Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A rare carbon-rich supernova, SN 2024abvb, exploded with only about 0.12 solar masses of ejecta, evidence of a progenitor star stripped almost bare before detonation.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 12:49 UTC pith:A6LSAHVK

load-bearing objection A good new dataset for a rare Icn-like transient, undermined by an internal contradiction over H/He lines and an overclaimed low ejecta mass. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.01333 v2 pith:A6LSAHVK submitted 2026-01-04 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

SN 2024abvb: A Type Icn Supernova in the Outskirts of its Host Galaxy

Maokai Hu , Shengyu Yan , Xiaofeng Wang , Abdusamatjan Iskandar , Jujia Zhang , Liping Li , Ali Esamdin , Letian Wang
show 6 more authors
Lingzhi Wang Alexei V. Filippenko Thomas G. Brink Liyang Chen Ruifeng Huang Lifan Wang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords supernovaeType Icn supernovaecircumstellar mattercore-collapse supernovaelight-curve modelingmass strippingWolf-Rayet starsultra-stripped supernovae
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper reports the discovery and follow-up of SN 2024abvb, a rare Type Icn supernova — an exploding star whose surrounding gas is rich in carbon but almost free of hydrogen and helium. It classifies the event from narrow carbon emission lines, measures a bright peak of -19.7 mag in the r-band, and fits the early light curve with a model that combines ejecta-circumstellar-medium interaction and radioactive nickel decay. The best fit gives a very low ejecta mass (about 0.12 solar masses) and a nickel mass below 0.038 solar masses, suggesting the progenitor had been dramatically stripped, likely by a companion star. This adds a fifth member to a small subclass and raises the possibility that SNe Icn are linked to ultra-stripped supernovae.

Core claim

The central claim is that SN 2024abvb belongs to the rare Type Icn class, established by narrow photoionized carbon emission lines and the absence of hydrogen and helium features. Fitting the multiband light curve with a hybrid model that includes both ejecta-circumstellar-matter interaction and 56Ni radioactive decay yields an ejecta mass of about 0.12+0.06/-0.02 solar masses, a circumstellar mass of about 0.28+0.02/-0.03 solar masses, and a 56Ni mass upper limit of 3.8e-2 solar masses. The low ejecta mass is taken as evidence that the progenitor star underwent significant mass stripping before explosion, consistent with a carbon-rich, hydrogen- and helium-poor Wolf-Rayet-like wind and poss

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a hybrid analytic light-curve model that superimposes two energy sources: the collision of supernova ejecta with the surrounding circumstellar medium and the radioactive decay chain 56Ni→56Co→56Fe. The model assumes a spherically symmetric, homogeneous steady-wind CSM and ignores photon diffusion in the unshocked CSM. Markov Chain Monte Carlo fitting of the early (through ~30 days past peak) multiband light curve constrains the ejecta mass, CSM mass, nickel mass, kinetic energy, and explosion time. Spectral classification relies on narrow photoionized C II emission lines at rest wavelengths near 5890, 6578, and 7234 Å, which disappear by about day +5; the absence of Bal

Load-bearing premise

The low ejecta mass and the mass-stripping conclusion depend on the assumption that the circumstellar medium is a smooth, spherical, steady wind; if the CSM is actually shell-like or clumpy, or if photon diffusion in the unshocked CSM is significant, the derived masses could change substantially.

What would settle it

Late-time photometry (roughly 100–300 days after peak) that is too luminous to be powered by less than 0.038 solar masses of 56Ni would rule out the low-nickel solution; alternatively, high-resolution spectroscopy revealing helium or hydrogen absorption, or polarimetric evidence of clumpy or shell-like CSM, would undermine the steady-wind assumption.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • SN 2024abvb becomes the fifth confirmed Type Icn supernova, expanding the subclass to include a luminous, fast-declining event at the outskirts of its host galaxy.
  • If the low ejecta mass is correct, the progenitor lost most of its mass before explosion, supporting the idea that SNe Icn arise from heavily stripped Wolf-Rayet-like stars or binary systems.
  • The derived low nickel mass upper limit and small ejecta mass put SN 2024abvb near the ultra-stripped supernova (USSN) region in the mass–nickel diagram, suggesting a possible physical link between SNe Icn and USSNe, with the presence of confined CSM being the main distinction.
  • The large projected offset from its host (about 23 kpc) suggests a long-lived progenitor system, consistent with a binary star that had time to migrate or be kicked.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If an alternative shell-like CSM model (which yields an ejecta mass of about 3.9 solar masses) is correct, the 'ultra-stripped' interpretation would not hold; observing the late-time radioactive tail would discriminate among these models by directly measuring the nickel mass.
  • Because the model neglects photon diffusion in the unshocked CSM, the inferred explosion time and masses could shift; a full radiative-transfer treatment might show that the true ejecta mass is higher, weakening the stripping claim.
  • The proposed link to ultra-stripped supernovae predicts that SN 2024abvb should develop nebular-phase spectral features resembling USSNe a few hundred days after explosion; obtaining a late-time spectrum would test this.
  • Since the SN is in a relatively clean environment, deep late-time imaging could measure the 56Co decay tail, providing a model-independent check on whether the nickel mass is really below 0.038 solar masses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents multiband photometry and spectroscopy of SN 2024abvb, a fast-evolving stripped-envelope supernova in the outskirts of its host galaxy. Based on narrow C II emission lines and the absence of Balmer and He features in early spectra, the authors tentatively classify it as a Type Icn SN. A hybrid MOSFiT model combining ejecta–CSM interaction and 56Ni decay is fitted to the first ~40 days of light curves, yielding Mej ≈ 0.12 Msun, MCSM ≈ 0.28 Msun, and MNi ≤ 3.8×10^-2 Msun. The authors interpret the low ejecta mass as evidence for a significantly stripped progenitor, possibly linking SNe Icn to ultrastripped-envelope supernovae. The paper includes an extensive observational dataset, comparison with known SNe Icn/Ibn, and an explicit discussion of model limitations.

