, while for optically thick far-UV and X-ray transitions ($\tau \ge 10$ within a grid) an incomplete, stationary Rosseland cycle redistributes energy to long wavelengths, treating optically thin transitions as loss terms and non-thermal high-energy rates as gain terms. Departure coefficients $b_l<1$ boost stimulated recombination and thereby regulate the population of high ionization stages. Non-thermal ionization from gamma rays, positrons, and Compton electrons is followed with Monte Carlo methods, and the ionization balance uses detailed bound-free cross-sections rather than hydrogenic approximations; together these choices set the $[\mathrm{Co\,III}]/[\mathrm{Co\,II}]$ and argon line ratios that match the JWST spectra.

What would settle it

Run the same near-Chandrasekhar delayed-detonation explosion models with a transport scheme that resolves the far-UV quasi-continuum directly instead of using the Rosseland-cycle closure, and check whether the predicted 6.5 µm $[\mathrm{Ar\,II}]$, 10.3 µm $[\mathrm{Co\,II}]$, and 11.8 µm $[\mathrm{Co\,III}]$ feature ratios, together with the inferred central density $\rho_c \approx 10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$, stay within the JWST observational errors; a shift larger than those errors would disprove the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that centrally ignited, off-center delayed-detonation models near the Chandrasekhar mass can reproduce the line ratios and line profiles of both Branch-normal and underluminous Type Ia supernovae observed with JWST, provided the simulation includes full non-LTE atomic populations, detailed bound-free opacities, and a Monte Carlo treatment of non-thermal energy deposition. In these models the envelope stays optically thick in the UV for years, so allowed lines and bound-free transitions form a quasi-continuum that redirects far-UV and X-ray photons to longer wavelengths, while stimulated recombination, driven by departure coefficients $b_l<1$, prevents high ions from over-ionizing. The synthetic spectra match the JWST mid-infrared data of SN 2021aefx and SN 2022xkq; the resulting fits put the central density at $\rho_c \approx 10^9$ g cm$^{-3}$, the white-dwarf mass near $1.33\text{--}1.35\,M_\odot$, and the narrow $^{58}$Ni lines indicate central ignition rather than multiple-spot off-center ignition or microscopic mixing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Section 2.4's incomplete, stationary Rosseland-cycle approximation: for regions with optical depth at least 10, the calculation assumes that local radiation fields feed the atomic levels and that optically thin transitions act only as loss terms for the cycle, with non-thermal high-energy rates as the gain terms; if that far-UV/X-ray redistribution is wrong, the predicted line ratios used to match JWST would shift and the fitted central density and ignition geometry would no longer be trustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mid-infrared nebular spectra can serve as a quantitative diagnostic of the central density and ignition geometry of the exploding white dwarf, not merely as a morphological match.
  • Simulations that approximate non-thermal energy deposition per element or use hydrogenic bound-free opacities will derive systematically wrong abundance and ionization conclusions from the same JWST spectra.
  • Because UV photons remain optically thick and pump the observed transitions, high-ion populations are set by a balance of trapping and stimulated recombination, so the inferred state of the ejecta depends on the detailed radiation field, not on simple nebular recombination.
  • The agreement with SN 2021aefx and SN 2022xkq supports centrally ignited, off-center delayed-detonation explosions near the Chandrasekhar mass and argues against multiple-spot off-center ignition and against significant microscopic mixing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that previously published composition maps of SNe Ia derived with simpler nebular codes may need revision, since the argon-to-cobalt ratios can be off by more than a factor of two when UV pumping and detailed bound-free opacities are omitted.
  • At epochs later than those shown, the far-UV quasi-continuum should remain optically thick, so the Rosseland-cycle closure is likely to become the dominant systematic uncertainty; testing the same models with frequency-resolved UV Monte Carlo transport would separate that numerical error from physical model error.
  • The framework suggests a testable program: apply the same treatment to a larger JWST sample of SNe Ia with independent white-dwarf mass estimates; if the inferred central densities track the expected mass-density relation across Branch-normal and underluminous objects, the method becomes a reliable mass and explosion-geometry probe.
