Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

A Detection of Helium in the Bright Superluminous Supernova SN 2024rmj

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Helium is detected in the outer ejecta of the bright superluminous supernova SN 2024rmj.

desk verdict Plausible first helium detection in a bright SLSN-I, but the line identifications lack the quantitative rigor needed to call it definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06417 v1 pith:DLLWXJQK submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Harsh Kumar , Edo Berger , Peter K. Blanchard , Sebastian Gomez , Daichi Hiramatsu , Alex Gagliano , Moira Andrews , K. Azalee Bostroem
show 3 more authors
Joseph Farah D. Andrew Howell Curtis McCully
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords superluminoussupernovaeSLSN-Iheliumdetectionnear-infraredspectroscopySN2024rmjmagnetarspin-downejectacompositiontransientastronomy
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

SN 2024rmj is a hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova (SLSN-I) that reached $M_g \approx -21.9$, placing it at the luminous end of its class. The paper argues that near-infrared spectra taken 13 days before peak and 40 days after peak show absorption from He I at 1.083 and 2.058 microns, blueshifted by about 15,000 and 13,000 km/s respectively. That identifies helium in the outermost, fastest-moving ejecta and makes this the first confident helium detection in a bright SLSN-I. If correct, the result shows that at least some SLSN-I progenitors retain a thin helium layer at explosion, and it gives a concrete target for helium-excitation models and for systematic NIR searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the near-infrared helium line pair He I $\lambda$1.083 $\mu$m and He I $\lambda$2.058 $\mu$m. The 2.058 $\mu$m line is the cleaner of the two: it is free of the C I and Mg II blends that contaminate the 1.083 $\mu$m line, so a detection there is taken as proof of helium even for modest masses. The measured blueshift of the absorption features places the helium at a specific line-of-sight velocity, which is what lets the paper assign it to the outermost ejecta layers.

What would settle it

An independent reduction of the same GNIRS spectra with a different telluric-correction code and a line-profile fit: if the 2.058 micron absorption vanishes, shifts to the systemic velocity, or is not accompanied by a matching He I 1.083 micron feature at the same blueshift, the helium claim would be overturned. A cleaner test is a new high-signal-to-noise NIR spectrum at a similar phase that resolves the 2.058 micron feature with a measured equivalent width and significance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that helium is present in the outer ejecta of SN 2024rmj. The He I 2.058 micron line, which is free of the blending that afflicts optical helium lines, is detected as an absorption feature blueshifted by about 15,000 km/s in the pre-peak NIR spectrum; the He I 1.083 micron line is identified at the same velocity because the helium is fast enough to separate from nearby C I and Mg II features. At +40 days both lines are weaker and shift to about 13,000 km/s, with the 2.058 micron feature described as marginal. The paper further argues that a weak He I $\lambda$5876 feature is present in the optical spectra while the high helium velocity keeps it resolved from Na I D. It concludes that helium is confined to the outer ejecta and that the progenitor retained a thin helium layer, making this the most definitive helium detection in a bright SLSN-I to date.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the 2.058 micron absorption feature being genuine helium rather than a residual telluric artifact or noise, since the paper presents no quantitative significance, equivalent width, or line-profile fit for it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bright SLSN-I progenitors do not have to be fully stripped of helium; a thin residual helium layer can survive to explosion.
  • The helium sits in the fast outer ejecta, so the explosion is not fully mixed; the weakening between pre- and post-peak spectra is consistent with outer-layer dilution as the ejecta expand.
  • Optical He I $\lambda$5876 searches become viable in other SLSNe-I when the helium velocity is high enough to clear Na I D, allowing archival optical spectra to be re-examined.
  • The detection makes systematic NIR spectroscopy of SLSNe-I at $z \lesssim 0.15$ a practical route to measuring helium across the population, with JWST extending the redshift range.
  • Quantifying the helium mass and the excitation mechanism will require spectral modeling of magnetar-powered ejecta, comparing the two He I lines and their time evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a deeper NIR spectrum at a phase similar to +40 days could test the dilution rate and give a crude helium mass from the line strength, which the paper does not attempt.
  • Beyond the paper: the high blueshift of about 15,000 km/s in the outer layer resembles the fast shell seen in some interacting transients; a check for narrow or intermediate-width emission or X-ray and radio signatures could distinguish an outer shell from ordinary photospheric helium.
  • Beyond the paper: synthetic spectra that vary the helium mass and velocity while fitting the 1.05 micron blend would directly test whether C I and Mg II alone can reproduce the observed 1.083 micron feature.
  • Beyond the paper: a systematic look at existing SLSN-I NIR spectra for weak 2.058 micron absorption, with telluric-model subtraction and line-profile fits, could turn this single event into a population measurement of helium retention.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents UV, optical, and near-infrared photometry and spectroscopy of the hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova SN 2024rmj at z = 0.1189, with the central claim being a detection of helium in the NIR via He I λ1.083 μm and λ2.058 μm absorption at blueshifts of roughly 15,000 km/s before peak and 13,000 km/s after peak, plus a likely optical He I λ5876 Å counterpart. The light-curve analysis identifies a pre-peak bump and a post-peak bump, and the main peak is modeled with the MOSFiT magnetar spin-down model, giving parameters typical of the SLSN-I population (Pspin ≈ 2.1 ms, B ≈ 6 × 10^13 G, Mej ≈ 12 M☉). The helium detection is presented in §3.4.1 and Figure 5, and the authors argue that this is the most definitive helium detection in a bright SLSN-I to date, with implications for the survival of a thin helium layer in the progenitor. The photometric and light-curve modeling are standard and clearly described; the load-bearing element of the paper is the line identification in the two GNIRS spectra.

