Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Confined Circumstellar Material as a Dust Formation Site in Type II Supernovae

T0 review · 4 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 Type II supernovae hitting confined circumstellar shells can forge up to a tenth of a solar mass of dust, with an infrared signal that mimics kilonovae.

desk verdict A genuinely new dust-formation pathway in confined CSM, with upper-limit caveats that the paper itself flags; worth refereeing, not desk-rejecting. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22763 v2 pith:B5ENKD66 submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Yuki Takei , Kunihito Ioka , Masaru Shibata This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaecircumstellarmatterdustformationcolddenseshellradiativeshocksinfraredemissionkilonovaestellarmassloss
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

The paper argues that the dense, compact circumstellar material (confined CSM) recently found around many Type II supernovae is a natural dust factory. When the supernova ejecta strike this material, a radiative shock compresses the gas into a cold dense shell (CDS), and once the shock exits the shell the gas expands freely and cools adiabatically fast enough for dust to condense. Across the explored parameter space, the model produces dust masses of roughly $10^{-3}$ to $0.1\,M_\odot$. The infrared emission from this dust rises within about ten days, a shape the authors show resembles the light curves of kilonovae (the infrared-bright transients from neutron-star mergers), and their model is broadly consistent with the infrared excess observed in SN 1998S. If the scenario is right, confined CSM interaction becomes a common dust source and a possible contaminant in kilonova searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the cold dense shell (CDS): a thin, radiatively cooled layer of shocked gas that forms near the contact discontinuity when supernova ejecta collide with confined circumstellar material. The authors track its growth with a thin-shell approximation for mass and momentum conservation of the shocked region, adding mass to the CDS as hot gas cools on the free-free cooling timescale. Once the forward shock passes the outer edge of the confined CSM, the shell expands freely and cools adiabatically with $T_{\rm gas}\propto r_{\rm sh}^{-1}$ and $\rho_{\rm CDS}\propto r_{\rm sh}^{-3}$, quickly reaching the dust condensation threshold of $T_{\rm d,max}=2000$ K. Dust is assumed to form instantaneously and completely below that threshold, and the infrared luminosity is computed from a Planck function, a power-law grain-size distribution, and a photon escape probability that converts total dust mass into the observable mass.