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 the HYDRA radiation-transport/non-LTE framework and applies it to compute nebular-phase mid-infrared spectra of Type Ia supernovae. It argues that proper treatment of non-thermal energy deposition, detailed bound-free opacities, and an optically thick UV quasi-continuum via an incomplete Rosseland-cycle approximation is necessary to reproduce JWST MIRI/LRS spectra of SN 2021aefx and SN 2022xkq. The central claim is that centrally ignited, off-center delayed-detonation near-Chandrasekhar-mass models can reproduce observed line ratios and line profiles, and that fitting parameters such as central density and inclination angle infer a near-MCh WD mass and central ignition. The paper also compares simplified treatments (Spencer-Fano versus full Monte Carlo) and demonstrates their effect on line ratios, with figures as the primary evidence.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper shows that a full non-LTE, radiation-transport treatment with Monte Carlo non-thermal energy deposition is needed and possibly sufficient to match JWST nebular spectra of SNe Ia, which would be an important step toward using MIR spectroscopy to infer explosion geometry and progenitor properties. The manuscript's strengths are the explicit description of the ALI iteration schemes, the use of detailed bound-free opacities, the Spencer-Fano versus Monte Carlo comparison, and the physical insight that stimulated recombination can limit over-ionization. These ingredients are clearly presented and provide a useful testbed for future code comparisons. However, the central claim is not yet quantitatively established: the key UV-transport closure is not independently validated, and the agreement with observations is supported only by visual comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4] The 'incomplete, stationary Rosseland cycle' approximation is load-bearing for the paper's central claim. For transitions with τ ≥ 10, this approximation redistributes UV radiation to longer wavelengths and, through Eq. (2) with b_l < 1, controls stimulated recombination and the ionization balance of high ions whose forbidden lines (e.g., [Co III] 11.8 µm, [Co II] 10.3 µm, [Ar III]/[Ar II]) are the basis of the comparisons in Figs. 1, 2, and 4. No convergence test, no comparison against the full Λ-iteration solution in a simplified geometry, and no sensitivity study to the ad hoc gain/loss terms is presented; Fig. 4 varies non-thermal deposition and bound-free data while keeping this closure fixed. I therefore do not see evidence that the claimed line-ratio agreement is independent of this approximation. A validation experiment (e.g., a 1D test case solved both with the cycle and with full transport) or a quantitative estimate of the introduced error is needed.
  2. [Figures 1, 2, and 4] The claimed reproduction of the observed JWST spectra is supported only by visual inspection. There are no residuals, reduced chi-square values, or line-flux ratios with uncertainties, and the synthetic spectra are shown without error bars. Because the comparisons are obtained by adjusting at least the central density ρc, the inclination angle, and the distance-modulus normalization (Fig. 1 caption), the statements in Fig. 2 that the 'best fit densities suggest a near WD mass of ≈ 1.33–1.35 M⊙' and that narrow 58Ni lines 'exclude multiple-spot off-center ignitions' are not quantitatively justified. Please provide a goodness-of-fit measure and assess the degeneracy among these parameters.
  3. [Section 2.1] The text states that weak forbidden lines without mid-IR transition probabilities are calibrated 'by a comparison between synthetic and observed spectra.' Since these same features are used to claim agreement with JWST, the line-ratio test is partly circular. The manuscript should explicitly identify which lines were tuned (or list the adopted A-values) and demonstrate that the reported conclusions are robust to reasonable variations of those values. Alternatively, the tuned lines should be excluded from the validation set.
  4. [Section 3 and Figure 4] The comparison of non-thermal deposition treatments is qualitative. The caption says the Spencer-Fano-based case 'both fail to produce correct Ar to Co line ratios' even though it improves the Co II/Co III ratio, while the Monte Carlo case is said to show 'good agreement.' Without quantitative line-ratio values for each case, the reader cannot judge the magnitude of the failure or verify that the Monte Carlo treatment is the decisive ingredient. Please report the measured and predicted fluxes (or flux limits) for the key features, with uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a missing space in 'WD)are' in the first sentence, and the phrase 'Thermodynamical explosions' in the abstract differs from 'Thermodynamical Supernovae' in the main text; please harmonize.
  2. [Section 3] The sentence 'A discussion of the physical processes involved and evaluation of the differences of codes is beyond beyond the scope of this paper' contains a duplicated 'beyond'; please correct.
  3. [References] References [24] and [36] both appear to cite the same Axelrod 1980 thesis with slightly different titles; please merge or cross-reference them.
  4. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'distance module' but the intended term is 'distance modulus'; please correct.
  5. [Section 2.4] The phrase 'under-population of the lower ionization (bi < 1, see eq. 2)' is ambiguous; it should specify 'lower level' or 'lower ionization stage' so that Eq. (2)'s use of b_l is clear.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the 'stimulated recombination' finding is built into the Rosseland-cycle closure, and some weak MIR line strengths are calibrated against the same JWST spectra used as benchmark.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Section 2.4 (Eq. 2)]
    "We find that stimulated recombination limits the over-ionization of high ions with populations governed by the far UV. ... In practice, for sizeable optical depth (τ ≥ 10 within a grid), an incomplete, stationary Rosseland cycle is employed to calculate the flow to long wavelengths, assuming local radiation fields effectively ’feed’ the levels with optically thin transitions as a loss term for the cycle with non-thermal, high energy rates as gain terms. The result is an under-population of the lower ionization (bi < 1, see eq. 2), boosting the stimulated emission rates and force recombination."