Significance. If the helium detection is secure, this is a genuinely important result: it would be the first confident helium detection in a bright SLSN-I and would point to progenitors retaining a helium layer, constraining single-star and binary evolution paths for superluminous supernovae. The paper also provides a valuable, well-sampled multi-band dataset for a luminous SLSN-I with unusual pre- and post-peak bumps, and the magnetar light-curve modeling follows established methodology with consistent results. The main risk is that the central spectroscopic claim is presented visually rather than quantitatively: the pre-peak 2.058 μm feature is effectively a single-epoch detection, the 1.083 μm identification depends on a velocity assumption, and the +40-day 2.058 μm feature is described in the Figure 5 caption as marginal. The paper's significance therefore hinges on adding quantitative support for the line identifications, including telluric-residual checks.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4.1 and Figure 5] Please provide a quantitative significance measure for the pre-peak 2.058 μm absorption and a telluric-residual check, since the detection of helium rests on this feature.
  2. [§3.4.1] Please either add a quantitative deblending analysis for the 1.083 μm region or explicitly limit the helium-detection claim to the 2.058 μm line plus its supporting evidence.
  3. [§4.1 and Figure 6] Please revise the conclusions and abstract wording to distinguish the tentative optical He I identification from the NIR-based detection.
  4. [§3.4.1 and §4.2] The claim in §3.4.1 that 'the detection of both helium lines, in both the pre- and post-peak spectra, provides strong evidence' is stronger than the data currently support, because the +40-day 2.058 μm feature is described in Figure 5 as 'marginally detected'. The paper should either report a formal detection significance for the +40-day feature or soften this statement to reflect that the post-peak helium detection rests mainly on the 1.083 μm line, which is itself blended. This is not a request to change the science conclusion if the pre-peak 2.058 μm detection is robust, but the language should match the demonstrated evidence level.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.5] The reduction package is referred to as both 'Pypeit' and 'PypeIt'; please use a consistent spelling throughout, preferably the official 'PypeIt'.
  2. [Figure 5] The axis labels in the inset panels appear to be garbled (for example, '1010010200 10300 10400 10500 10600 10700' and '°2.5' / '°4.5'); please check the figure rendering and label formatting.
  3. [Figure 6] The y-axis tick labels in the left panel show values like '°8', '°6', '°4', which appear to be a rendering artifact of negative magnitudes; please fix the figure so that the labels are legible and correctly formatted.
  4. [References] There are duplicate entries for Prochaska et al. 2020 with the same author list and year; these should be merged or distinguished by a letter suffix according to the journal style.
  5. [§3.4.2] The wavelength of the Mg II feature is given as λ1.0914 μm in §3.4.2 but as λ1.093 μm in §1; please check the adopted laboratory wavelength and use it consistently.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract states that helium is 'confined to the outermost ejecta' based on the high blueshift; this is plausible, but the paper does not present a line-profile or abundance analysis that would directly constrain the helium spatial distribution, so the wording is somewhat stronger than the analysis supports.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the helium detection rests on direct NIR line identifications, and the magnetar light-curve model is independent of the line detection.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—detection of He I λ1.083 and λ2.058 μm at roughly 15,000 km/s pre-peak and 13,000 km/s post-peak—is an empirical line identification based on rest wavelengths, the measured redshift z = 0.1189, and the observed absorption positions. It does not depend on any fitted parameter or prior result. The 2.058 μm identification is explicitly presented as free of the blending that affects the 1.083 μm line, and its observed wavelength is set by the spectrum, not by the claim. The optical He I λ5876 identification in Section 4.1 uses the NIR velocity as a search hypothesis; this is a consistency check, not a circular derivation, because the NIR detection is independent of the optical spectrum. The magnetar/MOSFiT parameters (spin, magnetic field, ejecta mass) are fitted to the light curve and are not inputs to the helium identification. Self-citations, such as Kumar et al. (2025) for the SN 2024ahr helium upper limit, are contextual and not load-bearing for the present detection. Concerns about the absence of quantitative significance, telluric residual checks, and the marginal +40 day 2.058 μm feature are statistical or robustness issues, not circularity; those concerns belong to a correctness pass rather than a circularity pass. No step in the derivation reduces, by the paper's own equations or by construction, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The helium detection itself introduces no free parameters or invented entities. The magnetar model parameters are fitted to the light curve and are not needed for the line identifications. The assumptions listed are the modeling framework, the redshift calibration, the cleanliness of telluric correction, and the standard atomic data used for line identification.

