Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

SN 2024iss: A Double-peaked Type IIb Supernova with Evidence of Circumstellar Interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SN 2024iss is a double-peaked Type IIb supernova whose first peak comes from shock cooling of an extended hydrogen envelope and whose bright thermal X-rays reveal a compact shell of mass lost about four years before the explosion.

desk verdict A data-rich Type IIb SN paper with a solid double-peaked light curve and good X-ray coverage, but the compact-CSM and 4-year eruption claims rest on a shaky NH inference that contradicts the paper's own EM-derived radii. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.22997 v1 pith:GHDKLRNE submitted 2025-10-27 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Liyang Chen , Xiaofeng Wang , Qinyu Wu , Moira Andrews , Joseph Farah , Paolo Ochner , Andrea Reguitti , Thomas G. Brink
show 49 more authors
Jujia Zhang Cuiying Song Jialian Liu Alexei V. Filippenko David J. Sand Irene Albanese Kate D. Alexander Jennifer Andrews K. Azalee Bostroem Yongzhi Cai Collin Christy Ali Esamdin Andrea Farina Noah Franz D. Andrew Howell Brian Hsu Maokai Hu Abdusamatjan Iskandar Liping Li Gaici Li Dongyue Li Wenxiong Li Jinzhong Liu Curtis McCully Megan Newsome Yuan Qi Ni Andrea Pastorello Estefania Padilla Gonzalez Jeniveve Pearson Haowei Peng Conor Ransome Manisha Shrestha Nathan Smith Bhagya Subrayan Giacomo Terreran Giorgio Valerin J. Vinkó Sergiy S.Vasylyev Letian Wang Zhenyu Wang Hao Wang J. Craig Wheeler Kathryn Wynn Danfeng Xiang Shengyu Yan Weimin Yuan Juan Zhang WeiKang Zheng Yu Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords TypeIIbsupernovashockcoolingcircumstellarmediumX-rayemissionmasslossenvelopestrippingbinaryinteractionSN2024iss
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 uses optical, ultraviolet, and X-ray observations of SN 2024iss to reconstruct the final state of its progenitor star. It argues that the first light-curve peak is shock-cooling emission from a moderately extended hydrogen envelope (about 0.11 solar masses at about 244 solar radii), while the second peak is powered by radioactive nickel decay. Bright thermal X-rays imply a steady wind-like mass-loss rate of about 1.6e-5 solar masses per year, and the low neutral-hydrogen column at early times places the circumstellar material inside roughly 1.3e14 cm, meaning the star shed mass violently within about four years of the explosion. These properties put SN 2024iss between the compact and extended subtypes of Type IIb supernovae and support a predicted correlation between envelope radius and pre-explosion mass-loss rate. A sympathetic reader would care because this is rare multi-wavelength evidence tying a supernova's envelope to its immediate environment just before core collapse.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a semi-analytic shock-cooling model for an extended polytropic envelope, fitted to the first five days of multiband photometry, which converts the early peak temperature and luminosity into envelope mass and radius. The second peak is fitted with a standard radioactive-decay diffusion model (constant opacity, fixed photospheric velocity) to yield nickel mass, ejecta mass, and kinetic energy. The X-ray analysis uses a thermal free-free (bremsstrahlung) model with a fixed plasma temperature to derive the circumstellar density; an independent emission-measure inversion maps the X-ray luminosity at each epoch into a radial density profile consistent with a wind-like r^-2

What would settle it

Measure the X-ray spectrum of SN 2024iss at several epochs with independent temperature fits; if the plasma temperature varies significantly or the neutral-hydrogen column rises later, the inferred mass-loss rate and the R≲1.3e14 cm confinement would not hold. Alternatively, a late-time nebular spectrum showing hydrogen emission from distant material would contradict a strictly confined shell.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that SN 2024iss exploded with a hydrogen envelope of mass 0.11±0.04 solar masses and radius 244±43 solar radii, inferred by fitting the early shock-cooling peak with a semi-analytic polytropic-envelope model. It further claims that the bright thermal bremsstrahlung X-rays trace a forward shock moving at roughly 9.5e8 cm/s through a wind-like circumstellar medium with mass-loss rate about 1.6e-5 solar masses per year, comparable to SN 1993J. Because the X-ray column density at day 1.6 equals only the Galactic value, the paper infers the shock had already overrun the entire circumstellar shell, bounding its outer radius at ≲1.3e14 cm; with an assumed 10 km/s wind speed, this p

