Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Progenitor Insights of Type IIP SN 2018pq: A Comprehensive Photometric and Spectroscopic Study

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SN 2018pq was a normal Type IIP supernova with a 97.57-day plateau that points to a red supergiant progenitor in the 11–16 solar-mass range.

desk verdict Solid observational study of a normal Type IIP whose MESA+STELLA progenitor mass claim is weaker than the abstract suggests; useful sample filler but the 14–16 Msun range should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16148 v1 pith:MA644L3D submitted 2025-06-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Monalisa Dubey , Kuntal Misra , Raya Dastidar , Géza Csörnyei , Naveen Dukiya , Bhavya Ailawadhi , Iair Arcavi , K. Azalee Bostroem
show 5 more authors
Daichi Hiramatsu Griffin Hossienzadeh D. Andrew Howell Curtis McCully Ajay Kumar Singh
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords TypeIIPsupernovacore-collapselightcurvesredsupergiantprogenitorsnickel-56nucleosynthesisSN2018pqhydrogenrecombinationplateauradiativetransfermodelling
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 2018pq was a normal-luminosity Type IIP supernova with a $97.57$ d $V$-band plateau, and this paper uses its light curve and spectra to reconstruct the star that exploded. The photometric data show a slow plateau decline ($0.42 \pm 0.06$ mag per 50 d), an unusually sharp drop of $11.87 \pm 1.68$ mag per 100 d into the radioactive tail, a synthesized $^{56}$Ni mass of $0.029 \pm 0.003\,M_\odot$, and spectral line velocities that evolve like those of SN 1999em. The paper's central tension is that the semi-analytic light-curve model gives an ejecta mass of about $11\,M_\odot$ (total progenitor near $13\,M_\odot$), while one-dimensional hydrodynamic models require a $14$--$16\,M_\odot$ zero-age main-sequence progenitor, with neither set of models reproducing every phase. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as establishing a well-sampled normal Type IIP object that sharpens the known discrepancy between analytical and hydrodynamic progenitor-mass estimates.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the comparison of the quasi-bolometric light curve to two generations of models. The first is a semi-analytic radiation-diffusion model with a constant-density core and exponentially declining envelope, fit by Markov-chain Monte Carlo; it supplies ejecta mass, radius, and explosion energy. The second is a set of one-dimensional stellar-evolution models exploded and followed by a multi-group radiation-hydrodynamics code, which produce full synthetic light curves and photospheric velocities; the mass range comes from matching the plateau and the plateau-to-nebular drop. The paper also uses a radiative-transfer spectral fitting procedure that treats hydrogen out of local thermodynamic equilibrium to match two early spectra and confirm that the object is a normal Type IIP.