What would settle it

Time-resolved mid-infrared photometry of a Type II supernova with independently confirmed confined CSM (from flash spectroscopy or early light-curve bumps). The model predicts dust emission that rises sharply over a few days, peaks at a level corresponding to $10^{-3}$ to $0.1\,M_\odot$ of condensed metals, and then decays over roughly a year; a flat infrared light curve, a rise much longer than the $\sim r_{\rm sh}/c$ light-crossing time, or a peak far below the predicted level would rule out the complete-instantaneous-condensation scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a cold dense shell (CDS) — a thin, radiatively cooled layer formed between the forward and reverse shocks when supernova ejecta collide with confined circumstellar material — is a robust dust-formation site. Under a wide range of CSM masses and radial extents the shell forms and then cools rapidly by adiabatic expansion after it breaks out of the CSM, with $T_{\rm gas}\propto r_{\rm sh}^{-1}$. Assuming all metals in the shell condense into dust once the temperature drops below $2000$ K, the dust mass ranges from roughly $10^{-3}\,M_\odot$ to $0.1\,M_\odot$. The calculated infrared emission rises within about ten days, resembling the light curves of kilonovae (the infrared transients from neutron-star mergers), and the model is broadly consistent with the infrared excess of SN 1998S, corresponding to a dust mass near $10^{-2}\,M_\odot$. The high shell density is also expected to favor larger grains that survive later reverse shocks better.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction hangs on dust condensing completely and immediately once the shell cools below about $2000$ K, and on that dust staying at the gas temperature with no reheating; if condensation is incomplete or delayed, or the dust thermally decouples, the quoted dust masses and kilonova-like infrared rise are upper limits rather than expectations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Type II supernovae with confined CSM may each produce $10^{-3}$ to $0.1\,M_\odot$ of dust, making CSM interaction a potentially major dust source alongside condensation in the ejecta itself.
  • The dust emission rises within about ten days and can resemble kilonova light curves, so kilonova searches must treat such infrared signals as possible contaminants, though the slower decay offers a way to distinguish them.
  • Because the CDS is denser than the inner ejecta, grains may grow larger and survive the later reverse shock better, allowing some of this dust to reach the galactic dust reservoir; the authors estimate a cumulative contribution of roughly $5\times10^6\,M_\odot$ per galaxy over 10 Gyr at assumed rates.
  • The model reproduces the SN 1998S infrared excess with a total dust mass near $10^{-2}\,M_\odot$, consistent with the lower limit inferred from observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the rapid infrared rise is itself a probe of CSM structure: measuring its rise time and peak would constrain the radius and mass of the confined CSM independently of optical light-curve fitting.
  • I infer that the complete-instantaneous-condensation assumption is likely optimistic, since CO formation can lock up carbon, but the qualitative dependence on CSM mass and extent should survive a more detailed chemical-kinetics treatment.
  • I infer that the same adiabatic-cooling channel should operate in other interaction-powered transients with confined CSM, such as Type IIn supernovae and luminous blue variable eruptions, so dust formation through this channel may be common across transient classes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that confined circumstellar material (CSM) around Type II supernovae, formed by eruptive mass loss shortly before core collapse, provides a favorable site for dust formation. The authors use the CHIPS code to model the pre-explosion mass eruption, a thin-shell approximation for the shock interaction, and a cooling-based prescription for the formation of a cold dense shell (CDS). They then assume complete, instantaneous condensation of all metals once the CDS temperature falls below 2000 K, compute dust masses in the range ~10^-3 to 0.1 M_sun, and calculate IR light curves assuming dust and gas are in thermal equilibrium. They compare the model with IR observations of SN 1998S and argue that the rapidly rising IR emission could contaminate kilonova searches. The paper is transparent about several key assumptions and lists them as caveats in Section 4.3.