Load-bearing premise

The X-ray modeling fixes one plasma temperature (derived from a single hard-X-ray epoch) for all epochs, and the small circumstellar radius rests on interpreting the early low neutral-hydrogen column as proof that the forward shock has already swept through all the circumstellar material.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpretation is correct, SN 2024iss strengthens the empirical correlation between Type IIb envelope radius and pre-explosion mass-loss rate, locating it between the compact and extended subclasses.
  • The compact circumstellar shell (R≲1.3e14 cm) implies that significant mass loss occurred within the final ~4 years, favoring eruptive or binary-induced ejection rather than a long-lived steady wind from a single star.
  • The low ejecta mass of about 1.27 solar masses, with 0.117 solar masses of nickel, predicts a fast post-peak decline, matching the observed steep late-time light-curve slope.
  • The progenitor's inferred zero-age main-sequence mass of roughly 9-11 solar masses, together with the residual hydrogen envelope, supports a binary-interaction path to partial stripping rather than a single Wolf-Rayet evolution.
  • The X-ray-derived mass-loss rate (about 1.6e-5 solar masses per year) makes SN 2024iss a close sibling of SN 1993J and a useful template for early X-ray observations of similar events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to fit each X-ray epoch with an independently varying plasma temperature; if the temperature declines with time, the inferred circumstellar radius and mass-loss rate will shift, and the ~4-year eruption timescale would need revision.
  • If confined circumstellar shells like this are common among Type IIb supernovae, then some apparent discrepancies between shock-cooling radii and pre-explosion imaging radii could be explained by a dense, recently ejected shell that inflates the apparent photosphere near explosion.
  • The paper's methods section and conclusions label the shock-cooling fit with two different formalisms; a careful reader should verify which set of equations actually generated the quoted envelope values before treating them as settled.
  • High-cadence X-ray follow-up of nearby core-collapse supernovae within the first day could directly probe whether such confined shells are ubiquitous and whether they are always accompanied by double-peaked optical light curves.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents optical, UV, and X-ray observations of SN 2024iss, a Type IIb SN with a prominent double-peaked light curve. The first peak is modeled with the Sapir & Waxman (2017) shock-cooling model, yielding an extended H envelope (R = 244±43 R_sun, M_env = 0.11±0.04 M_sun); the second peak is fitted with an Arnett-like model, giving M_Ni = 0.117±0.013 M_sun and M_ej = 1.27±0.34 M_sun (with an acknowledged systematic range of 1.23–2.64 M_sun). X-ray spectra show thermal bremsstrahlung, from which a mass-loss rate Mdot ≈ 1.6×10^-5 M_sun/yr and a density profile ρ ∝ r^-2.19 are derived. A low neutral-hydrogen column at t≈1.6 d is interpreted as evidence that the forward shock had overrun a compact CSM with R ≲ 1.3×10^14 cm, implying eruptive mass loss ~4 yr before explosion. The authors compare SN 2024iss with other Type IIb SNe and place it in a transitional eIIb/cIIb position, supporting a correlation between envelope radius and mass-loss rate.