What would settle it

If archival pre-explosion imaging of the explosion site reveals a progenitor with a zero-age main-sequence mass outside $14$--$16\,M_\odot$, or if nebular-phase or radio observations show narrow emission lines or synchrotron emission characteristic of circumstellar interaction at the transition, the hydrodynamic mass range would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SN 2018pq is a spectroscopically and photometrically normal Type IIP supernova whose progenitor was a red supergiant, and that the sharpness of its plateau-to-nebular transition is a real physical signature rather than an observational artefact. Observational parameters place it alongside SN 1999em and SN 2012aw: a plateau of $97.57 \pm 0.05$ d, $V$-band absolute magnitude $-16.42 \pm 0.01$ mag at 50 d, a $2.24 \pm 0.01$ mag drop at the end of the plateau, and a nebular decay rate of $0.99 \pm 0.03$ mag per 100 d consistent with $^{56}$Co to $^{56}$Fe. On the progenitor side, the paper argues that hydrodynamic modelling places the zero-age main-sequence mass at $14$--$16\,M_\odot$ with a radius of $640$--$772\,R_\odot$ and low explosion energy ($0.30$--$0.35 \times 10^{51}$ erg), and interprets the sharp observed decline as evidence for strong mixing of the ejecta at the end of the plateau.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sharp $11.87 \pm 1.68$ mag per 100 d drop from plateau to nebular phase is caused by mixing inside the ejecta rather than by circumstellar interaction, asymmetry, or a different explosion energy, so the hydrodynamic models' failure to reproduce that drop can be attributed to underestimated mixing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SN 2018pq can serve as a reference normal Type IIP supernova: its 97 d plateau, normal $V$-band luminosity, and $0.029\,M_\odot$ nickel budget are typical, making it a useful template for future studies.
  • The steep $11.87$ mag per 100 d plateau-to-nebular decline links SN 2018pq to events like SN 2013ab, suggesting that transition sharpness is an independent axis of Type IIP diversity.
  • The semi-analytic fit points to roughly $11\,M_\odot$ of ejecta and a $424\,R_\odot$ star, while the hydrodynamic fit points to $14$--$16\,M_\odot$ and a larger radius; the paper treats the hydrodynamic result as the more complete one.
  • No single hydrodynamic model reproduces all phases of the light curve, so the quoted mass range carries systematic uncertainty beyond the statistical errors.
  • The photospheric velocity evolution derived from the Fe II lines resembles that of SN 1999em, reinforcing the normal Type IIP classification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: the systematic failure of the hydrodynamic models to reproduce the sharp transition suggests that the plateau-to-nebular drop in Type IIP supernovae is a sensitive probe of mixing or circumstellar interaction, and it could be used to sort progenitors once more objects are modelled the same way.
  • Going beyond the paper: if the sharp drop is instead caused by asymmetric nickel distribution or a small circumstellar shell, the $14$--$16\,M_\odot$ hydrodynamic range would be an artifact; nebular spectroscopy or radio/X-ray observations taken near the drop would test whether interaction is present.
  • Going beyond the paper: the mass discrepancy between the two methods could be resolved by searching archival pre-explosion imaging of IC 3896A; a single detected progenitor with a derived mass near $11$--$13\,M_\odot$ would favour the analytic model and challenge the hydrodynamic assumptions, while no detection down to a $15\,M_\odot$ limit would support the higher range.
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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents a photometric and spectroscopic study of the Type IIP SN 2018pq. Multi-band BVgri light curves from ~23 to 209 days post-explosion and six low-resolution spectra from ~25 to 79.5 days are analysed. The authors measure a V-band plateau duration of 97.57±0.05 d, an absolute V magnitude of −16.42±0.01 mag at 50 d, a plateau decline rate of 0.42±0.06 mag/50 d, and an unusually steep plateau-to-nebular transition of 11.87±1.68 mag/100 d. Three methods (tail luminosity, SN 1987A scaling, and the steepness relation) give a weighted 56Ni mass of 0.029±0.003 M_sun. TARDIS spectral fits at 25.5 and 27.7 d yield photospheric parameters consistent with a spectroscopically normal Type IIP. Semi-analytic light-curve modelling gives an ejecta mass of ~10.7 M_sun and an initial radius of ~424 R_sun, while MESA+STELLA hydrodynamic modelling is used to argue for a higher ZAMS mass of 14–16 M_sun.

