pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2601.00415 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

The Double-Peaked Calcium-Strong SN 2025coe: Progenitor Constraints from Early Interaction and Ejecta Asymmetries

Aravind P. Ravi , Sahana Kumar , Raphael Baer-Way , Stefano Valenti , Maryam Modjaz , Bart F. A. van Baal , Anders Jerkstrand , Yize Dong
show 42 more authors
Lindsey A. Kwok Jeniveve Pearson David J. Sand Daichi Hiramatsu Alexei V. Filippenko Jennifer Andrews Moira Andrews Prasiddha Arunachalam K. Azalee Bostroem Thomas G. Brink Collin Christy Liyang Chen Kyle W. Davis Ali Esamdin Joseph Farah Ryan J. Foley Emily Hoang Griffin Hosseinzadeh D. Andrew Howell Brian Hsu Ruifeng Huang Abdusamatjan Iskander Daryl Janzen Saurabh W. Jha Ravjit Kaur Michael J. Lundquist Curtis McCully Darshana Mehta Yuan Qi Ni Nicolas Meza Retamal Kishore C. Patra Conor Ransome Manisha Shrestha Nathan Smith Bhagya Subrayan Kirsty Taggart Xiaofeng Wang Kathryn Wynn Yi Yang Shengyu Yan Weikang Zheng Dan Coe
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 17:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords calcium-strong supernovaSN 2025coeprogenitor constraintsnebular spectroscopylight curve modelingcore-collapse supernovawhite dwarf mergerejecta asymmetry
0
0 comments X

The pith

SN 2025coe's nebular lines and double peaks allow either an asymmetric low-mass core-collapse or a white-dwarf merger origin.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the nearby calcium-strong supernova SN 2025coe, which displays two distinct peaks in its light curve and rapidly evolving spectra. The early peak arises from either shock cooling in a compact envelope or interaction with nearby circumstellar material, while the later peak is powered by radioactive nickel decay. Nebular spectra show unusually strong calcium emission paired with weak oxygen lines. Simultaneous modeling of these line profiles indicates that an asymmetric explosion of a low-mass helium-core star can reproduce the data. The lack of local star formation and the low total ejecta mass also permit a thermonuclear explosion triggered by the merger of a hybrid helium-carbon/oxygen white dwarf with a carbon/oxygen white dwarf.

Core claim

Simultaneous line profile modeling of [Ca II] and [O I] at nebular phases shows that an asymmetric core-collapse explosion of a low-mass (≲3.3 M⊙) He-core progenitor can explain the observed line profiles. Alternatively, lack of local star formation at the site of the SN explosion combined with a low ejecta mass is also consistent with a thermonuclear explosion due to a low-mass hybrid He-C/O white dwarf + C/O white dwarf merger.

What carries the argument

Simultaneous fitting of nebular [Ca II] and [O I] emission-line profiles to infer ejecta asymmetry and helium-core mass, paired with bolometric light-curve modeling that separates envelope/CSM contributions from nickel-powered emission.

If this is right

  • Calcium-strong transients can arise from either core-collapse or thermonuclear channels.
  • Low-mass helium cores naturally produce strong calcium and weak oxygen lines under asymmetric conditions.
  • Early double peaks constrain the presence of compact envelopes or close circumstellar material in these events.
  • Large projected offsets from the host galaxy are consistent with old stellar populations hosting white-dwarf mergers.
  • Rapid spectral evolution from helium to calcium-dominated phases follows from the low ejecta mass and composition.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the white-dwarf merger channel dominates at large offsets, calcium-strong events should be over-represented in early-type or quiescent galaxies.
  • Polarization measurements in future similar supernovae could directly test the predicted ejecta asymmetry.
  • High-resolution imaging years after explosion might reveal any surviving companion star expected in the merger scenario.
  • The two allowed channels imply that rate calculations for calcium-strong transients must include both young and old stellar populations.

Load-bearing premise

The light-curve modeling assumes a compact envelope or close-in circumstellar material fully accounts for the first peak, and that the absence of detectable local star formation reliably excludes any massive-star progenitor.