Significance. The observational dataset is rich: 51 spectra, early multi-band photometry starting at 0.44 d, and X-ray coverage from Swift/XRT, EP-FXT, and NuSTAR. If the derived envelope parameters and mass-loss rate hold, SN 2024iss becomes an important benchmark for Type IIb progenitor models and for the eIIb/cIIb classification scheme. The analysis uses published semi-analytic models, MCMC fitting, and provides machine-readable data tables; it is transparent about several degeneracies (e.g., the ejecta-mass range and the fixed plasma temperature). The principal weakness is the compact-CSM and ~4-yr eruption claim, which is not yet quantitatively reconciled with the emission-measure profile and rests on a single interpretive step. As written, the abstract and conclusions state the 4-yr timescale as a firm result, whereas the supporting inference is only tentative ('may indicate') in Section 6.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6, Fig. 12, Table A.2] The compact-CSM radius R≲1.3×10^14 cm, inferred from the low N_H at t≈1.6 d, is internally inconsistent with the EM-derived density profile in Fig. 12. That profile uses r=v_sh t at t=2.3, 5.2, 10.6, 20.7 d (Table A.2), reaching ~1.7×10^15 cm, and is fitted by ρ∝r^-2.19 over that range. If the shock had already overrun the CSM at 1.6 d, the later epochs cannot originate from forward-shock emission in that CSM. Additionally, a low neutral-H column could equally result from photoionization of the unshocked CSM by the SN flash, so it does not directly measure the total CSM extent. The authors must either model a confined CSM, demonstrate a different origin for the late-time X-rays, or retract the 4-yr eruption claim; the current abstract and conclusion item 6 are too definitive.
  2. [§2.4, Table A.2] The plasma temperature is fixed at kT=32.57 keV for every epoch based on a single NuSTAR observation. Since free-free emissivity and the spectral Norm depend on kT, the mass-loss rate and the EM-derived density profile are sensitive to this choice. The paper does not quantify how Mdot changes for a plausible range of kT (e.g., 3–30 keV), nor does it test a variable-temperature model. Because Mdot is a headline result and is used in the Fig. 14 correlation, this systematic should be evaluated before the correlation claim is accepted.
  3. [§6, Eq. (7), Fig. 11] The X-ray light curve is fitted with a steady-wind free-free model (Mdot=1.6×10^-5 M_sun/yr), yet the same section claims the CSM is confined to R≲1.3×10^14 cm. A steady wind extends to arbitrarily large radii, so the model and the compact-CSM claim are incompatible. If the CSM is truly confined, the X-ray light curve should show a sharp decline (or cutoff) after the shock breaks out, unless additional CSM exists at larger radii. The paper needs a self-consistent model (e.g., a shell with finite outer radius, including photoionization of the neutral fraction) and a refit of the data. The current analysis is internally inconsistent on this point.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Conclusion item 4] The listed shock velocity v_s=(1.67±0.07)×10^4 km/s is inconsistent with the Section 5 value v_s,8.5=(1.9±0.3)×10^8.5 cm/s ≈ 6×10^3 km/s. Please correct the units or value.
  2. [§7.1 and Conclusion item 4] The model is referred to as 'P21' in these places, but Section 5 clearly fits the Sapir & Waxman (2017) model. The nomenclature should be made consistent.
  3. [§7.1 vs §5] Section 7.1 quotes R_env=224±43 R_sun, whereas the best-fit in Section 5 and Fig. 10 is 244±43 R_sun. Reconcile the discrepancy.
  4. [References] Bufano et al. 2014a and 2014b are both listed as MNRAS, 439, 1807; the 2014b entry likely has a different volume/page.
  5. [Fig. 12 caption] The blue dashed line is described as 'the power-law fit to the X-ray light curve,' but it appears to be a fit to the density profile, not the X-ray light curve.
  6. [Throughout] Minor typos: 'spectrophotometic' (Intro), 'resembles' (§4.1), 'Kev' (Fig. 13 caption), and 'constraints' should be 'constraint' in Conclusion item 6.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: envelope and CSM parameters come from fitting independent photometric and X-ray data with published external models; self-citations are incidental.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its own inputs. (1) The shock-cooling fit (Sec. 5) uses the external SW17 model (Sapir & Waxman 2017) to constrain R=244+-43 Rsun and M_env=0.11+-0.04 Msun from early UV/optical light curves; the Arnett fit (Sec. 3.4) independently constrains M_Ni and M_ej from the second bolometric peak. Neither quantity is defined in terms of the other. (2) The X-ray mass-loss rate (Mdot=1.6e-5 Msun/yr, Sec. 6) is fit to 3-10 keV bremsstrahlung data using the published Fransson et al. (1996)/Chevalier & Fransson (2017) framework, with an independent EM-based estimate (5.55+-1.57e-5) also derived from the observed 'Norm' column. (3) The compact-CSM radius (R<1.3e14 cm) and ~4-yr eruption estimate are an interpretive inference from the low measured N_H plus assumed shock and wind velocities, not an algebraic identity with the input; whether the low column instead reflects photoionization, or whether the Fig. 12 EM profile extending beyond R_out signals an internal tension, are scientific robustness concerns, not circular reductions. (4) Self-citations (Farah et al. 2025a,b for IIb shock-cooling and transitional-IIb contexts; Subrayan et al. 2025; Reguitti et al. 2025 for comparison objects) are present but not load-bearing: the actual fits use external models, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The eIIb/cIIb framework and the Maeda et al. (2015) radius-mass-loss correlation are external results, and SN 2024iss merely provides one new, independently measured point on that published relation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-definitional step was found. Accordingly the paper receives no circularity score beyond zero; flagged caveats (fixed kT, v_wind assumption, N_H interpretation) are assumption-dependence rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All physical numbers come from fitting published analytic/semi-analytic models to photometric and X-ray data; no new particles, forces, or isolated entities are introduced. The listed free parameters are the fit parameters and adopted constants that dominate the derived results. The axioms reflect standard practice in supernova modeling but are not independently tested within this paper.