Significance. The value of the paper lies in its detailed, well-sampled dataset for a normal Type IIP SN with a sharp plateau-to-nebular transition, and in the careful comparison with a homogeneous sample. The photometric parameters (plateau duration, decline rates, 56Ni mass) are useful additions to the Type IIP population. The TARDIS modelling at two epochs follows an established, reproducible methodology. However, the paper's headline progenitor claim from the hydrodynamic modelling is not supported by the models shown: none of the four MESA+STELLA models reproduces the full light curve, and the proposed RTI-mixing explanation is untested. The 14–16 M_sun range should therefore be treated as a tentative model-dependent inference until the models are extended or the claim is appropriately caveated.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.2, Fig. 11, Table 7] The central claim that MESA+STELLA modelling suggests a 14–16 M_sun ZAMS progenitor is not supported by the models as presented. The text explicitly states that 'none of the model light curves reproduce the entire observed light curve'. Models 1–3 reproduce the plateau but fail the sharp transition; model 4 reproduces the transition but overestimates the plateau slope. The authors attribute the sharp decline to underestimated Rayleigh-Taylor mixing (citing Paxton et al. 2018) without actually running a model with enhanced mixing; model 4 is instead selected purely on the basis of matching the transition. This selection does not constrain the ZAMS mass independently of the mixing assumption. In addition, Table 7 gives Model 4 a final mass of 10.2 M_sun, implying an ejecta mass of ~8.2 M_sun (for a 2 M_sun neutron star), which is lower than the semi-analytic ejecta mass of 10.7 M_sun; the quoted range is therefore degenerate with wind mass loss. To support the stated conclusion, the authors should either (a) compute and compare a model with enhanced mixing, or (b) soften the abstract and conclusions to present 14–16 M_sun as one of several possible interpretations, explicitly noting the absence of a full fit.
  2. [3.1, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) as printed, log M(56Ni) = −(3.5024±0.0960) S − 1.0167, is numerically impossible for the reported value: for S = 11.87 mag/100 d it gives M ~ 10^(−42.6) M_sun, not 0.037±0.006 M_sun. The intended coefficient appears to be 0.035024 (i.e., the decimal point is misplaced). This is presumably a typographical error, but as written the equation prevents reproduction of the stated result. Please correct the equation and verify that the quoted uncertainty on M_Ni (0.006 M_sun) follows from the propagated uncertainties in S and the calibration coefficients.
  3. [3, Figs. 2 and 4; Table 1; Section 6] The quoted uncertainties on the light-curve parameters do not include the explosion-epoch uncertainty. The explosion epoch is JD 2458135.14±3.84 (Table 1); the plateau duration of 97.57±0.05 d and the 50-d absolute magnitude are computed relative to this epoch, and the 3.8 d uncertainty should be propagated into these quantities (and into the 56Ni mass, which depends on t0). As it stands, the ±0.05 d on tPT is misleadingly precise. The same applies to the epoch-dependent comparison in Figures 3, 4, and 8.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 6 vs. Table 1] Section 6 and Table 1 give inconsistent values for the explosion epoch: JD 2458135.45±3.48 in Section 6 versus JD 2458135.14±3.84 in Table 1 and Section 1. Please reconcile.
  2. [Abstract vs. Section 3] The abstract quotes the V-band plateau decline as 0.42±0.06 mag/50 d, while Section 3 gives 0.81±0.06 mag/100 d; the two are equivalent but the abstract should state the conversion to avoid apparent inconsistency.
  3. [5.2, Table 7] Section 5.2 states 'The effect of Z and rotation are insignificant' but then lists different rotation values in Table 7 and describes varying rotation to match the plateau and transition. Please clarify whether rotation is a free parameter in the grid or a fixed input.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] Figure 4's caption is not a complete sentence ('The comparison sample (gray lines) corresponds to the Type II SN sample from Anderson et al. (2014).'); the in-text reference to the figure (Section 3) is also grammatically tangled. Please rephrase.
  5. [3.1] Section 3.1: the phrase 'We estimate M_Ni at the last five epochs in the nebular phase' should specify the epochs and whether the nebular-phase epoch numbering is after explosion or after plateau.
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement ('will be provided upon request') is weaker than the journal's best practice; consider making the photometry tables available as machine-readable files at the time of publication.
  7. [Table 4] Table 4 lists A_tot_V = 0.578 for SN 2018pq; this is consistent with E(B−V)=0.186 and R_V=3.1, but the value should be quoted once in the text to avoid the impression of an additional extinction component.
  8. [Section 1] In Section 1, the phrase 'the plateau duration of normal Type IIP supernovae' should read 'comparable to that of normal Type IIP supernovae'; as written it is grammatically incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TARDIS emulator self-citation is non-load-bearing, and the hydro progenitor range is an underdetermined model selection, not a construction from inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The photometric parameters (plateau duration 97.57±0.05 d, V-band decline, transition steepness) come from direct fits of Eq. (1) to observed light curves. The 56Ni mass is a weighted average of three external calibrations (Hamuy 2003 Eqs. 2–3, Spiro 2014 Eq. 4, Singh 2018 Eq. 5), none of which is derived from this paper's own equations or fitted to SN 2018pq and then renamed as a prediction. The TARDIS fit uses the spectral emulator of Vogl et al. (2020) and Csörnyei et al. (2023b), and G. Csörnyei is a co-author; however, this is a method reference to a precomputed surrogate trained on TARDIS grids, not to a result fitted from SN 2018pq, and the 'spectroscopically normal Type IIP' conclusion is supported independently by direct line-profile comparison with comparison-sample SNe (Section 4, Figures 6–7). The MESA+STELLA progenitor range 14–16 M⊙ is not forced by construction: the paper explicitly states 'none of the model light curves reproduce the entire observed light curve' (Section 5.2, Figure 11), and the final range is a selection among four tested grid models with acknowledged degeneracies in wind scaling factor, rotation, and RTI mixing. That underdetermination is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. No load-bearing step is self-defined, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard distance and reddening inputs, an assumed explosion epoch, fixed recombination temperature and opacity, and a grid of hydrodynamic inputs tuned by hand. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile item is the post-hoc attribution of the unmodeled transition to RTI mixing, which is needed to reconcile the hydrodynamic model family with the observed light curve.