What would settle it

Detection of local star formation, a massive-star signature, or symmetric line profiles without asymmetry would rule out one or both of the proposed progenitor channels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00415 by Abdusamatjan Iskander, Alexei V. Filippenko, Ali Esamdin, Anders Jerkstrand, Aravind P. Ravi, Bart F. A. van Baal, Bhagya Subrayan, Brian Hsu, Collin Christy, Conor Ransome, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Dan Coe, D. Andrew Howell, Darshana Mehta, Daryl Janzen, David J. Sand, Emily Hoang, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Jeniveve Pearson, Jennifer Andrews, Joseph Farah, Kathryn Wynn, K. Azalee Bostroem, Kirsty Taggart, Kishore C. Patra, Kyle W. Davis, Lindsey A. Kwok, Liyang Chen, Manisha Shrestha, Maryam Modjaz, Michael J. Lundquist, Moira Andrews, Nathan Smith, Nicolas Meza Retamal, Prasiddha Arunachalam, Raphael Baer-Way, Ravjit Kaur, Ruifeng Huang, Ryan J. Foley, Sahana Kumar, Saurabh W. Jha, Shengyu Yan, Stefano Valenti, Thomas G. Brink, Weikang Zheng, Xiaofeng Wang, Yi Yang, Yize Dong, Yuan Qi Ni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three-color RGB image of the field near SN 2025coe using Las Cumbres Observatory g, r, and i fil￾ter images taken on 2025-03-21. The field of view shows the early-type spiral host galaxy NGC 3277 and SN 2025coe at a significant projected offset of ∼34 kpc (∼ 5 ′ from the host center). The image orientation and scale are marked. templates of SESNe (Y. Liu & M. Modjaz 2014; Y.-Q. Liu et al. 2016; M. Modjaz e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Multiband extinction-corrected photometry of SN 2025coe from Las Cumbres Observatory, ZTF, ATLAS, TNOT, TNT, and Swift with respect to the epoch of explosion (t0) and second peak (to,max). Right: A zoom-in view of the optical light curves around the first peak (marked by a dashed line). The latest available nondetection from ATLAS is marked by an orange downward arrow and the estimated explosion epoc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Extinction-corrected r/R photometry comparison between SN 2025coe and all other identified CaSTs with a double peak in their optical light curves. The first and second peaks in SN 2025coe are marked in the zoomed-in left panel of the plot. All double-peaked CaSTs decline faster than the fast SN Ic 1994I, and also SNe Ib 2007Y and 2008D. All double-peaked CaSTs fade faster than the expected luminosity decli… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Extinction-corrected g − r color comparison be￾tween double-peaked CaSTs: SN 2025coe, SN 2021inl, and SN 2021gno (W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. 2022); SN 2019ehk (W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. 2020b), SN 2018lqo (K. De et al. 2020), iPTF16hgs (K. De et al. 2018), and other CaSTs with gr photometry near peak luminosity. Data for other CaSTs are adapted from the literature (M. Sullivan et al. 2011; M. M. Kasli… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Bolometric luminosity from blackbody fits to the observed SED for SN 2025coe, SN 2021gno, and SN 2019ehk. Optical and UV photometry for SN 2021gno and SN 2019ehk from W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. (2022) and W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. (2020b), respectively. Dashed and dotted lines respectively represent the first and second peaks (estimated from optical photometry) of SN 2025coe. Bottom: Blackbody te… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optical spectral evolution of SN 2025coe between −10 and 105 days from second peak. All spectra are dereddened and strong features are marked. The complete optical spectral series is described in Table A1 within Appendix A. and the presence of IGEs, Ca-strong SNe have been categorized into Ca-Ia and Ca-Ib/c subclasses (K. De et al. 2020). Within the Ca-Ib/c, this sample study distinguished two distinct pop… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of flattened spectra of SN 2025coe between −7 and 21 days with the mean spectra of SNe Ib (in blue) and IIb (in red) at similar epochs (Y.-Q. Liu et al. 2016). Near peak (at −1 d), the spectrum of SN 2025coe is more similar to that of SNe Ib than IIb; thus, the source of absorption at ∼λ6200 is more likely to be Si II than from H. As early as 21 days, SN 2025coe is more optically thin than SNe I… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Evolution of the P-Cygni profile of He I λ5876 over time plotted in velocity space between days 1 and 58. Zero velocity corresponds to the rest wavelength λ5876 (dashed gray line). The earliest spectrum is featureless and P-Cygni profiles start appearing by −7 d. On days −7 and −6, a second absorption peak at a slower velocity (dotted line; ∼5500 km s−1 ) is observed which vanishes by −1 d. The overal… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between extinction-corrected spectra of double-peaked CaSTs at similar epochs. Left: CaST spectra at the earliest available epoch. The observed diversity could be due to differences in the photospheric temperature and CSM / envelope properties. Right: Comparison of CaST spectra closest to peak brightness. The spectra between all double-peaked CaSTs look similar, with slight differences in veloci… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of [Ca ii]/[O i] of SN 2025coe over time compared with SN 2019ehk (W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. 