free parameters (15)
  • Envelope radius R (SW17 shock-cooling fit) = 244±43 Rsun (also printed as 224±43 Rsun in §7.1)
    Fitted to the first ~5 days of multiband UV/optical light curves with SW17; controls peak luminosity and cooling timescale.
  • Envelope mass M_env (SW17 fit) = 0.11±0.04 Msun
    Fitted simultaneously with R and v_s; key to eIIb/cIIb classification and YSG progenitor inference.
  • Shock velocity v_s (SW17 fit) = 1.9±0.3 ×10^8.5 cm/s ≈6000 km/s; conclusion quotes 1.67×10^4 km/s
    Free parameter in the SW17 analytic model; strong influence on early luminosity and consistency with X-ray shock speed.
  • f_rho M (envelope structure product) = 100±65 Msun
    Free parameter in SW17 encoding envelope density structure; poorly constrained.
  • Explosion time t0 (shock-cooling fit) = MJD 60442.41±0.05; discovery midpoint MJD 60442.21±0.44
    Fitted in MCMC; shifts all phases and absolute magnitudes.
  • 56Ni mass M_Ni (Arnett fit) = 0.117±0.013 Msun
    Fitted to the second bolometric peak; typical for SNe IIb.
  • Ejecta mass M_ej (Arnett fit) = 1.272±0.343 Msun; 1.23-2.64 under alternative v_ph/κ
    Fitted to the second-peak width; strongly sensitive to assumed photospheric velocity and opacity.
  • Kinetic energy E_k (Arnett fit) = 0.427±0.115 ×10^51 erg
    Computed from M_ej and v_ph; changes with assumed v_ph.
  • X-ray mass-loss rate Mdot (free-free model) = 1.6×10^-5 Msun/yr; EM method gives 5.55±1.57×10^-5
    Fitted to the 3-10 keV X-ray light curve assuming a steady wind; a factor ~3.5 disagreement with the EM method is noted.
  • X-ray shock velocity v_s,X = 9.5×10^8 cm/s
    Fitted to the X-ray decline; tied to mass-loss-rate normalization.
  • Plasma temperature kT (X-ray apec fit) = 32.57 keV, fixed to the second NuSTAR epoch for all epochs
    Cannot be constrained per epoch; the fixed value affects NH and flux normalization.
  • Wind velocity v_wind = 10 km/s, assumed from Fransson et al. (1996)
    Converts CSM radius to pre-explosion mass-loss timing (~4 yr).
  • Photospheric velocity v_ph (Arnett input) = 7500 km/s from Fe II λ5169; alternative 15,000 km/s from Yamanaka et al.
    Adopted for the Arnold fit; M_ej scales approximately as v_ph^2, dominating ejecta-mass uncertainty.
  • Optical opacity κ_opt (Arnett input) = 0.07 cm^2/g; alternative 0.2 cm^2/g
    Assumed constant; changes derived diffusion time and M_ej.
  • Gamma-ray opacity κ_gamma (Arnett input) = 0.027 cm^2/g
    Assumed standard SESN value; affects gamma-ray trapping in the tail.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The SW17 analytic shock-cooling formulas (Eqs. 3-6) with polytropic index n=3/2 describe the early continuum emission for t<5 d and T>0.7 eV.
    Adopted to convert light curves into R, M_env, and v_s; if the envelope structure differs (n=3) or radioactive heating is non-negligible, the fitted values change.
  • domain assumption The optical/UV SED is a single-temperature blackbody for pseudo-bolometric and shock-cooling fits.
    Used throughout §3.3 and §5; line blanketing and non-blackbody emission are ignored.
  • domain assumption The Arnett model with constant opacity, centrally concentrated 56Ni, no outward mixing, and fixed v_ph=7500 km/s describes the second peak (t≈7-30 d).
    Standard but idealized; the authors acknowledge v_ph=15,000 km/s gives M_ej=2.64 Msun.
  • domain assumption X-ray emission is thermal bremsstrahlung/apec from the forward shock in a steady, homogeneous wind with v_wind=10 km/s and solar abundances; a single plasma temperature applies to all epochs.
    Basis of §6 mass-loss-rate and CSM density inferences; the fixed kT and assumed wind speed are not independently verified.
  • domain assumption The low NH at t≈1.6 days implies the forward shock has already engulfed the entire CSM, so R_CSM ≈ v_sh × t.
    Leads to R≲1.3×10^14 cm and the ~4-yr mass-loss timing; alternative CSM geometries or varying shock speed would alter this.
  • domain assumption Progenitor ZAMS mass is estimated with a neutron-star remnant mass of 1.4 Msun and the Sukhbold et al. (2016) grid.
    Converts M_env + M_ej + M_NS into an initial mass; depends on the assumed NS mass and single-star evolution grid.
  • domain assumption Distance modulus 30.64±0.26 mag, Galactic E(B-V)=0.0084 mag, and zero host-galaxy reddening.
    Adopted from NED and Schlafly & Finkbeiner; absolute magnitudes and radii scale with distance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SN 2024iss: A Double-peaked Type IIb Supernova with Evidence of Circumstellar Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHDKLRNE

@misc{pith2026251022997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SN 2024iss: A Double-peaked Type IIb Supernova with Evidence of Circumstellar Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHDKLRNE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.22997}
}
abstract

