SN2022jli modeled with a $^{56}$Ni double-layer and a magnetar

Claudia P. Guti\'errez; Mariana Orellana; Melina C. Bersten

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

SN2022jli modeled with a $^{56}$Ni double-layer and a magnetar

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 2022jli's double-peaked light curve is best matched by a newborn magnetar with a 22 ms spin plus a two-shell 56Ni layer.

desk verdict Full-hydro modeling of SN2022jli with double Ni plus magnetar gives a plausible story, but the key 270-day shutdown is imposed, not predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21304 v1 pith:YQLBDSMX submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Mariana Orellana , Melina C. Bersten , Claudia P. Gutiérrez This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

keywords SN2022jliTypeIcsupernovamagnetarnickel-56distributiondouble-peakedlightcurveradiationhydrodynamicsstripped-envelope

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 2022jli, a stripped-envelope Type Ic supernova, shows a double-peaked bolometric light curve with a second peak around 60 days and an abrupt luminosity drop near 270 days. This paper asks which energy source can produce that morphology, and tests two candidates with one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations: a bimodal $^{56}$Ni distribution alone, and a hybrid in which a spinning magnetar adds energy on top of a double nickel layer. The nickel-only models can reproduce the first peak but make the second peak either too dim or too bright, and they require an unusually large nickel mass. The hybrid model, with a magnetar of spin period $P\simeq 22$ ms, magnetic field $B\simeq 5\times10^{14}$ G, and a total of $0.15\,M_\odot$ of $^{56}$Ni split between two shells in an $11\,M_\odot$ pre-supernova structure, reproduces the whole light curve provided the magnetar's energy deposition is switched off near day 270. If correct, this identifies a newborn magnetar as the engine behind the second peak and keeps the nickel budget typical for Type Ic supernovae.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a one-dimensional, local thermodynamic equilibrium radiation-hydrodynamics code applied to a fixed pre-supernova structure: a stripped helium star of about 11 $M_\odot$, with about 9.55 $M_\odot$ ejected and an explosion energy of $3\times10^{51}$ erg. Into that structure the model places two $^{56}$Ni-enriched shells parameterized by fractional mass coordinates, with abundances adjusted so the outer shell produces the first peak and the inner shell contributes to the second; a magnetar power term is added as a source at the base of the ejecta, with energy injection following the standard vacuum dipole spin-down law with braking index $n=3$. The code's role is to convert these input energy sources into a bolometric light curve that can be compared directly with the observations, allowing the two powering scenarios to be distinguished.

What would settle it

A bolometric luminosity measurement in the roughly 290 to 400 day gap that lies well above the pure-$^{56}$Ni decay track of $0.15\,M_\odot$, around $1.4\times10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, would show that magnetar energy is still being thermalized, contradicting the required shutdown; likewise, any radio or X-ray detection after day 270 would indicate the engine is still active.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that the observed bolometric evolution of SN 2022jli, including the first peak, the deep dip near 30 days, the prominent second maximum near 60 days, the prolonged decline, and the abrupt drop at about 270 days, can be reproduced by a hybrid powering model. The preferred configuration places most of the $^{56}$Ni, about $0.138\,M_\odot$, in an outer shell near the ejecta surface to power the first peak, retains about $0.011\,M_\odot$ in an inner shell, and adds the spin-down energy of a magnetar with initial spin period $P\simeq 22$ ms and magnetic field $B\simeq 5\times10^{14}$ G, with a spin-down timescale of about 92 days and rotational energy of about $4\times10^{49}$ erg. The magnetar energy, following vacuum-dipole braking, lifts the light curve between the peaks and powers the second maximum; to match the steep late decline, the authors find that magnetar deposition must be rapidly suppressed at about 270 days, after which radioactive decay of the $0.15\,M_\odot$ nickel layer dominates. They conclude that a pure double-nickel model cannot do the job without requiring $M(^{56}\mathrm{Ni})\gtrsim 0.35\,M_\odot$, well above typical values for stripped-envelope supernovae.