2020b), SN 2021gno and SN 2021inl (W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. 2022), some other CaSTs, and representative SNe Ib/c. All other CaST and SN Ib/c data are from D. Milisavljevic et al. (2017). such as the ultrastripped SN 2019dge (Y. Yao et al. 2020) and SNe IIb (e.g., IIb SN 2016gkg, SN 2024uwq L. Tart… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The bolometric light curve of SN 2025coe is modeled with a combination of power from shock-cooling emission and radioactivity using an MCMC routine. For the shock-cooling emission, we consider the two-zone envelope model of A. L. Piro et al. (2021) (left) and an analytic solution described by B. Margalit (2022) (right). In both panels, the orange and blue light curves are shock cooling and radioactivity m… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between continuum-subtracted and renormalized [O i] and [Ca ii] line profiles in the nebular spec￾trum at 59 days after explosion. Zero velocities are with re￾spect to λ6300 and λ7306 for [O i] and [Ca ii], respectively. tation of Ca ejecta distribution and/or viewing angle effects. Motivated by these nebular diagnostic studies and ob￾servations of SN 2025coe, in this section we simultane￾ously… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Best viewing angles for a simultaneous fit of the synthetic spectra from the HEC-33L explosion model with the observed [O i] and [Ca ii] doublet profiles (in black) at days 83, 91, and 116 after explosion. The θ angle measured from the north pole corresponding to each model is marked. The velocities are centered around λ6316 for [O i] and around λ7304 for [Ca ii]. χ 2 values are weighted in our comparison… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the latest nebular spectrum of SN 2025coe at day 116 (after explosion) compared with nebular SN Ia double-detonation models of sub-Chandrasekhar-mass CO WDs with He shells from A. Polin et al. (2021). The observed SN 2025coe spectrum lacks Fe-group element lines that are prominent for the higher mass WDs models. A WD of 0.9 M⊙ with a He shell of 0.025 M⊙ provides the closest match to our dat… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left: Comparison between the bolometric light curve of SN 2025coe and the predicted luminosity from the disruption of a C/O WD by a hybrid He-C/O WD model (fca1) as described by Y. Zenati et al. (2023). The model explains the second peak and nebular luminosities well. Right: Comparison between a nebular spectrum of SN 2025coe and a synthetic spectrum from the fca1 explosion model at comparable epochs (aft… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Corner plots showing covariance between fitted parameters in both two-component fits as described in Section 7.1. REFERENCES Andrews, M., Farah, J., Howell, D. A., & McCully, C. 2025c, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-1033, 1 Andrews, M., Hiramatsu, D., Farah, J., Howell, D. A., & McCully, C. 2025a, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-802, 1 Andrews, M., Hiramatsu, D., Jacob… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Supernova (SN) 2025coe at a distance of $\sim$25 Mpc is the second-closest calcium-strong (CaST) transient. It was discovered at a large projected offset of $\sim$34 kpc from its potential host galaxy NGC 3277. Multiband photometry of SN 2025coe indicates the presence of two peaks at day $\sim$2 and day $\sim$11 after explosion. Modeling the bolometric light curve, we find that the first peak can be reproduced either by shock cooling of a compact envelope ($R_\mathrm{env}$ $\approx $6-40 $R_{\odot}$; $M_\mathrm{env}$ $\approx $0.1-0.2 $M_{\odot}$) or by interaction with close-in circumstellar material (CSM; $R_{\mathrm{CSM}} \lesssim 6 \times10^{14}$ cm), or a combination of both. The second peak is dominated by radioactive decay of $^{56}$Ni ($M_{\mathrm{ej}} \approx $0.4-0.5 $M_{\odot}$; $M_{^{56}\mathrm{Ni}} \approx 1.4 \times 10^{-2}$ $M_{\odot}$). SN 2025coe rapidly evolves from the photospheric phase dominated by He I P-Cygni profiles to nebular phase spectra dominated by strong [Ca II] $\lambda \lambda$7291, 7323 and weak [O I] $\lambda \lambda$6300, 6364 emission lines. Simultaneous line profile modeling of [Ca II] and [O I] at nebular phases shows that an asymmetric core-collapse explosion of a low-mass ($\lesssim$3.3 $M_{\odot}$) He-core progenitor can explain the observed line profiles. Alternatively, lack of local star formation at the site of the SN explosion combined with a low ejecta mass is also consistent with a thermonuclear explosion due to a low-mass hybrid He-C/O white dwarf + C/O white dwarf merger.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports observations and analysis of the nearby calcium-strong supernova SN 2025coe, which exhibits a double-peaked light curve with maxima near day 2 and day 11. Bolometric modeling attributes the first peak to shock cooling from a compact envelope (R_env ≈ 6-40 R_⊙, M_env ≈ 0.1-0.2 M_⊙) or close-in CSM interaction (or both), while the second peak is fit as 56Ni-powered with M_ej ≈ 0.4-0.5 M_⊙ and M_56Ni ≈ 0.014 M_⊙. Nebular spectra dominated by strong [Ca II] and weak [O I] are simultaneously modeled to support either an asymmetric core-collapse explosion of a low-mass (≲3.3 M_⊙) He-core progenitor or a thermonuclear explosion from a low-mass hybrid He-C/O + C/O white dwarf merger, the latter also consistent with the lack of local star formation at the explosion site.