We present optical, ultraviolet, and X-ray observations of supernova (SN) 2024iss, a Type IIb SN that shows a prominent double-peaked light curve. We modeled the first peak with a semianalytical shock-cooling model and the X-ray emission with a free-free model. We compare the envelope radius and mass-loss rate with other Type IIb SNe to explore the relationships between the progenitor envelope and the circumstellar material (CSM). The shock-cooling peak in the $V$-band light curve reached $M_V = -17.33\pm 0.26$mag, while the $^{56}$Ni-powered second peak attained $M_V = -17.43\pm 0.26$mag. Early spectra show an photospheric velocity of $\sim19,400\,km\,s^{-1}$ at 3.82days from the H$\alpha$ P~Cygni profile. The Balmer lines persist at least +87 days after the explosion, characterizing hydrogen-rich ejecta. Modeling the first light-curve peak suggests an extended envelope with a mass of $0.11\pm0.04\,M_{\odot}$ and a radius of $244\pm43~R_{\odot}$. Fitting the second light-curve peak with an Arnett-like model indicates a typical $^{56}$Ni mass of $ 0.117\pm0.013~M_{\odot}$ and a relatively low ejecta mass of $1.272\pm0.343\,M_{\odot}$. X-ray observations reveal bright thermal bremsstrahlung emission and indicate a mass-loss rate of $1.6\times10^{-5}\ M_{\odot} \ \rm{yr}^{-1}$. SN 2024iss occupies a transitional position between the two subclasses of extended (eIIb) and compact (cIIb) Type IIb SNe. Its envelope radius and pre-explosion mass-loss rate appear to be correlated as theoretically predicted. The observational properties of SN 2024iss are compatible with a binary interaction scenario being the dominant mechanism for envelope stripping. Furthermore, the low column density of neutral hydrogen suggests a compact CSM with an outer radius of $\lesssim1.3\times10^{14}$ cm, indicating that the progenitor star experienced eruptive mass loss within $\sim4\,yr$ of its terminal explosion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.22997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical light curves of SN 2024iss. Left panel: the early-time multiband photometry within the first ten days. Right panel: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The V-band light curve of SN 2024iss compared to those of well-sampled cases, i.e., the Type IIb SNe 1993J, 2011dh, 2013df, 2016gkg and 2020acat. The light curves of the comparison SNe have been shifted in both magnitude and time to align with the peak magnitude and the time of the V-band light curve peak of SN 2024iss. The black dashed line represents the expected decline rate of 56Co (0.98 mag/100 day, Woosley et … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Galactic reddening-corrected U − B, B − V, and g − r color curves of SN 2024iss, compared with Galactic reddening￾corrected color curves of SNe 1993J, 2011fu, 2011dh, 2013df, and 2016gkg. For the purpose of display, the V − R color curve of SNe 1993J, 2011fu, 2013df and 2016gkg were converted to g − r using the transformation from Jordi et al. (2006). SN 2024iss increase by ∼ 0.35 mag and 0.67 mag within the first f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Pseudo-bolometric light curve of SN 2024iss. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral sequence of SN 2024iss, spanning the first 7 days after the explosion. Phases are marked on the right. Di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral consequence of SN 2024iss obtained during the phase from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the expansion velocity of SN 2024iss mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal evolution of He I λ5876, Hα and Hβ of SN 2024iss compared to that measured for SNe 1993J, 2011dh, 2011fu, 2013df, 2016gkg and 2020acat. 4.3. Comparison with Other Type IIb SNe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectra of SN 2024iss at -12(a), 2(b), 31(c), and 69(d) days relative to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Corner plot that presents the posterior distributions of the SW17 shock-cooling light-curve model of SN 2024iss. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The unabsorbed X-ray luminosity of SN 2024iss ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The 0.3–10 keV X-ray luminosity evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Radio Constraints on the Circumstellar Environment of the Type IIb Supernova SN 2024iss

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SN 2024iss's radio peak implies a shock velocity ~2.4 times the steady-wind expectation, pointing to a confined dense CSM shell around the progenitor.

  2. SN 2025aico: Early observations of a faint Type IIb supernova with a low-mass envelope

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    SN 2025aico is a low-luminosity Type IIb from a compact He star (M_env≈0.01 M⊙, R_env≈6–10 R⊙) with M_Ni≈0.033 M⊙, M_ej≈2.8 M⊙ and weak-to-moderate 56Ni mixing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2011, ApJ, 742, L18

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, L18

    2011

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Brown, P. J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 837, L2

    2017

  3. [3]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785

    1982

  4. [4]

    P., Pignata, G., et al

    Ayala, B., Anderson, J. P., Pignata, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05909

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 20, 211

    Bai, C.-H., Feng, G.-J., Zhang, X., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 20, 211

    2020

  6. [6]

    K., Bonoli, C., et al

    Barbieri, C., Bhatia, R. K., Bonoli, C., et al. 1994, in Advanced Technology Optical Telescopes V , ed. L. M. Stepp, V ol. 2199, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 10 – 21

    1994

  7. [7]

    1995, A&AS, 110, 513

    Barbon, R., Benetti, S., Cappellaro, E., et al. 1995, A&AS, 110, 513

    1995

  8. [8]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

Show all 148 references
  1. [9]

    1994, A&A, 285, L13

    Benetti, S., Patat, F., Turatto, M., et al. 1994, A&A, 285, L13

    1994

  2. [10]

    C., Folatelli, G., García, F., et al

    Bersten, M. C., Folatelli, G., García, F., et al. 2018, Nature, 554, 497

    2018

  3. [11]

    A., Landsman, W., Holland, S

    Breeveld, A. A., Landsman, W., Holland, S. T., et al. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1358, Gamma Ray Bursts 2010, ed. J. E

    2011

  4. [12]

    Brennan, S. J. & Fraser, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A62

    2022

  5. [13]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031

    2013

  6. [14]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 165

    2005

  7. [15]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  8. [16]

    V ., Ray, A., Immler, S., & Pooley, D

    Chandra, P., Dwarkadas, V . V ., Ray, A., Immler, S., & Pooley, D. 2009, ApJ, 699, 388

    2009

  9. [17]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumenta- tion Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Chen, Y ., Cui, W., Han, D., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumenta- tion Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 11444, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 114445B

    2020

  10. [18]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 2006, ApJ, 651, 381

    2006

  11. [19]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 2017, Thermal and Non-thermal Emission from Circumstellar Interaction (Springer International Publishing), 875–937

    2017

  12. [20]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Soderberg, A. M. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 711, L40

    2010

  13. [21]

    S., Hill, G

    Chonis, T. S., Hill, G. J., Lee, H., Tuttle, S. E., & Vattiat, B. L. 2014, in Ground- Based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, V ol. 9147 (Interna- tional Society for Optics and Photonics), 91470A

    2014

  14. [22]