free parameters (11)
  • Recombination temperature T_rec = 5500 K
    Fixed in the semi-analytic model (Section 5.1); authors note minimal effect on the light curve.
  • Thomson scattering opacity kappa = 0.3 cm^2/g
    Fixed in the semi-analytic model (Section 5.1).
  • Proto-neutron star mass = 2 Msun
    Assumed to convert ejecta mass to total progenitor mass (Section 5.1).
  • TARDIS density index n = 8.9 (25.5 d), 8.6 (27.7 d)
    Fitted to spectra using the spectral emulator (Section 4.2, Table 5).
  • TARDIS photospheric velocity v_ph = 5662 km/s (25.5 d), 5642 km/s (27.7 d)
    Fitted to spectra (Table 5).
  • TARDIS photospheric temperature T_ph = 6031 K (25.5 d), 5998 K (27.7 d)
    Fitted to spectra (Table 5).
  • Hydrodynamic ZAMS mass M_ZAMS = 14, 15, 16 Msun for models 1 to 4
    Varied by hand to match the quasi-bolometric light curve (Section 5.2, Table 7).
  • Explosion energy E_exp = 0.30 to 0.35 x 10^51 erg
    Input varied across hydrodynamic models (Table 7).
  • Hydrodynamic 56Ni mass = 0.020 to 0.024 Msun
    Input varied to fit the tail luminosity (Table 7).
  • Wind scaling factor eta_wind = 1 (models 1 to 3), 2 (model 4)
    Adjusted to reproduce plateau length and transition (Section 5.2).
  • Initial rotation (v/v_c)_ZAMS = 0.3 to 0.5
    Varied in the hydrodynamic grid; the 13 Msun star failed to explode for several combinations (Section 5.2).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry and homologous expansion of the ejecta
    Assumed in TARDIS (Section 4.2) and in the semi-analytic model (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption Power-law density profile and uniform composition in TARDIS
    Section 4.2 states these are well-motivated assumptions for the photospheric phase of Type II supernovae.
  • domain assumption Exponential density profile plus uniform core in the semi-analytic model
    Nagy et al. (2014) model as used in Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption Negligible host-galaxy extinction; only Galactic reddening E(B-V) = 0.186
    Section 1 and 3; based on no Na ID absorption and the SN location. If wrong, absolute magnitudes and all derived physical parameters shift.
  • domain assumption Distance of 23.56 Mpc from NED
    Adopted throughout; physical parameters such as luminosity and nickel mass scale with distance squared.
  • domain assumption Explosion epoch JD 2458135.14 +/- 3.84 from GELATO spectral matching
    Section 1; all phases, plateau duration, decline rates, and model comparisons depend on this epoch.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic models use solar metallicity Z = 0.02, default alpha_MLT = 3, and no CSM interaction
    Section 5.2; these choices affect plateau length and transition shape, and the early light curve (t < 23 d) is unavailable to constrain CSM interaction.
  • ad hoc to paper The mismatch between synthetic and observed transition is due to underestimated Rayleigh-Taylor mixing
    Section 5.2: 'The enhanced RTI mixing can produce this type of sharp decline... hence, at the end of the plateau phase, the mixing of the SN-ejecta is underestimated by the models.' This attribution is load-bearing for the 14 to 16 solar mass conclusion.
  • domain assumption Gamma-ray leakage similar to SN 1987A in the 56Ni mass estimate
    Section 3.1, used in the Spiro et al. (2014) ratio method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Progenitor Insights of Type IIP SN 2018pq: A Comprehensive Photometric and Spectroscopic Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MA644L3D

@misc{pith2026250616148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Progenitor Insights of Type IIP SN 2018pq: A Comprehensive Photometric and Spectroscopic Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MA644L3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16148}
}
abstract