Load-bearing premise

The fit to the late steep decline depends on switching off the magnetar's energy deposition at about 270 days by hand, with no physical mechanism proposed for why a real magnetar would stop depositing energy so abruptly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

SN 2022jli's second light-curve peak would be caused by rotational energy released by a newborn magnetar, not by an unusually large nickel mass, so the explosion's radioactive yield can stay near the $0.15\,M_\odot$ typical of Type Ic supernovae.
The magnetar would have to be born with a 22 ms spin period and a $5\times10^{14}$ G field, and its spin-down energy must be efficiently thermalized in the ejecta for the first roughly 270 days and then essentially stop.
Any purely radioactive double-nickel explanation of this supernova would require $M(^{56}\mathrm{Ni})\gtrsim 0.35\,M_\odot$, which the hybrid model renders unnecessary.
The hybrid scenario predicts that after about day 290 the light curve should follow the radioactive decay of $0.15\,M_\odot$ of nickel, a track consistent with the single 400-day measurement and testable by observations in the roughly 290 to 400 day gap.
The same double-nickel-plus-magnetar combination provides a quantitative template for other double-peaked stripped-envelope supernovae whose second maxima appear too bright for radioactive decay alone.

Reading between the lines

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

The abrupt magnetar shutoff at about 270 days is put in by hand; the paper cites erratic spin-down variations in pulsars as motivation but does not derive a mechanism. A physical theory of why a magnetar would stop depositing energy so sharply is the main open step, and radio or X-ray observations after day 270 could test whether the engine is really dead.
The model deliberately ignores the 12.4-day periodic undulations in the light curve. If those oscillations trace the central engine, for instance through precession or an accreting companion, the single-dipole-braking description used here may need to be replaced by a more complex energy-injection law.
The late-time calculation uses simple gamma-ray opacity and does not treat nebular-phase radiative processes or dust, so a more detailed treatment could shift the inferred nickel mass and magnetar parameters, especially given the infrared excess reported near day 238.
If the inverted nickel profile, with more $^{56}$Ni in the outer shell, is taken at face value, it points to mixing or jet-like outflow during the explosion, linking SN 2022jli to the SN 2005bf-like family of double-peaked events.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

You should know two things before reading. This is the first time SN2022jli has been run through a full radiation-hydrodynamic code with a double nickel shell plus a magnetar. And the paper's central claim—that the magnetar must shut off abruptly at ~270 d—is an imposed fit, not a prediction from the model. The authors are upfront about this, but it limits what the late-time data can tell us.

What is actually new: they apply the Bersten-style 1D LTE hydro code to the dense Chen et al. bolometric data. They show convincingly that a double-nickel-only setup cannot reproduce the second peak without overproducing nickel (0.35–0.5 Msun vs ~0.15 Msun typical for stripped-envelope SNe). The hybrid model with P=22 ms, B=5e14 G gets the overall shape, including the dip at ~30 d, better than the nickel-only models. The conclusion that the second peak is likely magnetar-powered is plausible and consistent with prior one-zone work by Cartier et al., but the full hydro treatment adds weight. The citation pattern is appropriate: they build on their own earlier code work and on the relevant SN 2005bf-like analogs.

The soft spots are exactly where the stress-test note lands. The sharp drop at 270 d is matched only by explicitly switching off the magnetar with an ~18 d transition (black line in Fig. 2). Standard dipole spin-down gives tp~92 d, so at 270 d the magnetar luminosity is still substantial; something external must stop it. The paper cites pulsar glitch/state-change observations, but no mechanism is shown to produce a complete, non-recurrent shutdown on this timescale. Worse, the authors themselves state that their magnetar energy-deposition treatment is less reliable for t≥200 d, which is precisely the phase where the steep decline is reproduced. So the late-time constraint is an assumption in the regime where the code is least trustworthy. The explosion epoch is also assumed (discovery date), and the fits are by eye with no quoted uncertainties; no code or data are released. For an A&A Letter this is acceptable, but it keeps the result at 'plausible scenario' rather than 'robust constraint'.

Is it worth refereeing? Yes. It is a serious, honest modeling attempt from people who know this code, and it gives the community a concrete hybrid model to test. A careful referee should ask for a clear statement that the shutdown is a free parameter and ideally a version where the magnetar is not shut off, to see how bad the mismatch actually is. My own verdict: not a breakthrough, but a useful contribution that deserves publication after minor clarifications.