    K., Kasliwal, M

    Das, K. K., Kasliwal, M. M., Fremling, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 959, 12 David Arnett, W. & Meakin, C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 33

    2023

  15. [23]

    P., Ercolino, A., Jin, H., & Langer, N

    Dessart, L., Gutiérrez, C. P., Ercolino, A., Jin, H., & Langer, N. 2024, A&A, 685, A169

    2024

  16. [24]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 439, 671

    2005

  17. [25]

    Dewi, J. D. M. & Pols, O. R. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 629

    2003

  18. [26]

    Dewi, J. D. M., Pols, O. R., Savonije, G. J., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 1027

    2002

  19. [27]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 316

    Dong, Y ., Valenti, S., Ashall, C., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 316

    2024

  20. [28]

    Dwarkadas, V . V . 2025, On the X-ray Emission From Supernovae, and Implica- tions for the Mass-Loss Rates of their Progenitor Stars

    2025

  21. [29]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 562, A17

    Ergon, M., Sollerman, J., Fraser, M., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 562, A17

    2014

  22. [30]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 1177

    2009

  23. [31]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379

    2007

  24. [32]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075004

    Fabricant, D., Fata, R., Epps, H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075004

    2019

  25. [33]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 15, 918

    Fan, Y .-F., Bai, J.-M., Zhang, J.-J., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 15, 918

    2015

  26. [34]

    Filippenko, A. V . 1997, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 309

    1997

  27. [35]

    V ., Matheson, T., & Barth, A

    Filippenko, A. V ., Matheson, T., & Barth, A. J. 1994, AJ, 108, 2220

    1994

  28. [36]

    V ., Matheson, T., & Ho, L

    Filippenko, A. V ., Matheson, T., & Ho, L. C. 1993, ApJ, 415, L103

    1993

  29. [37]

    J., Cheng, E

    Fixsen, D. J., Cheng, E. S., Gales, J. M., et al. 1996, ApJ, 473, 576

    1996

  30. [38]

    R., Güver, T., Özel, F., & Slane, P

    Foight, D. R., Güver, T., Özel, F., & Slane, P. O. 2016, ApJ, 826, 66

    2016

  31. [39]

    C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al

    Folatelli, G., Bersten, M. C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 147

    2015

  32. [40]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  33. [41]

    & Chevalier, R

    Fransson, C. & Chevalier, R. A. 1989, ApJ, 343, 323

    1989

  34. [42]

    Fransson, C., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 461, 993

    1996

  35. [43]

    E., et al

    Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748

    1996

  36. [44]

    2017, Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae (Springer International Publishing), 195–237

    Gal-Yam, A. 2017, Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae (Springer International Publishing), 195–237

    2017

  37. [45]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471

    2014

  38. [46]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005 Article number, page 19 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005 Article number, page 19 A&A proofs:manuscript no. arxiv

    2004

  39. [47]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001

    2019

  40. [48]

    A., Taubenberger, S., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 70

    2012

  41. [49]

    A., et al

    Hamuy, M., Deng, J., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1612

    2009

  42. [50]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103

    2013

  43. [51]

    & Piro, A

    Haynie, A. & Piro, A. L. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 98

    2023

  44. [52]

    A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al

    Henden, A. A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AA VSO Photometric All Sky Survey (APASS) DR9 (Hen- den+, 2016), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/336. Originally published in: 2015AAS...22533616H

    2016

  45. [53]

    A., Moriya, T

    Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 913, 55

    2021

  46. [54]

    M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J

    Hook, I. M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 425

    2004

  47. [55]

    & Gomez, S

    Hosseinzadeh, G. & Gomez, S. 2020, Light Curve Fitting

    2020

  48. [56]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 12, 1585

    Huang, F., Li, J.-Z., Wang, X.-F., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 12, 1585

    2012

  49. [57]

    L., Mitchell, R

    Johnson, H. L., Mitchell, R. I., Iriarte, B., & Wisniewski, W. Z. 1966, Commu- nications of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, 4, 99

    1966

  50. [58]

    K., & Ammon, K

    Jordi, K., Grebel, E. K., & Ammon, K. 2006, A&A, 460, 339

    2006

  51. [59]

    M., et al

    Kamble, A., Margutti, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 111

    2016

  52. [60]

    D., Coulter, D

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 111

    2022

  53. [61]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Abramson, L. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4650

    2017

  54. [62]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502

    2017

  55. [63]

    B., Sahu, D

    Kumar, B., Pandey, S. B., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 308

    2013

  56. [64]

    Labrie, K., Anderson, K., Cárdenes, R., Simpson, C., & Turner, J. E. H. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 523, Astro- nomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W

    2019

  57. [65]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Law, N. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Dekany, R. G., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1395

    2009

  58. [66]

    2024, Nature, 627, 754

    Li, G., Hu, M., Li, W., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 754

    2024

  59. [67]

    2025, TransFit: An Efficient Frame- work for Transient Light-Curve Fitting with Time-Dependent Radiative Dif- fusion

    Liu, L.-D., Zhang, Y .-H., Yu, Y .-W., et al. 2025, TransFit: An Efficient Frame- work for Transient Light-Curve Fitting with Time-Dependent Radiative Dif- fusion