free parameters (13)
  • Pspin = 2.14 +0.33/-0.37 ms
    Magnetar spin period fitted by MOSFiT to the main light curve after excluding pre- and post-peak bumps (Section 3.3).
  • B = 6.3e13 G (log10 B = -0.20 in units of 1e14 G)
    Magnetar magnetic field fitted with a log-uniform prior in the same model.
  • Mej = 12.3 +7.6/-2.8 M_sun
    Ejecta mass fitted with a uniform prior.
  • vej = 5.0e3 km/s (log prior)
    Ejecta velocity at peak fitted in the model.
  • texp = -9.0 +0.4/-0.5 days
    Explosion epoch relative to g-band peak, fitted.
  • log fNi = -2.5 +0.5/-0.4
    Nickel mass fraction fitted in the model.
  • log nH,host = 20.6 +0.1/-0.1
    Host galaxy hydrogen column density, fitted.
  • lambda_cutoff = 2985 +107/-137 A
    Wavelength cutoff in the MOSFiT model, fitted.
  • alpha = 3.65 +0.52/-0.36
    Power-law index for the magnetar energy deposition, fitted.
  • Tmin = 9940 +50/-100 K
    Minimum photospheric temperature in the model, fitted.
  • MNS = 1.6 +0.3/-0.4 M_sun
    Neutron star mass, fitted.
  • theta_BP = 1.0 +0.4/-0.5 rad
    Magnetic dipole angle, fitted.
  • log sigma = -0.88 +0.02/-0.03
    Model uncertainty scaling, fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The magnetar spin-down model (slsnni) is the correct framework for SLSN-I light curves.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to fit the UV/optical light curve; the model combines magnetar spin-down and 56Ni decay. This is an external physical model, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption The host galaxy redshift z = 0.1189, measured from H alpha and [O III] emission lines, is the SN redshift.
    Used throughout to convert observed phases and velocities to rest frame (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption Telluric correction removes atmospheric features and does not create the 2.058 micron absorption.
    The NIR reduction applies telluric correction (Section 2.5); the helium identification assumes no residual telluric artifact at 2.058 microns.
  • standard math Standard atomic data for He I, C I, Mg II line wavelengths and the adopted line-identification conventions are correct.
    The spectral feature identifications in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 rely on standard rest wavelengths and the usual supernova line lists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Detection of Helium in the Bright Superluminous Supernova SN 2024rmj." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLLWXJQK

@misc{pith2026250606417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Detection of Helium in the Bright Superluminous Supernova SN 2024rmj},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLLWXJQK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06417}
}
abstract

We present extensive ultraviolet (UV), optical, and near-infrared (NIR) photometric and spectroscopic observations of the nearby hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova (SLSN-I) SN2024rmj at z = 0.1189. SN 2024rmj reached a peak absolute magnitude of Mg $\approx$ -21.9, placing it at the luminous end of the SLSN-I distribution. The light curve exhibits a pronounced pre-peak bump ($\approx$ 60 d before the main peak) and a post-peak bump ($\approx$ 55 d after the main peak). The bulk of the light curve is otherwise well fit by a magnetar spin-down model, with typical values (spin: $\approx$ 2.1 ms; magnetic field: $\approx$ 6 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ G; ejecta mass: $\approx$ 12 M$_\odot$). The optical spectra exhibit characteristic SLSN-I features and evolution, but with a relatively high velocity of $\approx$ 8,000 km s$^{-1}$ post-peak. Most significantly, we find a clear detection of helium in the NIR spectra at He I $\lambda$1.083 $\mu$m and $\lambda$2.058 $\mu$m, blueshifted by $\approx$ 15,000 km s$^{-1}$ (13 d before peak) and $\approx$ 13,000 km s$^{-1}$ (40 d after peak), indicating that helium is confined to the outermost ejecta; based on these NIR detections, we also identify likely contribution from He I $\lambda$5876 \r{A} in the optical spectra on a similar range of timescales. This represents the most definitive detection of helium in a bright SLSN-I to date, and indicates that progenitors with a thin helium layer can still explode as SLSNe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The location of SN 2024rmj (crosshairs) in a pre￾explosion Legacy Survey’s Data Release 10 image (Flewelling 2018). The SN is located on the outskirts of its dwarf host galaxy (white circle), ≈ 2.1 ′′ ≈ 6.8 kpc from the host center. at RA(J2000) = 01h 07m 52.72s , Dec(J2000) = +03◦ 30′ 42.44′′, indicating that SN 2024rmj is offset by ≈ 2.1 ′′ ≈ 6.8 kpc from its host center in Legacy Survey im￾ages. From SDSS DR16 da… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical/UV light curves of SN 2024rmj. All mag￾nitudes are in the AB system and are corrected for Galactic Extinction. Vertical lines mark the epochs of optical (gray) and near-IR (red) spectroscopy. SN 2024rmj rises from dis￾covery to peak in ≈ 70 d and reaches a peak absolute mag￾nitude of Mg ≈ Mr ≈ −21.9 (K-corrected). The g, r, o-band light curves exhibit a pronounced pre-peak bump, while all filters (particular… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Multi-band MOSFiT model light curves. The fit excludes the pre- and post-peak bumps (data points without a black outline). The model provides a good fit to the data during the rise, peak, and decline of the main peak, including following the post-peak bump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Near-IR spectra of SN 2024rmj obtained at phases of −13 d and +40 d. The spectrum exhibits broad features of He I, C I, and O I The He I λ1.083 µm and λ2.058 µm features were detected in the first epoch with a velocity of −15000 km s −1 (see inset). In the second epoch…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Optical spectra of SN 2024rmj, spanning phases of −38 to +86 d. The early time spectra exhibit a blue continuum with the typical O II lines at a high velocity of ≈ 12, 500 km s−1 . At peak, features of Fe II, Fe III, C II and Si II emerge and progressively become…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Type I Superluminous Supernova Catalogue II: Spectroscopic Evolution in the Photospheric Phase, Velocity Measurements, and Constraints on Diversity

    Aamer, A., Nicholl, M., Gomez, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21874, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21874

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.21874 2025

  2. [2]