I'd bring it to a reading group, mainly as a clean example of how a fitted energy shutdown can masquerade as a physical constraint.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of the bolometric light curve of SN 2022jli, comparing a double-shell 56Ni-only model with a hybrid model that adds a magnetar as an extra energy source. The nickel-only models reproduce the first peak but fail to simultaneously explain the second peak, the intervening dip, and the late-time decline. The hybrid model, with M(56Ni) ≈ 0.15 M_sun distributed in two shells of an 11 M_sun pre-SN structure, P ≈ 22 ms, and B ≈ 5e14 G, gives a better overall match to the light curve, including the dip between peaks. The steep decline at ~270 d is reproduced only after manually suppressing the magnetar power at 270 d with an ~18-d transition, and the authors acknowledge that the code's energy-deposition treatment becomes less reliable after ~200 d and does not treat nebular-phase processes or dust.

Significance. If robust, the result would support the interpretation that the second peak of SN 2022jli is powered by a magnetar and would constrain the explosion geometry and central-engine parameters. The paper's strengths are that it performs actual hydrodynamic radiative simulations, compares two competing power-source models, uses the full bolometric dataset including the 400-d point, and is transparent about the model limitations. However, the late-time drop, which is a central feature of the light curve, is matched by an imposed shutdown of the magnetar in a regime where the code is admittedly unreliable; the quoted parameters are therefore not established as a unique or physical solution without further testing.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Figure 2] The match to the steep decline at ~270 d is achieved by imposing a magnetar shutoff: the text states that the onset of magnetar power suppression was calibrated, with a switch-off at 270 d and an ~18-d transition, and the preceding sentence admits that the model does not explicitly reproduce the steep decline. Because the adopted dipole spin-down (tp ~ 92 d) would still contribute substantial luminosity at 270 d, the observed drop is not a prediction of the model but an input. The abstract's statement that the magnetar 'must be rapidly and effectively switched off' is therefore circular as written; the cited pulsar spin-down variations (Lower et al. 2025) are not demonstrated to produce a complete, non-recurrent termination on this timescale. The authors should either provide a physical mechanism for the cessation or reframe the result as a constraint on unknown late-time engine physics.
[Section 3, post-photospheric phases] The key late-time feature lies exactly in the regime the authors state the code is not reliable: the magnetar energy deposition treatment 'becomes less reliable in the later (≥ 200 d), post-photospheric phases,' and the code does not treat nebular-phase radiative processes or dust. Since the shutdown at 270 d is calibrated in this regime, the conclusion that the light curve requires an abrupt engine cutoff is not supported by the current radiative-transfer treatment. A demonstration that the late-time drop survives a more complete treatment of thermalization, gamma-ray leakage, and dust, or an explicit discussion of the resulting systematic uncertainty, is needed.
[Sections 2 and 3, parameter inference] The model parameters are inferred by matching the observed light curve by eye, without a quantitative fitting criterion, error bars, or an exploration of degeneracies with the poorly constrained explosion time (the last non-detection is 87.5 d before discovery, and the authors caution against over-interpreting the first peak). Because P, B, shell boundaries, and nickel masses are varied together, the quoted best-fit values are not demonstrated to be unique; at least a sensitivity study around the adopted parameters (varying Eexp, explosion epoch, shell boundaries, and the magnetar parameters individually) is needed to support the parameter claims.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3] The phrase 'anhad oc switch off at 270 d' appears to be a typographical corruption; it should likely read 'an abrupt switch off at 270 d' or similar.
[Section 2] The sentence 'we found that a second peak timely consistent with the data can be obtained for f1 = 0.2, and Xin.' is incomplete; the numerical value of Xin is missing.
[Abstract] The phrase 'The best-fitting case consist' should be 'The best-fitting case consists'; also, the notation for nickel mass should be made consistent throughout (M(56Ni) versus M_56Ni).
[Section 1] The uncertainty in the explosion epoch should be stated more prominently, since the first-peak fit and the outer nickel shell extent f3 = 0.99 depend sensitively on the assumed explosion time.
[Figure 2] It would be useful to overlay the standard, non-suppressed magnetar model on Figure 2 so that the effect of the imposed shutdown is visually explicit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 270-day magnetar shutdown is calibrated to the observed drop, so the steep-decline 'requirement' is an input, not a prediction; the rest of the hybrid model is a standard fit.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Magnetar model), Fig. 2; Abstract Results]
"Figure 2 shows a LC in black solid line where we calibrated the onset of magnetar power suppression (i.e. the magnetar is no longer an energy source by anhad oc switch off at 270 d). The transition is rapid but not instantaneous, taking about ∼18 d for the LC to return to the decline rate expected from the nickel decay alone."