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, this work would establish confined CSM interaction as a robust and potentially ubiquitous dust formation channel in Type II SNe, with observational consequences for kilonova searches. The study is timely given the growing observational evidence for confined CSM around many SN II progenitors. The authors build on an open-source, publicly available code (CHIPS), explore a parameter space of CSM mass and extent, and make a concrete comparison with SN 1998S. The qualitative mechanism—radiative shock formation of a CDS followed by adiabatic cooling—is plausible and not in dispute. The quantitative claims, however, rest on strong simplifying assumptions that the paper itself flags, so the stated dust masses and IR luminosities should be viewed as upper limits pending more detailed condensation and radiative-transfer modeling.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (15)-(16) and Fig. 8] The assumed dust temperature Td = (0.5-1)Tgas is load-bearing for all IR luminosity predictions, including the kilonova-like rise. In the free-expansion phase the shell becomes optically thin, so radiative cooling of grains should decouple Td from Tgas; since Ld scales as Td^4 (and even more steeply in the Wien tail, Eq. 26), an overestimate of Td by only a factor of two yields roughly an order-of-magnitude overestimate in luminosity. The caveat in Section 4.3 is appreciated, but a quantitative radiative-equilibrium calculation (or a physically motivated Td(t) from heating/cooling balance) is needed to support the claimed IR light curves and the kilonova-contamination argument.
  2. [Section 2.5 and Section 3.2] The assumption that all metals in the CDS condense instantaneously when T < 2000 K (Eq. 15) gives an upper limit on dust mass, as the paper itself acknowledges in Section 4.3 regarding CO locking. Nevertheless, the abstract and Section 3.2 present the range 10^-3-0.1 M_sun as the expected dust mass. Since this range is the central quantitative claim, the paper should clearly label it as an upper limit throughout and provide a more quantitative assessment of carbon depletion by CO formation rather than deferring chemical kinetics entirely to future work.
  3. [Eq. (8) and Section 3.1] The CDS mass prescription dMCDS/dt ~ Mhot/tau_cool is a crude order-of-magnitude estimate, and the cooling timescale in Eq. (11) uses only free-free emission, which is inaccurate below ~10^7 K where line cooling dominates. Because the ejecta-side CDS mass dominates the final dust yield (Section 3.1), the results are sensitive to this prescription. The authors should test the sensitivity of the dust mass to alternative cooling functions or to a more detailed shocked-shell treatment, or at least quantify the uncertainty introduced by this approximation.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Fig. 7] The SN 1998S comparison changes tinj from 11 yr to 8 yr and Eej from 2.5 x 10^51 erg to 3 x 10^51 erg relative to the previous best-fit model of Takei et al. (2022), without demonstrating that the adjusted parameters still reproduce the optical light curve. This makes the comparison a consistency check rather than a prediction. The paper should either fit the optical and IR data simultaneously or show explicitly that the adjusted model remains consistent with the optical observations used in the earlier fit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The title contains a spacing artifact: 'F ormation' should be 'Formation'.
  2. [Section 3 (intro sentence)] 'The simulation are conducted' should be 'The simulations are conducted'.
  3. [Section 4.1] 'Shuttering can also fragment larger grains' appears to be a typo for 'Sputtering can also fragment larger grains'.
  4. [Figure 5] The y-axis label 'Ld, [erg s 1 m 1]' should be 'L_d [erg s^-1 um^-1]' to indicate per-micron luminosity.
  5. [Affiliation 4] 'Postdam-Golm' should be 'Potsdam-Golm'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructively circular derivation; the central CDS/dust-yield chain is self-contained, but the SN 1998S comparison is an in-sample consistency test using the authors' own previously fitted and then adjusted parameters.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4, Figure 7 (SN 1998S comparison)]
    "Y. Takei et al. (2022) derived the model parameters, Eej = 2.5 × 10^51 erg, MZAMS = 20 M⊙, finj = 0.7, tinj = 11 yr, by fitting the optical light curve of SN 1998S with a model constructed using CHIPS. In this section, we investigate whether the same parameter set can also reproduce the light curve of dust. ... For this comparison, we slightly adjusted the parameters from the best-fit parameters of Y. Takei et al. (2022), changing tinj from 11 yr to 8 yr and Eej from 2.5 × 10^51 erg to 3 × 10^51 erg."