    R., Smith, M., Sullivan, M., et al

    Angus, C. R., Smith, M., Sullivan, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1321 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration,...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1321 2019

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  4. [4]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  5. [5]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 22

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 22

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.6825092 2022

  6. [6]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031, doi: 10.1086/673168

    doi:10.1086/673168 2013

  7. [7]

    J., Yates, R

    Chen, T.-W., Smartt, S. J., Yates, R. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3566, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1428

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1428 2017

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Chomiuk, L., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/114

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/114 2011

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    2024, A&A, 692, A204, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451983

    Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 692, A204, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451983

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    Fabricant, D., Fata, R., Epps, H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1982, PASP, 94, 715, doi: 10.1086/131052

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Flewelling, H. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 436.01 F¨ orster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 —

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 —. 2019a, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819 —. 2019b, ApJ, 882, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f79

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    Hosseinzadeh, G. 2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2017, MOSFiT: Modular Open-Source Fitter for Transients, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1710.006 —. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Taubenberger, S., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 70, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20464.x

    2012

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    D., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67dd

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    A., & Global Supernova Project

    Howell, D. A., & Global Supernova Project. 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 230, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #230, 318.03

    2017

  15. [23]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca

    Hsu, B., Hosseinzadeh, G., & Berger, E. 2021, ApJ, 921, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/128

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    W., et al

    Inserra, C., Nicholl, M., Chen, T. W., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx834

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    D., & Bildsten, L

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B. D., & Bildsten, L. 2016, ApJ, 821, 36, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/36

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    K., et al

    Kumar, H., Berger, E., Blanchard, P. K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01485, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01485

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Liu, Y.-Q., Modjaz, M., & Bianco, F. B. 2017, ApJ, 845, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f74

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Lucy, L. B. 1991, ApJ, 383, 308, doi: 10.1086/170787

    1991 doi

  23. [31]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/138 —

    Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/138 —. 2018, ApJ, 852, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f1a

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., Greiner, J., & Kann, D

    Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., Greiner, J., & Kann, D. A. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw512

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2224

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    D., & Prada, F

    Montero-Dorta, A. D., & Prada, F. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1106, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15197.x

    2009

  27. [35]

    2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34, doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atab092

    Nicholl, M. 2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34, doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atab092

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2017a, ApJL, 835, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa56c5

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2017a, ApJL, 835, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa56c5

    doi

  29. [37]

    2017b, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017b, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    doi

  30. [38]

    Nicholl, M., & Smartt, S. J. 2016, MNRAS, 457, L79, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv210

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1522

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    J., et al

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/39

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Botticella, M

    Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., Botticella, M. T., et al. 2010, ApJL, 724, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/724/1/L16

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Quimby, R

    Perley, D. A., Quimby, R. M., Yan, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 13, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/13 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Quimby, R. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 487, doi: 10.1038/nature10095

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    M., De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Quimby, R. M., De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac2f

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 23

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 Science Software Branch at STScI. 2012, PyRAF: Python alternative for IRAF, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.011

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    Y., Ashall, C., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4030

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  43. [51]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-3255, 1

    Shitrit, N., Mohsen, S., Keinan, I., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-3255, 1

    2024

  44. [52]

    Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., Perley, D., & Laz, T. D. 2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-2787, 1

    2024

  45. [53]

    B., Bean, J

    Stevenson, K. B., Bean, J. L., Seifahrt, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 141, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/141

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Teffs, J., Ertl, T., Mazzali, P., Hachinger, S., & Janka, H. T. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2549

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    A., Gomez, S., & Hosseinzadeh, G

    Thornton, I., Villar, V. A., Gomez, S., & Hosseinzadeh, G. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 48, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad28ba

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    E., Taggart, K., et al

    Tinyanont, S., Woosley, S. E., Taggart, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc6c3

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt171

    Valenti, S., Sand, D., Pastorello, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt171

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Stritzinger, M

    Valenti, S., Howell, D. A., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw870

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b02

    Yan, L., Quimby, R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b02

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Schulze, S., et al

    Yan, L., Perley, D. A., Schulze, S., et al. 2020, ApJL, 902, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb8c5

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    Yaron, O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.