The steep decline at ~270 d is the observed target that any successful model must reproduce. Instead of being produced by the adopted magnetar physics (the vacuum-dipole spin-down declines smoothly, with t_p ~92 d), the decline is imposed by manually terminating magnetar energy deposition at 270 d, with an ~18-d transition whose duration is also adjusted to match the data. The paper explicitly concedes that 'our model does not explicitly reproduce the steep decline around 270 days', and the Abstract's statement that the magnetar 'must be' switched off restates this imposed input as a derived requirement. Hence the central late-time feature is a fitted input, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper is largely a standard parameter-fitting exercise: the double-peaked 56Ni distribution, He11 progenitor, Eexp, P, B, and Ni masses are all adjusted to reproduce the observed bolometric light curve, and reproducing data with fitted parameters is not circular. The framework is the authors' own (Orellana & Bersten 2022), but it is used as a numerical method rather than as a theorem that forces the conclusion; citing it is legitimate and not load-bearing. The one load-bearing circular step is the 270-d magnetar shutdown: it is calibrated to the observed drop, in a regime where the paper admits its energy-deposition treatment becomes less reliable. The abstract's claim that the magnetar 'must be' switched off is therefore a restatement of the model input. Because this shutdown is needed for the model to match a prominent observed feature, the central 'prediction' of abrupt engine cessation reduces by construction. The rest of the model, including the second peak powered by magnetar spin-down with fitted P and B, remains a genuine but non-unique fit to the data.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The modeling relies on the authors' 1D LTE hydrodynamic code, the MESA progenitor, and a set of hand-tuned parameters (Eexp, shell boundaries, nickel abundances, P, B, shutdown time). The shutdown at 270 d is an ad hoc assumption with no physical derivation. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

Explosion energy Eexp = 3e51 erg
Chosen to reproduce Fe II velocity ~8250 km/s at 16 d; affects expansion and LC shape.
Outer Ni shell boundaries f2 and f3 = f2 = 0.85, f3 = 0.99
Set to reproduce the first peak and early decline; f3 extent admitted as poorly constrained.
Outer shell Ni abundance Xout = 0.09 (0.138 Msun Ni)
Fitted to first peak height and decline slope.
Inner Ni shell boundary f1 = 0.2
Adopted to make the second peak timing in the double-Ni-only model; inner boundary f0 = 0.132 set by NS mass.
Total 56Ni mass = 0.15 Msun
Chosen to match Chen et al. (2024) estimate and late-time luminosity; distributed as 0.138 Msun outer, 0.011 Msun inner.
Magnetar spin period P = 22 ms
Adopted to place the second peak at ~60 d via spin-down timescale tp ~92 d.
Magnetic field B = 5e14 G
Tuned with P to match the height and width of the second peak.
Magnetar shutdown time = 270 d with ~18 d transition
Inserted by hand to reproduce the observed steep decline; no physical model for the switch-off.

assumptions (5)

standard math 1D LTE radiation hydrodynamic equations as implemented in Bersten et al. (2011), Orellana and Bersten (2022).
The central calculations inherit the code's assumptions; not re-derived here; not machine-checked.
domain assumption Constant gamma-ray opacity kappa_gamma = 0.03 cm2/g.
Adopted for all models; affects late-time deposition and steepness of decline.
domain assumption Magnetar spindown follows vacuum dipole braking with braking index n = 3.
The paper notes deviations from n = 3 have slight effect (footnote 2), referencing prior work.
ad hoc to paper Abrupt shutoff of magnetar energy deposition at ~270 d.
Inserted to reproduce the observed drop; the paper provides no mechanism, only speculation about spin-down variations.
domain assumption Progenitor structure He11 (30 Msun ZAMS, 11 Msun pre-SN) from MESA, with explosion time assumed to coincide with discovery.
Chosen because its large mass separates the Ni shells; the explosion time is poorly constrained (last non-detection 87.5 d before discovery).