    The claimed 'broad consistency with observations of SN 1998S' is presented as validation, but the parameters were originally fit to that same supernova's optical light curve in the authors' own CHIPS framework, and two of them are then changed for the IR comparison. The IR light curve is therefore not an independent prediction but an in-sample consistency check with ad hoc parameter adjustment. This does not propagate back into the main dust-mass or CDS-formation derivation, which is computed from shock dynamics and standard condensation assumptions.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: (1) CHIPS simulates the pre-SN mass eruption and is used to construct the confined CSM; the code is open-source and the underlying equations are described, so citing the authors' previous CHIPS papers is tool attribution rather than load-bearing circularity. (2) The thin-shell shock evolution, CDS mass estimate, and adiabatic cooling law T_gas ∝ r_sh^-1 follow from standard Rankine-Hugoniot, free-free cooling, and self-similar ejecta profiles with external references (Matzner & McKee 1999; Moriya et al. 2013; Sutherland & Dopita 1993). (3) The dust mass is obtained by assuming complete, instantaneous condensation of all metals below 2000 K, which the paper explicitly labels an upper limit and later qualifies with CO-locking and finite-condensation caveats; this is a stated assumption, not a disguised input. (4) The IR luminosity uses Eq. (16) with T_d = (0.5-1)T_gas, again an openly acknowledged simplification; its sensitivity to T_d is discussed in Section 4.3. No equation reduces by construction to an earlier fitted output, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported solely through self-citation. The one weakness is the SN 1998S comparison, which uses parameters fit to the same event in the authors' earlier work and then adjusted, making it a consistency check rather than an external prediction. That is a minor validation issue, not a circular definition of the central claim, so the circularity score is 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on standard shock and ejecta prescriptions, plus two strong simplifications (complete instantaneous condensation and dust-gas thermal coupling) that the paper itself flags as caveats. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • finj (injected energy / envelope binding energy) = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8 (grid); 0.7 for SN 1998S in Takei et al. 2022
    Controls CSM mass; dust yield increases with finj. Explored as a grid rather than fitted here.
  • tinj (time from CSM ejection to core collapse) = 3-15 yr grid; adjusted to 8 yr for SN 1998S (prior best fit 11 yr)
    Controls CSM radial extent and density; dust yield decreases with tinj. Adjusted for SN 1998S comparison.
  • Eej (explosion energy) = 1e51 erg in grid; 3e51 erg for SN 1998S comparison
    Fixed in the parameter survey; adjusted for the SN 1998S light curve.
  • Td/Tgas ratio = 0.5 to 1 (bracket)
    Dust temperature is not modeled; the ratio is varied to bracket the SN 1998S IR luminosity.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry of the SN ejecta, CSM, and shock interaction.
    Stated in Section 2: 'Throughout this study, we assume spherical symmetry of the system.' Real confined CSM may be clumpy or asymmetric.
  • domain assumption The CSM density profile follows the analytic form of Tsuna et al. 2021 fitted to CHIPS output (Eq. 5), with outer exponent nout = 12.
    The sharp outer edge drives the free expansion and adiabatic cooling that make dust condensation fast.
  • domain assumption Thin-shell approximation valid; shell width negligible (Section 2.3).
    Used in Eqs. (6)-(7); fails if the radiative shell is not thin early on.
  • domain assumption Post-shock gas cools predominantly by free-free emission, and the CDS cools to TCDS ~ 1e4 K via the Sutherland & Dopita cooling function (Eq. 14).
    Cooling timescale and CDS density at breakout depend on this.
  • domain assumption After breakout at r*, the CDS expands freely and cools adiabatically as Tgas proportional to r_sh^-1 and rho_CDS proportional to r_sh^-3 (Eqs. 12-13), with no reheating or mixing.
    This is the mechanism that brings the gas below the 2000 K condensation threshold.
  • ad hoc to paper All metals in the CDS condense into dust instantaneously once T < Td,max = 2000 K (Section 2.5).
    The paper acknowledges this gives an upper limit on dust mass; no nucleation/growth kinetics are modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Dust temperature equals gas temperature, Td = (0.5-1) Tgas (Sections 3.4 and 4.3).
    Thermal equilibrium is assumed; the paper notes this may fail in optically thin regions.
  • standard math Broken power-law ejecta density profile of Matzner & McKee 1999 (Eq. 1) with fixed inner slope delta = 1.
    Standard ejecta model; the CDS mass on the ejecta side depends on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confined Circumstellar Material as a Dust Formation Site in Type II Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5ENKD66