    2025

  60. [68]

    D., Bersier, D., James, P

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

    2016

  61. [69]

    J., et al

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 17

    2022

  62. [70]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 35

    Maeda, K., Hattori, T., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 35

    2015

  63. [71]

    2014, The As- trophysical Journal, 785, 95

    Maeda, K., Katsuda, S., Bamba, A., Terada, Y ., & Fukazawa, Y . 2014, The As- trophysical Journal, 785, 95

    2014

  64. [72]

    2012, Mem

    Maeda, K., Moriya, T., Kawabata, K., et al. 2012, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 83, 264

    2012

  65. [73]

    V ., Ho, L

    Matheson, T., Filippenko, A. V ., Ho, L. C., Barth, A. J., & Leonard, D. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 1499

    2000

  66. [74]

    R., Fraser, M., Ergon, M., et al

    Maund, J. R., Fraser, M., Ergon, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L37

    2011

  67. [75]

    Maund, J. R. & Smartt, S. J. 2009, Science, 324, 486

    2009

  68. [76]

    R., Smartt, S

    Maund, J. R., Smartt, S. J., Kudritzki, R. P., Podsiadlowski, P., & Gilmore, G. F. 2004, Nature, 427, 129

    2004

  69. [77]

    A., Teffs, J., et al

    Medler, K., Mazzali, P. A., Teffs, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5540

    2022

  70. [78]

    A., Teffs, J., et al

    Medler, K., Mazzali, P. A., Teffs, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 1832

    2021

  71. [79]

    & Stone, R

    Miller, J. & Stone, R. 1994, The Kast Double Spectrograph

    1994

  72. [80]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2764

    Morag, J., Sapir, N., & Waxman, E. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2764

    2023

  73. [81]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 1647

    Morales-Garoffolo, A., Elias-Rosa, N., Benetti, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1647

    2014

  74. [82]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 95

    Morales-Garoffolo, A., Elias-Rosa, N., Bersten, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 95

    2015

  75. [83]

    Moriya, T. J. 2014, A&A, 564, A83

    2014

  76. [84]

    Nagy, A. P. & Vinkó, J. 2016, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 589, A53

    2016

  77. [85]

    & Piro, A

    Nakar, E. & Piro, A. L. 2014, ApJ, 788, 193

    2014

  78. [86]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L9

    Niu, Z., Sun, N.-C., & Liu, J. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L9

    2024

  79. [87]

    R., et al

    Niu, Z., Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., et al. 2025, Discovery of a variable yellow supergiant progenitor for the Type IIb SN 2024abfo

    2025

  80. [88]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

    1983

  81. [89]

    & Bersten, M

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

    2022

  82. [90]

    & Maeda, K

    Ouchi, R. & Maeda, K. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 90

    2017

  83. [91]

    Piro, A. L. 2015, ApJ, 808, L51

    2015

  84. [92]

    L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y

    Piro, A. L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y . 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 209

    2021

  85. [93]

    1992, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 104, 717

    Podsiadlowski, P. 1992, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 104, 717

    1992

  86. [94]

    2019, rwpogge/modsCCDRed 2.0

    Pogge, R. 2019, rwpogge/modsCCDRed 2.0

    2019

  87. [95]

    W., Atwood, B., Brewer, D

    Pogge, R. W., Atwood, B., Brewer, D. F., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7735, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77350A

    2010

  88. [96]

    J., Ashall, C., James, P

    Prentice, S. J., Ashall, C., James, P. A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 1559

    2018

  89. [97]

    J., Mazzali, P

    Prentice, S. J., Mazzali, P. A., Pian, E., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 2973

    2016

  90. [98]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

    2020

  91. [99]

    & Waxman, E

    Rabinak, I. & Waxman, E. 2011, ApJ, 728, 63

    2011

  92. [100]

    W., Adams, M

    Ramsey, L. W., Adams, M. T., Barnes, T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 3352, Ad- vanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp, 34–42

    1998

  93. [101]

    R., Law, N

    Rau, A., Kulkarni, S. R., Law, N. M., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1334

    2009

  94. [102]

    J., et al

    Reguitti, A., Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2025, SN 2024abfo: a partially stripped SN II from a yellow supergiant

    2025

  95. [103]

    W., Treffers, R

    Richmond, M. W., Treffers, R. R., Filippenko, A. V ., & Paik, Y . 1996, AJ, 112, 732

    1996

  96. [104]

    W., Treffers, R

    Richmond, M. W., Treffers, R. R., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 1994, AJ, 107, 1022

    1994

  97. [105]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 95

    2005

  98. [106]

    Roming, P. W. A., Pritchard, T. A., Brown, P. J., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, L118

    2009

  99. [107]

    D., Dyk, S

    Ryder, S. D., Dyk, S. D. V ., Fox, O. D., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 83

    2018

  100. [108]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  101. [109]

    & Waxman, E

    Sapir, N. & Waxman, E. 2017, ApJ, 838, 130

    2017

  102. [110]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  103. [111]

    Shiode, J. H. & Quataert, E. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 96