    The abstract's 'We find that stimulated recombination limits the over-ionization' is not an independent result: Section 2.4 defines the incomplete Rosseland cycle so that it produces 'an under-population of the lower ionization (bi < 1)', and Eq. 2 shows that bi < 1 boosts stimulated recombination. Thus the key physical insight is a direct consequence of the assumed closure, not a prediction derived from the transport equations. The closure is an approximation for τ ≥ 10, imported from the authors' prior work [22] without independent validation in this paper. It sets the ionization balance that controls the MIR line ratios, so the subsequent spectral comparison is not a clean test of this mechanism.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1]
    "supplemented by additional forbidden lines from previous analysis [12, 22] and, for weak forbidden lines without mid-IR transition probabilities, by a comparison between synthetic and observed spectra [17]."

    The synthetic spectra used to claim reproduction of the JWST observations are computed with a line list in which weak forbidden MIR lines lacking transition probabilities are set by 'a comparison between synthetic and observed spectra [17]'. This is an admitted calibration of the model to the same data that later serve as the benchmark. For any line-ratio diagnostic dominated by such lines, the agreement is fitted by construction rather than predicted. The primary [Co III]/[Co II] and [Ar III]/[Ar II] ratios rest on more firmly known A-values, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

Two partial circularities are present, but the main spectral-reproduction claim retains independent content. (1) The 'stimulated recombination limits over-ionization' finding is built into the incomplete Rosseland-cycle closure of Section 2.4: the cycle is assumed to produce bi < 1, and Eq. 2 then boosts stimulated recombination. The abstract presents this as a discovery, but it is an input of the method. (2) Section 2.1 admits that weak forbidden MIR lines without transition probabilities are calibrated against synthetic-versus-observed comparison; the resulting line strengths are not independent predictions. However, the paper's headline result—that centrally ignited near-M_Ch delayed-detonation models reproduce JWST line ratios and profiles—is not forced by either step. The spectral fits still depend on the hydrodynamical abundance structure, the detonation geometry, the non-thermal deposition treatment, and the known atomic data for the strong Co and Ar diagnostics. The Rosseland cycle does not guarantee that the line ratios will match; it only sets the ionization context. The distance-modulus normalization and choices of rho_c and inclination are standard fitting parameters rather than prediction-equal-to-input reductions. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for the main comparison: the model structures and the non-thermal Monte Carlo/Spencer-Fano treatments are compared directly against observations. The overall score is therefore moderate: partial circularity in supporting physical claims and in some weak-line data, but not in the central reproduction claim itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim hinges on a set of numerical approximations, including the incomplete Rosseland cycle for UV opacity and the stationarity assumption for non-thermal energy deposition, plus several fitted parameters: central density, viewing angle, flux normalization, and even some atomic transition probabilities. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters and ad hoc kernel assumptions mean the model-observation agreement is partly a fitting exercise rather than a pure prediction.