Significance. If the derived ejecta mass and line-profile constraints are robust, the work adds useful progenitor limits for the still-rare class of calcium-strong transients by combining early-time photometry with nebular spectroscopy. The explicit presentation of two viable channels (asymmetric CC vs. WD merger) and the use of simultaneous [Ca II]/[O I] profile fitting are positive features that could help guide future observations of similar events.

major comments (2)
  1. [Bolometric light curve modeling] Bolometric light-curve modeling: the second-peak fit that yields M_ej ≈ 0.4-0.5 M_⊙ and M_56Ni ≈ 0.014 M_⊙ assumes a clean separation between the early (envelope/CSM) component and the radioactive tail, together with standard diffusion timescales and opacity. No error bars, full parameter covariance tables, or explicit tests against alternative velocity/opacity structures are provided; because this low M_ej is required for both the ≲3.3 M_⊙ He-core CC interpretation and the hybrid WD-merger scenario, any systematic bias in the subtraction directly undermines the central progenitor discrimination.
  2. [Nebular line profile modeling] Nebular line-profile section: the claim that an asymmetric core-collapse explosion of a low-mass He core reproduces the observed [Ca II] and [O I] profiles is presented without quantitative comparison to symmetric models or alternative geometries. The manuscript should report the improvement in fit statistic (e.g., reduced χ² or Bayesian evidence) when asymmetry is included versus excluded to establish that asymmetry is actually required by the data.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract quotes parameter ranges without uncertainties or references to the fitting procedure; adding 1σ errors and a brief statement of the method would improve clarity.
  2. [Results] A summary table listing all fitted parameters (R_env, M_env, M_ej, M_Ni, CSM radius, etc.) with uncertainties and the two progenitor scenarios side-by-side would help readers assess the robustness of the conclusions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below, indicating the revisions that will be incorporated to improve the robustness of the progenitor constraints.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Bolometric light curve modeling] Bolometric light-curve modeling: the second-peak fit that yields M_ej ≈ 0.4-0.5 M_⊙ and M_56Ni ≈ 0.014 M_⊙ assumes a clean separation between the early (envelope/CSM) component and the radioactive tail, together with standard diffusion timescales and opacity. No error bars, full parameter covariance tables, or explicit tests against alternative velocity/opacity structures are provided; because this low M_ej is required for both the ≲3.3 M_⊙ He-core CC interpretation and the hybrid WD-merger scenario, any systematic bias in the subtraction directly undermines the central progenitor discrimination.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantification of uncertainties would strengthen the analysis. In the revised manuscript we will report formal uncertainties on M_ej and M_56Ni derived from the fitting procedure, include a brief assessment of how the results vary with assumed opacity and velocity, and perform explicit tests with alternative component-separation assumptions. The low ejecta mass remains primarily constrained by the directly observed short rise time and modest peak luminosity of the second peak; these observables are robust even if the precise early-component subtraction carries some systematic uncertainty. We will add a short subsection discussing these systematics to clarify the progenitor implications. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Nebular line profile modeling] Nebular line-profile section: the claim that an asymmetric core-collapse explosion of a low-mass He core reproduces the observed [Ca II] and [O I] profiles is presented without quantitative comparison to symmetric models or alternative geometries. The manuscript should report the improvement in fit statistic (e.g., reduced χ² or Bayesian evidence) when asymmetry is included versus excluded to establish that asymmetry is actually required by the data.