@misc{pith2026250722763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confined Circumstellar Material as a Dust Formation Site in Type II Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5ENKD66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22763}
}
abstract

We propose a model for dust formation in Type II supernovae (SNe) interacting with confined circumstellar material (CSM), motivated by recent time-domain surveys that have revealed a substantial fraction of SN progenitors to be surrounded by CSM ejected shortly before core-collapse. We simulate the pre-SN mass eruption and the resulting confined CSM using the open-source code CHIPS, and follow the subsequent evolution of the SN ejecta and its interaction with the CSM. We show that a cold dense shell (CDS) is formed at the radiative shock under a wide range of conditions and later undergoes rapid adiabatic cooling during free expansion, leading to efficient dust condensation. The resulting dust mass ranges from $\sim10^{-3}\,M_\odot$ to $0.1\,M_\odot$, depending on the mass and spatial extent of the CSM. We further calculate the infrared (IR) emission from the newly formed dust and find broad consistency with observations of SN~1998S. Notably, the IR light curve exhibits a rapid rise within $\lesssim10\,{\rm d}$, closely resembling that of kilonovae (KNe). This suggests that dust emission powered by confined CSM interaction may be also discovered in KN searches. Moreover, the high-density environment of the CDS may allow dust grains to grow to larger sizes, enhancing their survivability against destruction by reverse shocks propagating from the interstellar medium at later times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22763 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the interaction between the homologously expanding SN ejecta and the CSM (not scaled). This leads to the instantaneous formation of the CDS (blue-shaded region within the magnified view), where the new dust is expected to form. lution using the thin-shell approximation. By estimat￾ing the mass of the CDS formed in these interactions, we aim to clarify how the structure of confined CSM influ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The temporal evolution of the shock velocity, ejecta velocity, shocked mass, and CDS mass. The time at which the shock reaches the transition radius and the outer edge of the CSM is marked by the vertical lines r∗ and rout, respectively. The subscript rev (for) denotes the mass of the shocked region/CDS on the shocked ejecta (CSM) side. The adopted parameters are tinj = 10 yr and finj = 0.5. 3.1. Evolution of the Sh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The expected dust mass formed in the CDS (left panel) and the condensation time of dust τcond (right panel) as a function of tinj for each value of finj. Td, max. As can be seen from this figure, τcond increases monotonically with both tinj and finj. A longer tinj cor￾responds to a more extended CSM, which increases the time required for the shock to sweep up the CSM and, consequently, leads to a delayed onset of fr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The temporal evolution of the density (left panel) and temperature (right panel) of CDS. The gray-shaded area in the left panel represents the region in which τcoll > τexp, suggesting that dust formation is suppressed under these conditions. The red-shaded region in th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SEDs of the thermal emission from newly-formed dust at several epochs t = 218, 442, 891 d, which correspond to Td = 2000, 1000, 500 K, respectively. The adopted pa￾rameters are finj = 0.5 and tinj = 5 yr. ture. Here the dust temperature Td is assumed to follow the gas …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the dust IR luminosity with our model. We assume Td = Tgas when we calculate the upper limit, while Td = 0.5 Tgas for lower limit. Left: Blackbody luminosity. Right: IR luminosity integrated over 1.5–4.8 µm. The data were taken from M. Pozzo et al. (2004)…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the dust light curve with the i, j, h band light curves of AT 2017gfo, scaled with the peak lumi￾nosity Lpeak. The rising phase, approximated by Equation (28), is indicated by dashed lines. The adopted parameter is finj = 0.3. The light curves of AT 2017g…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  2. [2]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.15900, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.15900

    Barna, T., Fremling, C., Ahumada, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.15900, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.15900

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.15900 2025

  4. [4]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 973, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11829.x

    Bianchi, S., & Schneider, R. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 973, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11829.x

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    R., Hogg, D

    Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Bahcall, N. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 819, doi: 10.1086/375776

    doi:10.1086/375776 2003

  6. [6]

    Bouchet, P., & Danziger, I. J. 1993, A&A, 273, 451

    1993

  7. [7]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115

    Bovy, J., & Rix, H.-W. 2013, ApJ, 779, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/115 2013

  8. [8]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abef05

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abef05 2021

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd8be

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Whitelock, P

    Catchpole, R. M., Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M. W., et al. 1988, MNRAS, 231, 75P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/231.1.75P

    1988 doi

  3. [11]

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

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2012, ApJL, 752, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17506, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17506

    Chiaki, G., Nozawa, T., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17506, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17506

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    D., Deneault, E

    Clayton, D. D., Deneault, E. A. N., & Meyer, B. S. 2001, ApJ, 562, 480, doi: 10.1086/323467

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Liu, W., & Dalgarno, A

    Clayton, D. D., Liu, W., & Dalgarno, A. 1999, Science, 283, 1290, doi: 10.1126/science.283.5406.1290

    1999

  8. [16]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P. S., Berger, E., Villar, V. A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    P., & Mathews, W

    Cox, D. P., & Mathews, W. G. 1969, ApJ, 155, 859, doi: 10.1086/149916

    1969 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, A&A, 685, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348642