free parameters (4)
  • central density ρc = 1e9, 2e9, 5e8 g cm^-3 (varied to match spectra)
    The central density of the delayed-detonation model is varied to reproduce the observed line ratios; the paper states 'best fit densities suggest a near WD mass of ≈1.33..1.35 Msun' (Fig. 2 caption).
  • inclination angle = e.g., +30°, -30° (varied)
    The viewing angle of the asymmetric explosion is chosen to match line profiles (Fig. 1 and 2 captions).
  • distance modulus normalization = 32.52 mag for SN2021aefx
    In Fig. 1, 'All spectra have been normalized using a distance module of 32.52 mag to bring the observed and synthetic fluxes to the same scale.' This is a flux-scaling parameter.
  • weak forbidden line transition probabilities = adjusted to match observations
    Section 2.1: 'for weak forbidden lines without mid-IR transition probabilities, by a comparison between synthetic and observed spectra [17]'.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Stationarity of non-thermal energy deposition during the nebular phase
    Section 3: 'For the nebular phase, we assume stationarity. The nuclear energy input per time is balanced by the local flux.' This is a physical approximation for the late-time phase.
  • ad hoc to paper Incomplete Rosseland cycle approximation for optically thick UV transitions
    Section 2.4: for τ ≥ 10, an incomplete, stationary Rosseland cycle is used to model the transfer of radiation from UV to longer wavelengths. This is an ad hoc approximation not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Envelope is optically thin in optical/IR but optically thick in UV
    Section 2 and Fig. 3 show τ values at 100 and 500 days; the paper states 'the UV is optically thick because of a quasi-continuum formed by allowed lines and bound-free transitions even several years after the explosion'.
  • domain assumption Validity of the delayed-detonation explosion model class for normal and subluminous SNe Ia
    The paper assumes that near-Chandrasekhar-mass delayed detonations are the appropriate model family; no comparison to sub-Chandrasekhar or other scenarios is made in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical and Physical Challenges to Nebular Spectroscopy in Thermonuclear Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVN5LKMN

@misc{pith2026250107654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical and Physical Challenges to Nebular Spectroscopy in Thermonuclear Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVN5LKMN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07654}
}
read the original abstract

Thermodynamical explosions of White Dwarfs (WD)are one of the keys to high precision cosmology. Nebular spectra, namely mid-infrared (MIR) with JWST are an effective tool to probe for the multi-dimensional imprints of the explosion physics of WDs and their progenitor systems but also pose a challenge for simulations. What we observe as SNe Ia are low-energy photons, namely light curves, and spectra detected some days to years after the explosion. The light is emitted from a rapidly expanding envelope consisting of a low-density and low-temperature plasma with atomic population numbers far from thermodynamical equilibrium. SNe Ia are powered radioactive decays which produce hard X- and gamma-rays and MeV leptons which are converted within the ejecta to low-energy photons. We find that the optical and IR nebular spectra depend sensitively on the proper treatment of the physical conversion of high to low energies. The low-energy photons produced by forbidden line transitions originate from a mostly optically thin envelope. However, the UV is optically thick because of a quasi-continuum formed by allowed lines and bound-free transitions even several years after the explosion. We find that stimulated recombination limits the over-ionization of high ions with populations governed by the far UV. The requirements to simulate nebular spectra are well beyond both classical stellar atmospheres and nebulae. Using our full non-LTE HYDrodynamical RAdiation code (HYDRA) as a test-bed, the sensitivity on the physics on synthetic spectra are demonstrated using observations as a benchmark. At some examples, we establish the power of high-precision nebular spectroscopy as quantitative tool. Centrally ignited, off-center delayed-detonation near Chandrasekhar-mass models can reproduce line-ratios and line profiles of Branch-normal and underluminous SNe Ia observed with JWST.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between low-resolution, mid-infrared (MIR) spectra of the normal-bright supernovae [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. High-precision spectroscopy allows us to constrain progenitors and underlying physics. Comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Velocity as a function of wavelength at which the optical depth reaches 0.1, 1., and 10 for a normal-bright [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Influence of the treatment of non-thermal particles and low-energy bound-free cross sections on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    944 L3 (Preprint 2211.00038)