We present high-cadence photometric and low-resolution (R $\sim$ 400--700) optical spectroscopic observations of Type IIP supernova, SN~2018pq, which exploded on the outskirts of the galaxy IC~3896A. The optically thick phase (``plateau'') lasts approximately 97 d, the plateau duration of normal Type IIP supernovae. SN~2018pq has a {\em V}-band absolute magnitude of $-16.42 \pm 0.01$ mag at 50 d, resembles normal-luminous supernova, and the V-band decline rate of 0.42$\pm$0.06 mag 50 d$^{-1}$ during the plateau phase. A steeper decline rate of 11.87$\pm$1.68 mag 100 d$^{-1}$ was observed compared to that of typical Type IIP supernovae during the transition between plateau to nebular phase. We employ detailed radiative transfer spectra modelling, TARDIS, to reveal the photospheric temperature and velocity at two spectral epochs. The well-fitted model spectra indicate SN~2018pq is a spectroscopically normal Type IIP supernova. Semi-analytical light curve modelling suggests the progenitor as a red supergiant star with an ejecta mass of $\sim$11 $M_\odot$ and an initial radius of 424 $R_\odot$. On the contrary, hydrodynamical modelling suggests a higher mass progenitor between 14--16 $M_\odot$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. i-band image of SN 2018pq in IC 3896A, taken with the 1m LCO telescope on February 11th, 2018, approximately 25 d since the explosion. initial mass, metallicity, rotational speed, wind speed, mass loss rate, initial radius, explosion energy, velocity evolution, final mass, and the amount of synthesised 56Ni mass during the explosion. This work presents the photometric and spectroscopic analysis of a normal Type IIP … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The BVgri light curves of SN 2018pq from ∼ 23 to 209 d since the explosion spanning the plateau, fall from the plateau and the nebular phase. A thick pink line in the V band light curve represents the slope during the plateau phase. The best fit of the analytic function (Valenti et al. 2016) to the V-band light curve is shown by a red solid line. cadence in the plateau, the fall from the plateau to the radioactive t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the (B-V)0 colour of SN 2018pq with other Type IIP SNe. The gray points represent the sample from de Jaeger et al. (2018). 3.1 Estimation of 56Ni mass The deeper layers of the SN ejecta can be probed during the opti￾cally thin nebular phase. At this time, the ejecta is transparent to optical photons but is still opaque to gamma rays, and the luminosity is proportional to the synthesised 56Ni. Using the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral evolution of SN 2018pq spanning from ∼25 to 79.5 d since explosion shows the presence of the P-Cygni profile of 𝐻 𝛼 along with several metal lines (such as Fe II, Sc II, Ca II NIR triplet) throughout the plateau phase. 5018 Å, 5169 Å), Ca II NIR triplet (8498 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of 25.5 d spectra of SN 2018pq with other Type IIP SNe during the early-plateau phase. The comparison sample is taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the 51.6 d spectrum of SN 2018pq with other Type IIP SNe during the mid-plateau phase. The comparison sample is taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The quasi-bolometric light curve of SN 2018pq with the 50 best-fit light curves is shown, following Nagy et al. (2014), (2016) and Jäger et al. (2020) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Synthetic light curves fitting generated using MESA+STELLA on the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN 2018pq. The obtained parameters from the models are summarised in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The evolution of photospheric velocities obtained from MESA+STELLA modelling for the different models with an optical depth (𝜏sob) = 1.0 compared with the observed photospheric velocities. SN 2018pq persists for ∼97 d, similar to SNe 1999em (95 d) and 2012aw (96 d). I…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SN 2022xus: bridging the gap between Type IIP and IIL supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SN 2022xus is a transitional Type II supernova with a 94.8-day plateau, a decline rate of 1.23 mag per 100 days, mixed IIP/IIL spectral features, and a likely 12-15 solar-mass progenitor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...628A...7A 628, A7

    Anderson J. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...628A...7A 628, A7

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935027 2019

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786...67A 786, 67

    Anderson J. P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786...67A 786, 67

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/67 2014

  3. [3]

    E., Smith N., Tinyanont S., Kilpatrick C

    Andrews J. E., Smith N., Tinyanont S., Kilpatrick C. D., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c5a , 933, 140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c5a 2022

  4. [4]

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 239--276, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_39 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_39

    Arcavi I., 2017, Hydrogen-Rich Core-Collapse Supernovae. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 239--276, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_39 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_39