    Authors: We appreciate this suggestion for a more rigorous statistical comparison. In the revised version we will add fits of the nebular spectra using symmetric geometries and report the quantitative improvement in fit statistics (reduced χ² and, where feasible, Bayesian evidence) when asymmetry is included. This will explicitly demonstrate that the asymmetric configuration is required by the data for the core-collapse channel while preserving the alternative thermonuclear interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in progenitor constraints

full rationale

The paper derives ejecta mass and nickel mass by fitting a two-component bolometric light-curve model (early envelope/CSM plus radioactive decay) directly to the observed photometry, then applies independent nebular spectroscopy to model [Ca II] and [O I] line profiles for asymmetry and core-mass limits. These steps operate on distinct data sets and do not reduce any claimed result to its own fitted inputs by construction; the low M_ej value serves only as a consistency check for the alternative WD-merger scenario rather than defining the spectral conclusions. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to close any loop, leaving the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard supernova light-curve and spectral synthesis assumptions plus several parameters fitted to the observed peaks and line shapes.

free parameters (4)
  • R_env = 6-40 R_sun
    Compact envelope radius required to reproduce the first light-curve peak via shock cooling
  • M_env = 0.1-0.2 M_sun
    Envelope mass needed for the shock-cooling or CSM-interaction model of the first peak
  • M_ej = 0.4-0.5 M_sun
    Total ejecta mass used to match the second peak powered by nickel decay
  • M_Ni56 = 1.4e-2 M_sun
    Nickel-56 mass required to power the second peak
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of supernova bolometric light-curve modeling (opacity, diffusion, radioactive powering)
    Invoked to separate shock-cooling/CSM and nickel-decay contributions to the two peaks
  • domain assumption Nebular line-profile modeling assumes specific ejecta geometry and excitation conditions
    Used to interpret asymmetric [Ca II] and [O I] profiles as evidence for lopsided explosion

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5938 in / 1588 out tokens · 67085 ms · 2026-05-16T17:56:17.781033+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 148 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., & McCully, C

    Andrews, M., Farah, J., Howell, D. A., & McCully, C. 2025c, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-1033, 1

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    2025a, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-802, 1

    McCully, C. 2025a, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-802, 1

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    2025b, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-914, 1

    Andrews, M., Hiramatsu, D., Jacobson-Galan, W., et al. 2025b, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-914, 1

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    The millisecond pulsar mass distribution: Evidence for bimodality and constraints on the maximum neutron star mass

    Antoniadis, J., Tauris, T. M., Ozel, F., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.01665, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1605.01665

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.01665 2016

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90c0

    Arcavi, I. 2022, ApJ, 937, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac90c0 2022

  6. [6]

    T., & Scheck, L

    Arcones, A., Janka, H. T., & Scheck, L. 2007, A&A, 467, 1227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066983

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066983 2007

  7. [7]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785, doi: 10.1086/159681

    work page doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  8. [8]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 1251, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1811

    Barmentloo, S., Jerkstrand, A., Iwamoto, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1251, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1811

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1811 2024

  9. [9]

    2014, Ap&SS, 354, 103, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-1935-6

    Bianchi, L. 2014, Ap&SS, 354, 103, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-1935-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-014-1935-6 2014

  10. [10]

    Blondin, S., & Tonry, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1024, doi: 10.1086/520494

    work page doi:10.1086/520494 2007

  11. [11]

    B., & Church, R

    Bobrick, A., Davies, M. B., & Church, R. P. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx312

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx312 2017

  12. [12]

    2023,, 1.9.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8248020

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023,, 1.9.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8248020