invented entities (1)

None
purpose: No new physical entities are introduced; the magnetar is a pre-existing concept.
The paper does not postulate new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SN2022jli modeled with a $^{56}$Ni double-layer and a magnetar." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQLBDSMX

@misc{pith2026250721304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SN2022jli modeled with a $^56$Ni double-layer and a magnetar},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQLBDSMX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21304}
}

abstract

We study the bolometric evolution of the exceptional Type Ic Supernova (SN) 2022jli, aiming to understand the underlying mechanisms responsible for its distinctive double-peaked light curve morphology, extended timescales, and the rapid, steep decline in luminosity observed at around 270 days after the SN discovery. We present a quantitative assessment of two leading models through hydrodynamic radiative simulations: two shells enriched with nickel and a combination of nickel and magnetar power. We explore the parameter space of a model in which the SN is powered by radioactive decay assuming a bimodal nickel distribution. While this setup can reproduce the early light curve properties, it faces problems to explain the prominent second peak. We therefore consider a hybrid scenario with a rapidly rotating magnetar as additional energy source. We find that the observed light curve morphology can be well reproduced by a model combining a magnetar engine and a double-layer $^{56}$Ni distribution. The best-fitting case consist of a magnetar with a spin period of $P\simeq 22$ ms and a bipolar magnetic field strength of $B\simeq 5\times 10^{14}$ G and a radioactive content with total nickel mass of 0.15 M$_\odot$, distributed across two distinct shells within a pre-SN structure of 11 M$_\odot$. To reproduce the abrupt drop in luminosity at $\sim 270$ d, the energy deposition from the magnetar must be rapidly and effectively switched off.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21304 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Comparison between our preferred double-peaked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

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

Searching for core-collapse supernovae in binaries with ZTF
astro-ph.HE 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

With only 30 to 75 days of observations, standard ZTF monitoring would recover just a few to ten percent of periodic binary-accretion signals in core-collapse supernovae, implying many such systems are missed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Aloy, M. Á. & Obergaulinger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4365

work page 2021
[2]

Anderson, J. P. 2019, A&A, 628, A7

work page 2019
[3]

C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M

Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 61

work page 2011
[4]

C., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., et al

Bersten, M. C., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 143

work page 2013
[5]

2021, MNRAS, 507, 443

Bugli, M., Guilet, J., & Obergaulinger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 443

work page 2021
[6]

2024, arXiv:2410.21381

Cartier, R., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M., et al. 2024, arXiv:2410.21381

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

2024, Nature, 625, 253

Chen, P., Gal-Yam, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 253

work page 2024
[8]

Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 2008, ApJ, 683, L135

2008

Show all 50 references

[9]

A., Levan, A

Chrimes, A. A., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3550

2022
[10]

Chugai, N. N. & Utrobin, V . P. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L71

2022
[11]

J., Li, C., & Woosley, S

Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Li, C., & Woosley, S. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2139

2012
[12]

J., Izzard, R

Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109

2008
[13]

E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H

Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H. T. 2020, ApJ, 890, 51

2020
[14]

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

1997
[15]

M., et al

Folatelli, G., Contreras, C., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1039

2006
[16]

2017, Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae, ed

Gal-Yam, A. 2017, Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 195

2017
[17]

2009, A&A, 502, 611 Gutiérrez, C

Georgy, C., Meynet, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 502, 611 Gutiérrez, C. P., Bersten, M. C., Orellana, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4907 Gutiérrez, C. P., Pastorello, A., Bersten, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2056

2009
[18]

J., Janka, H

Hammer, N. J., Janka, H. T., & Müller, E. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1371

2010
[19]

L., Woosley, S

Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288

2003
[20]

J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 128

2013
[21]

2017, Unusual Supernovae and Alternative Power Sources, ed

Kasen, D. 2017, Unusual Supernovae and Alternative Power Sources, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 939