    Kwok L A and Jha S W e a 2023 ApJ Let. 944 L3 (Preprint 2211.00038)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    JWST Low-Resolution MIRI Spectral Observations of SN~2021aefx: High-density Burning in a Type Ia Supernova

    DerKacy J M, Ashall C, Hoeflich P, et al. 2023 ApJ Let. 945 L2 (Preprint 2301.03647)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Measuring an off-Center Detonation through Infrared Line Profiles: The peculiar Type Ia Supernova SN~2020qxp/ASASSN-20jq

    Hoeflich P, Ashall C, Bose S, et al. M 2021 ApJ 922 186 (Preprint 2109.03359)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    H¨ oflich P 2006Nuclear Physics A 777 579–600

    work page

  5. [6]

    Hoeflich P, Yang Y, Baade D, Cikota A, Maund J R, Mishra D, Patat F, Patra K C, Wang L, Wheeler J C, Filippenko A V, Gal-Yam A and Schulze S 2023 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 520 560–582 (Preprint 2301.04721)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [7]

    Hoeflich P and Stein J 2002 ApJ 568 779–790 (Preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0104226)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  7. [8]

    Khokhlov A 2001 unpublished astro-ph/0008463

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  8. [9]

    Gamezo V N, Khokhlov A M, Oran E S, Ctchelkanova A Y and Rosenberg R O 2003Science 299 77

    work page

Show all 42 references
  1. [10]

    Seitenzahl I R, Ciaraldi-Schoolmann F, R¨ opke F K, Fink M, Hillebrandt W, Kromer M, Pakmor R, Ruiter A J, Sim S A and Taubenberger S 2013 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 429 1156–1172 (Preprint 1211.3015)

    2013 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Pakmor R, Seitenzahl I R, Ruiter A J, Sim S A, R¨ opke F K, Taubenberger S, Bieri R and Blondin S 2024 A&A 686 A227 (Preprint 2402.11010)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Diamond T, Hoeflich P and Gerardy C L 2014 ArXiv e-prints (Preprint 1410.6759)

    2014 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Hoeflich P, Fereidouni E and Mera T B 2024 Type Ia supernovae in the age of JWST: Finding the ’right’ questions and the path to answers Journal of Physics Conference Series (Journal of Physics Conference Series vol 2742) (IOP) p 012024

    2024

  5. [14]

    Hoeflich P 1990 A&A 229 191–195

    1990

  6. [15]

    H¨ oflich P 2003 ALI in Rapidly Expanding Envelopes Stellar Atmosphere Modeling (Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series vol 288) ed Hubeny I, Mihalas D and Werner K p 185

    2003

  7. [16]

    Hoeflich P, Hsiao E Y, Ashall C, Burns C R, Diamond T R, Phillips M M, Sand D, Stritzinger M D, Suntzeff N, Contreras C, Krisciunas K, Morrell N and Wang L 2017 ApJ 846 58 (Preprint 1707.05350)

    2017 arXiv

  8. [17]

    2024 ApJ 975 203 (Preprint 2404.17043)

    Ashall C, Hoeflich P, Baron E, et al. 2024 ApJ 975 203 (Preprint 2404.17043)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Khokhlov A M 1989 MNRAS 239 785–808

    1989

  10. [19]