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8248020 2023

  13. [13]

    P., Cole , S., Frenk , C

    Breeveld, A. A., Curran, P. A., Hoversten, E. A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1687, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16832.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16832.x 2010

  14. [14]

    J., & Fraser , M

    Brennan, S. J., & Fraser, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243067

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243067 2022

  15. [15]

    M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F

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

    work page doi:10.1086/673168 2013

  16. [16]

    R., Anderson, J., Gnedin, O

    Brown, W. R., Anderson, J., Gnedin, O. Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/49

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/49 2015

  17. [17]

    P., Holas, A., Mor´ an-Fraile, J., et al

    Callan, F. P., Holas, A., Mor´ an-Fraile, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554548

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554548 2025

  18. [18]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  19. [19]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  20. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00135, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00135

    Chen, C., Sun, N.-C., Xi, Q., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00135, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00135

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00135 2025

  21. [21]

    A., & Soker, N

    Chevalier, R. A., & Soker, N. 1989, ApJ, 341, 867, doi: 10.1086/167545

    work page doi:10.1086/167545 1989

  22. [22]

    A., Modjaz, M., et al

    Crawford, A., Pritchard, T. A., Modjaz, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adea3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adea3a 2025

  23. [23]

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

    De, K., Fremling, U. C., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd627 26

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd627 2021

  24. [24]

    M., Cantwell, T., et al

    De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., Cantwell, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf8e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadf8e 2018

  25. [25]

    M., Tzanidakis, A., et al

    De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., Tzanidakis, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb45c de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Jr., H. G., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb45c 2020

  26. [26]

    J., Woosley, S

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Woosley, S. E., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2023, A&A, 677, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346626

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346626 2023

  27. [27]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  28. [28]

    R., et al

    Dimitriadis, G., Maguire, K., Karambelkar, V. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad536

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad536 2023

  29. [29]

    W., Roberts, I

    Edler, H. W., Roberts, I. D., Boselli, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348301

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348301 2024

  30. [30]

    2011, , 414, 264, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18402.x

    Eldridge, J. J., Langer, N., & Tout, C. A. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3501, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18650.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18650.x 2011

  31. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2705

    Ertini, K., Folatelli, G., Martinez, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2705

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2705 2023

  32. [32]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78 2019

  33. [33]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/131052 1982

  34. [34]

    V., Chornock, R., Swift, B., et al

    Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., Swift, B., et al. 2003, IAUC, 8159, 2

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d 2020

  36. [36]

    C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al

    Folatelli, G., Bersten, M. C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/7

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/7 2014

  37. [37]

    Foley, R. J. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2463, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv789

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv789 2015

  38. [38]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  39. [39]

    1991, ApJ, 367, 619, doi: 10.1086/169657

    Fryxell, B., Mueller, E., & Arnett, D. 1991, ApJ, 367, 619, doi: 10.1086/169657

    work page doi:10.1086/169657 1991

  40. [41]

    2019, A&A, 630, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935537

    Galbany, L., Ashall, C., H¨ oflich, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935537

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935537 2019

  41. [42]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  42. [43]

    Hendel, D., & Johnston, K. V. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2035

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2035 2015

  43. [44]

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

    Henden, A. A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al. 2016,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/336. Originally published in: 2015AAS...22533616H

    work page 2016

  44. [45]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687, doi: 10.1038/331687a0

    work page doi:10.1038/331687a0 1988

  45. [46]

    Hoogerwerf, R., de Bruijne, J. H. J., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2001, A&A, 365, 49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000014

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000014 2001

  46. [47]

    A., & Gomez, S

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Bostroem, K. A., & Gomez, S. 2023,, v0.8.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7872772

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7872772 2023

  47. [48]

    2019, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Howell, D. 2019, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 233, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #233, 258.16

    work page 2019

  48. [49]

    2025, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2025-756, 1 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W

    Itagaki, K. 2025, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2025-756, 1 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Polin, A., Foley, R. J., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 896, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94b8 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Margutti, R., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 898, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e66 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Venkatraman, P., Margutti, R., et al...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab94b8 2025

  49. [50]

    T., & Mueller, E

    Janka, H. T., & Mueller, E. 1996, A&A, 306, 167

    work page 1996

  50. [52]

    J., et al

    Jerkstrand, A., Ergon, M., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423983