2017
[22]

& Bildsten, L

Kasen, D. & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245

2010
[23]

& Lasota, J.-P

King, A. & Lasota, J.-P. 2024, A&A, 682, L22 Kondi´c, T., Rüdiger, G., & Hollerbach, R. 2011, A&A, 535, L2

2024
[24]

E., Karastergiou, A., Johnston, S., et al

Lower, M. E., Karastergiou, A., Johnston, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 3104

2025
[25]

D., Bersier, D., James, P

Lyman, J. D., Bersier, D., James, P. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 328

2016
[26]

2007, ApJ, 666, 1069

Maeda, K., Tanaka, M., Nomoto, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1069

2007
[27]

& Lai, D

Medin, Z. & Lai, D. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1379

2010
[28]

D., Thompson, T

Metzger, B. D., Thompson, T. A., & Quataert, E. 2007, ApJ, 659, 561

2007
[29]

P., & Arcavi, I

Modjaz, M., Gutiérrez, C. P., & Arcavi, I. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 717

2019
[30]

2009, ApJ, 702, 226

Modjaz, M., Li, W., Butler, N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 226

2009
[31]

2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-1198, 1

Monard, L. 2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-1198, 1

2022
[32]

J., Nicholl, M., et al

Moore, T., Smartt, S. J., Nicholl, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, L31

2023
[33]

J., Murase, K., et al

Moriya, T. J., Murase, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 6210

2022
[34]

2017, ApJ, 850, 55

Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55

2017
[35]

I., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T

Nomoto, K. I., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 1995, Phys. Rep., 256, 173

1995
[36]

Omand, C. M. B. & Jerkstrand, A. 2023, A&A, 673, A107

2023
[37]

Omand, C. M. B. & Sarin, N. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6455

2024
[38]

& Bersten, M

Orellana, M. & Bersten, M. C. 2020, BAAA, 61B, 63

2020
[39]

& Bersten, M

Orellana, M. & Bersten, M. C. 2022, A&A, 667, A92

2022
[40]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

2011
[41]

2019, ApJ, 871, L25

Piran, T., Nakar, E., Mazzali, P., & Pian, E. 2019, ApJ, 871, L25

2019
[42]

C., & Hsu, J

Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

1992
[43]

J., Mazzali, P

Prentice, S. J., Mazzali, P. A., Pian, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2973

2016
[44]

M., Berger, E., Page, K

Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2008, Nature, 453, 469

2008
[45]

2018, A&A, 609, A106

Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A106

2018
[46]

2008, ApJ, 688, 499 Torres-Forné, A., Cerdá-Durán, P., et al

Thompson, C. 2008, ApJ, 688, 499 Torres-Forné, A., Cerdá-Durán, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3813

2008
[47]

& Metzger, B

Vurm, I. & Metzger, B. D. 2021, ApJ, 917, 77

2021
[48]

Q., Wang, L

Wang, S. Q., Wang, L. J., Dai, Z. G., & Wu, X. F. 2015, ApJ, 799, 107

2015
[49]

2024, A&A, 688, A114

Wei, Y .-J., Yang, Y .-P., Wei, D.-M., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, A&A, 688, A114

2024
[50]

Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJ, 719, L204 Article number, page 4 M. Orellana et al.: SN 2022jli hydrodynamic model of the light curve Appendix A: Interaction with circumstellar material To further investigate the origin of SN 2022jli, and given that circumstellar material (CSM) inte...

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Aloy, M. Á. & Obergaulinger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4365

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Anderson, J. P. 2019, A&A, 628, A7

work page 2019

[3] [3]

C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M

Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 61

work page 2011

[4] [4]

C., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., et al

Bersten, M. C., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 143

work page 2013

[5] [5]

2021, MNRAS, 507, 443

Bugli, M., Guilet, J., & Obergaulinger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 443

work page 2021

[6] [6]

2024, arXiv:2410.21381

Cartier, R., Contreras, C., Stritzinger, M., et al. 2024, arXiv:2410.21381

work page arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

2024, Nature, 625, 253

Chen, P., Gal-Yam, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 253

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 2008, ApJ, 683, L135

2008