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_39 2017

  5. [5]

    D., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157898 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...237..541A 237, 541

    Arnett W. D., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157898 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...237..541A 237, 541

    doi:10.1086/157898 1980

  6. [6]

    Arnett D., Chevalier R., 1996, @doi [Physics Today - PHYS TODAY] 10.1063/1.2807808 , 49

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2807808 1996

  7. [7]

    D., Fu A., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...340..396A 340, 396

    Arnett W. D., Fu A., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...340..396A 340, 396

    doi:10.1086/167402 1989

  8. [8]

    Barbon R., Ciatti F., Rosino L., 1979, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979A&A....72..287B 72, 287

    1979

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    R., Smith N., Jencson J

    Beasor E. R., Smith N., Jencson J. E., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..117B 979, 117

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    I., Bartunov O

    Blinnikov S. I., Bartunov O. S., 2011, STELLA: Multi-group Radiation Hydrodynamics Code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.013 ( @eprint ascl 1108.013 )

    2011

  3. [11]

    I., Eastman R., Bartunov O

    Blinnikov S. I., Eastman R., Bartunov O. S., Popolitov V. A., Woosley S. E., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...496..454B 496, 454

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    Bose S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1871B 433, 1871

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Bose S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2373B 450, 2373

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/673168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125.1031B 125, 1031

    Brown T. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/673168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125.1031B 125, 1031

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Vinko J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..121C 746, 121

    Chatzopoulos E., Wheeler J. C., Vinko J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..121C 746, 121

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    A., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...207..872C 207, 872

    Chevalier R. A., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...207..872C 207, 872

    1976 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Klein R

    Chevalier R. A., Klein R. I., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...219..994C 219, 994

    1978 doi

  10. [18]

    Cs \"o rnyei G., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A.129C 672, A129

    doi

  11. [19]

    Cs \"o rnyei G., Anderson R. I., Vogl C., Taubenberger S., Blondin S., Leibundgut B., Hillebrandt W., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..44C 678, A44

    doi

  12. [20]

    R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493..468D 493, 468

    Davies B., Beasor E. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493..468D 493, 468

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Dessart L., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141648 , 656, A61

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...447..691D 447, 691

    Dessart L., Hillier D. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...447..691D 447, 691

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    Dessart L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/526451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675..644D 675, 644

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Waldman R., Livne E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1745D 433, 1745

    Dessart L., Hillier D. J., Waldman R., Livne E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1745D 433, 1745

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Dessart L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.1856D 440, 1856

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...76D 821, 76

    Duffell P. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...76D 821, 76

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    G., Pinto P

    Eastman R. G., Pinto P. A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...412..731E 412, 731

    1993 doi

  20. [28]

    Elmhamdi A., et al., 2003a, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06150.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.338..939E 338, 939

    2003

  21. [29]

    N., Danziger I

    Elmhamdi A., Chugai N. N., Danziger I. J., 2003b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...404.1077E 404, 1077

    doi

  22. [30]

    Faran T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..554F 445, 554

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250412421F p

    Forde S., Goldberg J. A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250412421F p. arXiv:2504.12421

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..413F 522, 413

    Fryer C. L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..413F 522, 413

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    Fuller J., Shiode J., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93ac , 896, 119

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    L., Harris C

    Graham M. L., Harris C. E., Valenti S., Sand D. J., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3341 , 500, 2724

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786L..15G 786, L15

    Guti \'e rrez C. P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786L..15G 786, L15

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850...89G 850, 89

    Guti \'e rrez C. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850...89G 850, 89

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    A., 2001, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    Hamuy M. A., 2001, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    2001

  30. [38]

    Hamuy M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/344689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582..905H 582, 905

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    Hamuy M., et al., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/322450 , 558, 615

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    H., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...488..383H 488, 383

    Harutyunyan A. H., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...488..383H 488, 383

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    arXiv:2412.04386

    Healy S., Horiuchi S., Ashall C., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.04386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241204386H p. arXiv:2412.04386

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...528..368H 528, 368

    Heger A., Langer N., Woosley S. E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...528..368H 528, 368

    2000 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Woosley S

    Heger A., Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Langer N., Hartmann D. H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591..288H 591, 288

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Templeton M., Terrell D., Smith T