    Dastidar, R., Pignata, G., Dukiya, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348642

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3138

    Davies, B., & Dessart, L. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3138

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    1984 doi

  13. [21]

    T., Dale, D

    Draine, B. T., Dale, D. A., Bendo, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 866, doi: 10.1086/518306

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    1983, ApJ, 274, 175, doi: 10.1086/161435

    Dwek, E. 1983, ApJ, 274, 175, doi: 10.1086/161435

    1983 doi

  16. [24]

    Dwek, E., Galliano, F., & Jones, A. P. 2007, ApJ, 662, 927, doi: 10.1086/518430

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    Dwek, E., Sarangi, A., & Arendt, R. G. 2019, ApJL, 871, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf9a8

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.4485 F¨ orster, F., Moriya, T. J., Maureira, J. C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 808, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0563-4

    2013 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Dwek, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1768, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1768

    2010 doi

  20. [29]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/7

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

    R., Vincenzi, M., et al

    Frohmaier, C., Angus, C. R., Vincenzi, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3607

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1314

    Fuller, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1314

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    D., Smartt, S

    Fulton, M. D., Smartt, S. J., Huber, M. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.07082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.07082

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    2014, Nature, 511, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature13558

    Gall, C., Hjorth, J., Watson, D., et al. 2014, Nature, 511, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature13558

    2014 doi

  25. [34]

    B., Modjaz, M., et al

    Graur, O., Bianco, F. B., Modjaz, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb7

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    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

  27. [36]

    A., Sollerman, J., et al

    Hinds, K.-R., Perley, D. A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 541, 135, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf888

    2025 doi

  28. [37]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

    Hiramatsu, D., Tsuna, D., Berger, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/96

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2012, ApJ, 761, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/96

    2012 doi

  30. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  31. [40]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    R., & Barnes, J

    Kasen, D., Badnell, N. R., & Barnes, J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/25

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    1987, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 77, 1402, doi: 10.1143/PTP.77.1402

    Kozasa, T., & Hasegawa, H. 1987, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 77, 1402, doi: 10.1143/PTP.77.1402

    1987 doi

  35. [44]

    1989, ApJ, 344, 325, doi: 10.1086/167801

    Kozasa, T., Hasegawa, H., & Nomoto, K. 1989, ApJ, 344, 325, doi: 10.1086/167801

    1989 doi

  36. [45]

    2020, A&A, 635, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937226 14

    Kuriyama, N., & Shigeyama, T. 2020, A&A, 635, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937226 14

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    Laor, A., & Draine, B. T. 1993, ApJ, 402, 441, doi: 10.1086/172149

    1993 doi

  38. [47]

    D., Li, C., Filippenko, A

    Li, W. D., Li, C., Filippenko, A. V., & Moran, E. C. 1998, IAUC, 6829, 1

    1998

  39. [48]

    K., et al

    Maeda, K., Nozawa, T., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/5

    2013 doi

  40. [49]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi: 10.1086/155591

    1977 doi

  41. [50]

    Mattila, S., Meikle, W. P. S., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 141, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13516.x

    2008

  42. [51]

    D., & McKee, C

    Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJ, 510, 379, doi: 10.1086/306571

    1999 doi

  43. [52]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 932, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

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

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

    2013 doi

  45. [54]

    L., & Valenti, S

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., & Valenti, S. 2017, ApJ, 838, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6251

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    L., & Valenti, S

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., & Valenti, S. 2018, ApJ, 858, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a6

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    2006, NuPhA, 777, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    Maeda, K. 2006, NuPhA, 777, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    2006 doi

  48. [57]

    2013, ApJ, 776, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/24

    Nozawa, T., & Kozasa, T. 2013, ApJ, 776, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/24

    2013 doi

  49. [58]

    2006, ApJ, 648, 435, doi: 10.1086/505639

    Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., & Habe, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, 435, doi: 10.1086/505639

    2006 doi

  50. [59]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 955, doi: 10.1086/520621

    Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Habe, A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 955, doi: 10.1086/520621

    2007 doi

  51. [60]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 356, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/356

    Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Tominaga, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 356, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/356

    2010 doi

  52. [61]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 785, doi: 10.1086/379011

    Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., & Nomoto, K. 2003, ApJ, 598, 785, doi: 10.1086/379011

    2003 doi

  53. [62]

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

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

    2008 doi

  54. [63]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  55. [64]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  56. [65]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  57. [66]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  58. [67]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  59. [68]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    Pozzo, M., Meikle, W. P. S., Fassia, A., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 457, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07951.x

    2004

  61. [70]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    Quataert, E., & Shiode, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    2012

  62. [71]

    Ragot, B. R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 232, doi: 10.1086/338883

    2002 doi

  63. [72]

    Sarangi, A., & Slavin, J. D. 2022, ApJ, 933, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac713d

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    Schlegel, E. M. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 269

    1990

  65. [74]

    D., Temim, T., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Fox, O. D., Temim, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce77

    2025 doi

  66. [75]

    W., Smith, B

    Silvia, D. W., Smith, B. D., & Shull, J. M. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1575, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1575

    2010 doi

  67. [76]

    D., Dwek, E., Mac Low, M.-M., & Hill, A

    Slavin, J. D., Dwek, E., Mac Low, M.-M., & Hill, A. S. 2020, ApJ, 902, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5a4

    2020 doi

  68. [77]

    V., & Chornock, R

    Smith, N., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., & Chornock, R. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x

    2011

  69. [78]

    Spyromilio, J., Meikle, W. P. S., Learner, R. C. M., & Allen, D. A. 1988, Nature, 334, 327, doi: 10.1038/334327a0

    1988 doi

  70. [79]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253, doi: 10.1086/191823

    1993 doi

  71. [80]

    2014, ApJL, 789, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L6

    Takami, H., Nozawa, T., & Ioka, K. 2014, ApJL, 789, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L6

    2014 doi

  72. [81]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da4

    Takei, Y., Tsuna, D., Ko, T., & Shigeyama, T. 2024, ApJ, 961, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0da4

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60fe

    Takei, Y., Tsuna, D., Kuriyama, N., Ko, T., & Shigeyama, T. 2022, ApJ, 929, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60fe

    2022 doi

  74. [83]

    M., Fox, O

    Tinyanont, S., Kasliwal, M. M., Fox, O. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/231

    2016 doi

  75. [84]

    D., Shahbandeh, M., et al

    Tinyanont, S., Fox, O. D., Shahbandeh, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adccc0

    2025 doi

  76. [85]

    2001, MNRAS, 325, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04486.x

    Todini, P., & Ferrara, A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04486.x

    2001

  77. [86]

    2023a, MNRAS, 526, 4801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3043

    Tsuna, D., Nakazato, Y., & Hartwig, T. 2023a, MNRAS, 526, 4801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3043

    doi

  78. [87]

    2023, PASJ, 75, L19, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad041

    Tsuna, D., & Takei, Y. 2023, PASJ, 75, L19, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad041

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 1128, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab063

    Tsuna, D., Takei, Y., Kuriyama, N., & Shigeyama, T. 2021, PASJ, 73, 1128, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab063

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    2023b, ApJ, 945, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbc6

    Tsuna, D., Takei, Y., & Shigeyama, T. 2023b, ApJ, 945, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbc6

    doi

  81. [90]

    J., Yang, S., et al

    Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., Yang, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf Van Bemmel, N., Zhang, J., Cooke, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf332

    2017 doi

  82. [91]

    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

  83. [92]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181, doi: 10.1086/192237

    1995 doi

  84. [93]

    C., & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. C., & Fuller, J. 2022a, ApJ, 930, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac660c 15

    doi

  85. [94]

    C., & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. C., & Fuller, J. 2022b, ApJL, 940, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b3d

    doi

  86. [95]

    A., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Yaron, O., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510, doi: 10.1038/nphys4025

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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