    2013

  104. [112]

    V ., Silverman, J

    Shivvers, I., Filippenko, A. V ., Silverman, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1545

    2019

  105. [113]

    M., Mazzali, P., Chornock, R., et al

    Silverman, J. M., Mazzali, P., Chornock, R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 689

    2009

  106. [114]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 487

    Smith, N. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 487

    2014

  107. [115]

    2017, Interacting Supernovae: Types IIn and Ibn (Springer Interna- tional Publishing), 403–429

    Smith, N. 2017, Interacting Supernovae: Types IIn and Ibn (Springer Interna- tional Publishing), 403–429

    2017

  108. [116]

    M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B

    Soderberg, A. M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B. A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 78

    2012

  109. [117]

    M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B

    Soderberg, A. M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 78

    2012

  110. [118]

    N., Bean, R., Doré, O., et al

    Spergel, D. N., Bean, R., Doré, O., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 170, 377

    2007

  111. [119]

    2018, ApJ, 852, L17

    Sravan, N., Marchant, P., Kalogera, V ., & Margutti, R. 2018, ApJ, 852, L17

    2018

  112. [120]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 70

    Sravan, N., Marchant, P., Kalogera, V ., Milisavljevic, D., & Margutti, R. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 70

    2020

  113. [121]

    K., Ackley, K., et al

    Steeghs, D., Galloway, D. K., Ackley, K., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 2405

    2022

  114. [122]

    M., Sand, D

    Subrayan, B. M., Sand, D. J., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2025, Early Shock-Cooling Observations and Progenitor Constraints of Type IIb SN 2024uwq

    2025

  115. [123]

    E., Brown, J

    Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Brown, J. M., & Janka, H.-T. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 38

    2016

  116. [124]

    P., et al

    Szalai, T., Vinkó, J., Nagy, A. P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1500

    2016

  117. [125]

    D., Bersten, M., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Bersten, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A136

    2018

  118. [126]

    J., et al

    Tartaglia, L., Fraser, M., Sand, D. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, L12

    2017

  119. [127]

    Thorsett, S. E. & Chakrabarty, D. 1999, ApJ, 512, 288

    1999

  120. [128]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  121. [129]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V . Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  122. [130]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505

    2018

  123. [131]

    Y ., V olkov, I

    Tsvetkov, D. Y ., V olkov, I. M., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2012, Photometric observa- tions and preliminary modeling of type IIb supernova 2011dh

    2012

  124. [132]

    2008, ApJ, 673, L155

    Valenti, S., Elias-Rosa, N., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, L155

    2008

  125. [133]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, L101 Van Dyk, S

    Valenti, S., Sand, D., Pastorello, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L101 Van Dyk, S. D., Zheng, W., Fox, O. D., et al. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 37 Van Dyk, S. D., Zheng, W., Fox, O. D., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 37

    2014

  126. [134]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 19, 149

    Wang, C.-J., Bai, J.-M., Fan, Y .-F., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 19, 149

    2019

  127. [135]

    & Katz, B

    Waxman, E. & Katz, B. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 967 Article number, page 20 Liyang Chen et al.: SN 2024iss: A Double-peaked Type IIb Supernova with Evidence of Circumstellar Interaction

    2017

  128. [136]

    C., Johnson, V ., & Clocchiatti, A

    Wheeler, J. C., Johnson, V ., & Clocchiatti, A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1295

    2015

  129. [137]

    E., Eastman, R

    Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., Weaver, T. A., & Pinto, P. A. 1994, ApJ, 429, 300

    1994

  130. [138]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015

    2002

  131. [139]

    E., Langer, N., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Weaver, T. A. 1993, ApJ, 411, 823

    1993

  132. [140]

    E., Pinto, P

    Woosley, S. E., Pinto, P. A., & Hartmann, D. 1989, ApJ, 346, 395

    1989

  133. [141]

    & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. & Fuller, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 3

    2020

  134. [142]

    2025, PASJ[arXiv:2503.05054]

    Yamanaka, M., Nagayama, T., & Horikiri, T. 2025, PASJ[arXiv:2503.05054]

    2025 arXiv

  135. [143]

    & Gal-Yam, A

    Yaron, O. & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668

    2012

  136. [144]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 3970

    Yoon, S.-C. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3970

    2017

  137. [145]

    & Cantiello, M

    Yoon, S.-C. & Cantiello, M. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 717, L62

    2010

  138. [146]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 10

    Yoon, S.-C., Dessart, L., & Clocchiatti, A. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 10

    2017

  139. [147]

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y ., & Ling, Z. 2022, The Einstein Probe Mission (Springer Nature Singapore), 1–30 1 Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China 2 National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sci- ences, Beijing 100101, China 3 Scho...

    2022

  140. [148]

    Discovery, Australia 23 Adler Planetarium 24 HUN-REN CSFK Konkoly Observatory, MTA Center of Excel- lence, Konkoly Thege ut 15-17, Budapest, 1121, Hungary 25 Department of Experimental Physics, University of Szeged, Dóm tér 9, Szeged, 6720, Hungary 26 ELTE Eötvös Loránd Univer...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.