    Henden A. A., Templeton M., Terrell D., Smith T. C., Levine S., Welch D., 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016yCat.2336....0H p. II/336

    2016

  37. [45]

    Hiramatsu D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf6d6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...55H 913, 55

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Hosseinzadeh G., Gomez S., 2022, Light Curve Fitting , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.6363688

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Hosseinzadeh G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...31H 935, 31

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Springer, pp 795--842, @doi 10.1007/978-3-030-84380-4_31

    Jerkstrand A., 2022, in , Handbook of Supernovae (2nd Edition). Springer, pp 795--842, @doi 10.1007/978-3-030-84380-4_31

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Jäger Zoltán J., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1743 , 496, 3725

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.2205K 703, 2205

    Kasen D., Woosley S. E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.2205K 703, 2205

    2009 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Sim S

    Kerzendorf W. E., Sim S. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..387K 440, 387

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.4945K 493, 4945

    Kochanek C. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.4945K 493, 4945

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    Kozyreva A., Nakar E., Waldman R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1211K 483, 1211

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Kozyreva A., Shingles L., Mironov A., Baklanov P., Blinnikov S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.4312K 499, 4312

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    V., Baklanov P., Mironov A., Justham S., Chiavassa A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac835a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L..31K 934, L31

    Kozyreva A., Klencki J., Filippenko A. V., Baklanov P., Mironov A., Justham S., Chiavassa A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac835a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L..31K 934, L31

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Bell B., 1995, Atomic line list

    Kurucz R. L., Bell B., 1995, Atomic line list

    1995

  49. [57]

    E., Götberg Y., Zapartas E., Farmer R., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140585 , 656, A58

    Laplace E., Justham S., Renzo M., de Mink S. E., Götberg Y., Zapartas E., Farmer R., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140585 , 656, A58

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    Ledoux P., 1947, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1947ApJ...105..305L 105, 305

    1947 doi

  51. [59]

    C., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PASP..114...35L 114, 35

    Leonard D. C., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PASP..114...35L 114, 35

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    Li W., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18160.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.1441L 412, 1441

    2011

  53. [61]

    arXiv:2401.04027

    Meza Retamal N., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.04027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240104027M p. arXiv:2401.04027

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    J., Maeda K., Blinnikov S

    Moriya T. J., Maeda K., Blinnikov S. I., 2023, @doi [Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science] 10.1146/annurev-nucl-030723-120620 , 73, 137

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    L., Valenti S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858...15M 858, 15

    Morozova V., Piro A. L., Valenti S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858...15M 858, 15

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460..742M 460, 742

    M \"u ller B., Heger A., Liptai D., Cameron J. B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460..742M 460, 742

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    Murai Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.4209M 528, 4209

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    P., Vink \'o J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A..53N 589, A53

    Nagy A. P., Vink \'o J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A..53N 589, A53

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    P., Ordasi A., Vink \' o J., Wheeler J

    Nagy A. P., Ordasi A., Vink \' o J., Wheeler J. C., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424237 , 571, A77

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    Nicholl M., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RNAAS...2..230N 2, 230

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    I., Iwamoto K., Suzuki T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0370-1573(94)00107-E , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PhR...256..173N 256, 173

    Nomoto K. I., Iwamoto K., Suzuki T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0370-1573(94)00107-E , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PhR...256..173N 256, 173

    1995 doi

  62. [70]

    D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...70O 730, 70

    O'Connor E., Ott C. D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...70O 730, 70

    2011 doi

  63. [72]

    Patat F., Barbon R., Cappellaro E., Turatto M., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...282..731P 282, 731

    1994

  64. [73]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , 192, 3

    2010 doi

  65. [74]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  66. [75]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  67. [76]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  68. [77]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    V., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...414..712P 414, 712

    Popov D. V., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...414..712P 414, 712

    1993 doi

  70. [79]

    S., Blinnikov S

    Potashov M. S., Blinnikov S. I., Sorokina E. I., 2021, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773721030051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AstL...47..204P 47, 204

    2021 doi

  71. [80]

    L., Stanek K

    Prieto J. L., Stanek K. Z., 2018, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018TNSTR.177....1P 2018-177, 1

    2018

  72. [81]

    Rodr \' guez \'O ., Meza N., Pineda-Garc \' a J., Ramirez M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.1742R 505, 1742