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423983 2015

  51. [53]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f33

    Jung, M.-K., Yoon, S.-C., & Kim, H.-J. 2022, ApJ, 925, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f33 2022

  52. [54]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1ceb

    Kansky, J., Chilingarian, I., Fabricant, D., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1ceb

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab1ceb 2019

  53. [55]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/161

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/2/161 2012

  54. [56]

    S., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., et al

    Kawabata, K. S., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., et al. 2010, Nature, 465, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature09055

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09055 2010

  55. [57]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  56. [58]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2003, A&A, 408, 621, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030863

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030863 2003

  57. [59]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Scheck, L., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2006, A&A, 453, 661, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054512

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054512 2006

  58. [60]

    1992, ApJ, 390, 602, doi: 10.1086/171311

    Kozma, C., & Fransson, C. 1992, ApJ, 390, 602, doi: 10.1086/171311

    work page doi:10.1086/171311 1992

  59. [61]

    2013, ApJL, 778, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L18

    Kromer, M., Pakmor, R., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2013, ApJL, 778, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L18

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l18 2013

  60. [62]

    A., Siebert, M

    Kwok, L. A., Siebert, M. R., Johansson, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c0d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c0d 2024

  61. [63]

    Landolt, A. U. 1992, AJ, 104, 372, doi: 10.1086/116243

    work page doi:10.1086/116243 1992

  62. [64]

    2020, A&A, 637, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300

    Farmer, R. 2020, A&A, 637, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937300 2020

  63. [65]

    SuperNova IDentification spectral templates of 70 stripped-envelope core-collapse supernovae

    Liu, Y., & Modjaz, M. 2014, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1437

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [66]

    B., & Graur , O

    Liu, Y.-Q., Modjaz, M., Bianco, F. B., & Graur, O. 2016, ApJ, 827, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/90

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/90 2016

  65. [67]

    M., Cao, Y., et al

    Lunnan, R., Kasliwal, M. M., Cao, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/60 2017

  66. [68]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 106, doi: 10.1086/305523 27

    Madau, P., Pozzetti, L., & Dickinson, M. 1998, ApJ, 498, 106, doi: 10.1086/305523 27

    work page doi:10.1086/305523 1998

  67. [69]

    A., et al

    Maeda, K., Kawabata, K., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 1220, doi: 10.1126/science.1149437

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1149437 2008

  68. [70]

    A., Schlafly, E

    Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a 2020

  69. [71]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac771a

    Margalit, B. 2022, ApJ, 933, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac771a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac771a 2022

  70. [72]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.16279

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.16279 2023

  71. [73]

    A., Benetti, S., Stritzinger, M., & Ashall, C

    Mazzali, P. A., Benetti, S., Stritzinger, M., & Ashall, C. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac409

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac409 2022

  72. [74]

    2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 200, 1

    Midavaine, T., Andr´ e, P., Bregou, D., et al. 2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 200, 1

    work page 2025

  73. [75]

    A., Gerardy, C

    Milisavljevic, D., Fesen, R. A., Gerardy, C. L., Kirshner, R. P., & Challis, P. 2010, ApJ, 709, 1343, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/1343

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/2/1343 2010

  74. [76]

    J., Raymond, J

    Milisavljevic, D., Patnaude, D. J., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d9f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d9f 2017

  75. [77]

    S., & Stone, R

    Miller, J. S., & Stone, R. P. S. 1993, LOTRM

    work page 1993

  76. [78]

    2008, ApJL, 687, L9, doi: 10.1086/593135

    Matheson, T. 2008, ApJL, 687, L9, doi: 10.1086/593135

    work page doi:10.1086/593135 2008

  77. [79]

    Q., Bianco , F

    Modjaz, M., Liu, Y. Q., Bianco, F. B., & Graur, O. 2016, ApJ, 832, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/108

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/108 2016

  78. [80]

    2009, , 702, 226, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/226

    Modjaz, M., Li, W., Butler, N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/226

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/226 2009

  79. [81]

    P., et al

    Modjaz, M., Blondin, S., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/99

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/99 2014

  80. [82]

    K., et al

    Morales, G., Mart´ ınez-Delgado, D., Grebel, E. K., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732271

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732271 2018

Showing first 80 references.