    Hoeflich P 1995 ApJ 443 89–108

    1995

  11. [20]

    Hoeflich P and Khokhlov A 1996 ApJ 457 500 (Preprint arXiv:astro-ph/9602025)

    1996 arXiv

  12. [21]

    van Hoof P A M 2018 Galaxies 6 63

    2018

  13. [22]

    Hristov B, Hoeflich P and Collins D C 2021 ApJ 923 210 (Preprint 2106.14589)

    2021 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Verner D A, Ferland G J, Korista K T and Yakovlev D G 1996 ApJ 465 487 ( Preprint astro-ph/9601009)

    1996 arXiv

  15. [24]

    thesis California Univ., Santa Cruz

    Axelrod T S 1980 Late time optical spectra from the Ni-56 model for Type 1 supernovae Ph.D. thesis California Univ., Santa Cruz

    1980

  16. [25]

    Fransson C and Sonneborn G 1994 Frontiers of Space and Ground-based Astronomy ed Wamsteker W, Longair M S and Kondo Y (Dordrecht: Kluwer) in press

    1994

  17. [26]

    Press) p 173

    Scharmer G B 1984 Methods in radiative transfer Methods in Radiative Transfer ed Kalkofen W (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press) p 173

    1984

  18. [27]

    Olson G L, Auer L H and Buchler J R 1986 JQRST / 35 431–442

    1986

  19. [28]

    Hillier D J 1990 A&A 231 116–124

    1990

  20. [29]

    Hubeny I and Lanz T 2003 Model Photospheres with Accelerated Lambda Iteration Stellar Atmosphere Modeling (Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series vol 288) ed Hubeny I, Mihalas D and Werner K p 51

    2003

  21. [30]

    Wilk K D, Hillier D J and Dessart L 2020 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 494 2221–2235 (Preprint 1906.01048)

    2020 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Shingles L J, Sim S A, Kromer M, Maguire K, Bulla M, Collins C, Ballance C P, Michel A S, Ramsbottom C A, R¨ opke F K, Seitenzahl I R and Tyndall N B 2020 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 492 2029–2043 (Preprint 1912.02214)

    2020 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Kozma C and Fransson C 1992 ApJ 390 602

    1992

  24. [33]

    Hoeflich P, Khokhlov A and M¨ uller E 1992A&A 259 549–566

  25. [34]

    Hoeflich P, Gerardy C L, Nomoto K, Motohara K, Fesen R A, Maeda K, Ohkubo T and Tominaga N 2004 ApJ 617 1258–1266 (Preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0409185)

    2004 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Penney R and Hoeflich P 2014 ApJ 795 84 (Preprint 1409.2159)

    2014 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Axelrod T S 1980 Late Time Optical Spectra from the NICKEL(56) Model for Type i Supernovae. Ph.D. thesis California Univ., Santa Cruz

    1980

  28. [37]

    Kasen D, Thomas R C and Nugent P 2006 ApJ 651 366–380 (Preprint astro-ph/0606111)

    2006 arXiv

  29. [38]

    714 L52–L57 (Preprint 1003.2917)

    Sim S A, R¨ opke F K, Hillebrandt W, Kromer M, Pakmor R, Fink M, Ruiter A J and Seitenzahl I R 2010 ApJ Let. 714 L52–L57 (Preprint 1003.2917)

    2010 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Spencer L V and Fano U 1954 Physical Review 93 1172–1181

    1954

  31. [40]

    814 L2 (Preprint 1511.00245)

    Fransson C and Jerkstrand A 2015 ApJ Let. 814 L2 (Preprint 1511.00245)

    2015 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Boty´ anszki J and Kasen D 2017ApJ 845 176 (Preprint 1704.06275)

    arXiv

  33. [42]

    Wilk K D, Hillier D J and Dessart L 2018 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474 3187–3211 (Preprint 1711.00105)

    2018 arXiv

  34. [43]

    97 443–482

    Kaastra J S and Mewe R 1993 AA Sup. 97 443–482

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.