    2021 doi

  73. [82]

    Princeton University Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt183pq2p

    SCHWARZSCHILD M., 1958, Structure and Evolution of Stars. Princeton University Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt183pq2p

    1958

  74. [83]

    E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/208 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..208S 799, 208

    Sanders N. E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/208 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..208S 799, 208

    2015 doi

  75. [84]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  76. [85]

    A., 2017, Spectra of Supernovae During the Photospheric Phase

    Sim S. A., 2017, Spectra of Supernovae During the Photospheric Phase. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 769--793, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_28 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_28

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    C., Sahu D

    Singh A., Srivastav S., Kumar B., Anupama G. C., Sahu D. K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2475S 480, 2475

    2018 doi

  78. [87]

    J., Anupama G

    Singh A., Kumar B., Moriya T. J., Anupama G. C., Sahu D. K., Brown P. J., Andrews J. E., Smith N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882...68S 882, 68

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47...63S 47, 63

    Smartt S. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47...63S 47, 63

    2009 doi

  80. [89]

    J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32...16S 32, e016

    Smartt S. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32...16S 32, e016

    2015 doi

  81. [90]

    J., Eldridge J

    Smartt S. J., Eldridge J. J., Crockett R. M., Maund J. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14506.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395.1409S 395, 1409

    2009

  82. [91]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...579A..40S 579, A40

    Smartt S. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...579A..40S 579, A40

    2015 doi

  83. [92]

    Smith N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..487S 52, 487

    2014 doi

  84. [93]

    Spiro S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.2873S 439, 2873

    2014 doi

  85. [94]

    E., Brown J

    Sukhbold T., Ertl T., Woosley S. E., Brown J. M., Janka H. T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...38S 821, 38

    2016 doi

  86. [95]

    E., Heger A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2da , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...93S 860, 93

    Sukhbold T., Woosley S. E., Heger A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2da , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...93S 860, 93

    2018 doi

  87. [96]

    E., Heger A., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa60 , 944, 92

    Sukhbold T., Ertl T., Woosley S. E., Heger A., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa60 , 944, 92

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    A., Sutherland P

    Swartz D. A., Sutherland P. G., Harkness R. P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...446..766S 446, 766

    1995 doi

  89. [98]

    Szalai T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...19S 876, 19

    2019 doi

  90. [99]

    Taddia F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...587L...7T 587, L7

    2016 doi

  91. [100]

    S., Singh A., Sahu D

    Teja R. S., Singh A., Sahu D. K., Anupama G. C., Kumar B., Nayana A. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac610b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930...34T 930, 34

    2022 doi

  92. [101]

    Y., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773722040065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AstL...48..209T 48, 209

    Tsvetkov D. Y., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773722040065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AstL...48..209T 48, 209

    2022 doi

  93. [102]

    Valenti S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438L.101V 438, L101

    2014 doi

  94. [103]

    Valenti S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3939V 459, 3939

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..134V 934, 134

    Vasylyev S. S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..134V 934, 134

    2022 doi

  96. [105]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e6b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959L..26V 959, L26

    Vasylyev S. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e6b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959L..26V 959, L26

    2023 doi

  97. [106]

    A., Verner E

    Verner D. A., Verner E. M., Ferland G. J., 1996, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] 10.1006/adnd.1996.0018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ADNDT..64....1V 64, 1

    1996

  98. [107]

    A., Noebauer U

    Vogl C., Sim S. A., Noebauer U. M., Kerzendorf W. E., Hillebrandt W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A..29V 621, A29

    2019 doi

  99. [108]

    E., Sim S

    Vogl C., Kerzendorf W. E., Sim S. A., Noebauer U. M., Lietzau S., Hillebrandt W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...633A..88V 633, A88

    2020 doi

  100. [109]

    D., 1950, @doi [Journal of Applied Physics] 10.1063/1.1699639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950JAP....21..232V 21, 232

    Von Neumann J., Richtmyer R. D., 1950, @doi [Journal of Applied Physics] 10.1063/1.1699639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950JAP....21..232V 21, 232

    1950 doi

  101. [110]

    You K.-A., Chen K.-J., Pan Y.-C., Tsai S.-H., Ou P.-S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad50c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970..145Y 970, 145

    2024 doi

  102. [111]

    de Jaeger T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3776D 478, 3776

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.