Significance. SN 2024abvb would be a valuable addition to the sparse sample of Type Icn supernovae, especially at the luminous end (M_r ≈ -19.7) with a fast decline. The multi-wavelength coverage from Swift, ATLAS, TNOT, and REM is a strength, and the spectral comparison with known Icn/Ibn events is useful. The paper also provides machine-readable tables and a transparent MCMC fitting procedure with stated priors. However, the central physical conclusions—the Type Icn classification and the low ejecta mass implying significant mass stripping—are not secure as presented, because of an internal contradiction in the spectroscopic evidence and a strong dependence of Mej on the assumed CSM geometry. If these issues are resolved, the paper would make a meaningful contribution to understanding stripped-envelope supernovae and their progenitors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 3.2] The classification as Type Icn rests on the absence of H and He features (abstract; Sec. 3.2). However, Sec. 4 states that 'The INTEL Collaboration et al. (2026) reported the time-variant polarimetric signals and the presence of Balmer absorptions and He lines in their high-resolution spectra.' This is a direct internal contradiction. If these detections are associated with SN 2024abvb, the H-poor, He-poor CSM interpretation—and the mass-stripping conclusion—is not secure. The authors neither reproduce these spectra nor explain how Balmer/He features are consistent with the classification. Please address this explicitly, e.g., by showing the high-resolution spectra, attributing the features to the host galaxy or an unrelated component, or revising the classification and its implications.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 4] The low ejecta mass is the load-bearing claim, but it is strongly model-dependent. The paper acknowledges in Sec. 4 that a shell-like CSM model (C. Aster et al. 2026) yields Mej = 3.9 Msun, two orders of magnitude larger than the steady-wind value of 0.12 Msun. Given this geometric degeneracy, the statement that 'such a low ejecta mass indicates that the progenitor star ... experienced a significant mass-stripping process' is not robust. Either the shell-model fit should be presented as an equally viable alternative, or additional arguments (e.g., spectral line widths, bolometric light-curve shape) must be provided to break the degeneracy. As written, the abstract overstates the certainty of the low-Meij interpretation.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The neglect of photon diffusion in the unshocked CSM is acknowledged to introduce systematic uncertainties in the explosion parameters, including the explosion time. Since the early light curve (before ~10 days) is used to constrain the model, this simplification could bias not only t_exp but also the derived M_CSM and Mej. The authors mention the discrepancy in the UV-band rising light curve but do not quantify how the diffusion affects the inferred masses. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the systematic error (e.g., by varying the assumed diffusion time or using a simple analytic correction) or soften the central mass claims accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.2] Typo: 'ALTAS' should be 'ATLAS'.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The ATLAS c- and o-band magnitudes are used as V- and r-band light curves in the fit without an explicit transformation. Please state the assumed color terms or justify the direct substitution.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The posterior for M_Ni has a long upper tail and the reported upper limit (3.8×10^-2 Msun) is adopted from the 1σ bound. The text and Figure 9 should clarify that this is not a detection but a 1σ upper limit, and how it compares with the 84th percentile.
  4. [Sec. 4] When discussing the INTEL Collaboration results, the authors cite them as supporting the binary scenario, but the presence of Balmer absorptions and He lines would challenge the 'hydrogen-poor and helium-poor' classification. Even if the binary interpretation is retained, the classification inconsistency should be explicitly resolved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: MOSFiT fit reports fitted parameters, not predictions; classification and mass-stripping inference are model-dependent but not definitionally circular.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is the best-fit ejecta mass (0.12 Msun), CSM mass (0.28 Msun), and nickel-mass upper limit (3.8e-2 Msun) obtained from MOSFiT MCMC fitting of UV-to-optical light curves. This is explicitly a fit to observed photometry, not a prediction of a quantity already used as input; the inferred masses are outputs of the model, not inputs. The spectral Type Icn classification rests on narrow C II lines and the absence of H/He features (Sec. 3.2), and the mass-stripping conclusion follows from the low fitted ejecta mass; neither step defines one fitted quantity in terms of another. Model limitations are openly acknowledged: Sec. 3.3 states the spherical steady-wind assumption and neglect of photon diffusion in the unshocked CSM, and Sec. 4 reports that a shell-like CSM model (C. Aster et al. 2026) gives Mej = 3.9 Msun. Acknowledged degeneracy is not circularity. The only apparent self-citation, M. Hu et al. (2025), is used as a caveat about photon-diffusion systematics in the explosion time, not as support for the central mass-stripping claim, so it is not load-bearing. The INTEL Collaboration report of Balmer absorptions and He lines in high-resolution spectra (Sec. 4) is a serious correctness/consistency concern for the H/He-poor classification, but it is not a case where the paper's derivation reduces to its own inputs. No circular step meeting the quote-and-reduction test was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central physical parameters are obtained by fitting five free parameters with the MOSFiT hybrid model. The model rests on assumptions of spherical steady-wind CSM, neglect of photon diffusion in unshocked CSM, and a standard analytic diffusion prescription. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • CSM mass (M_CSM) = 0.28 +0.02/-0.03 Msun
    Free parameter in the MOSFiT ejecta-CSM interaction component, fit to the multiband light curves. Authors note it is a plausible upper limit if the CSM is aspherical.
  • Ejecta mass (M_ej) = 0.12 +0.06/-0.02 Msun
    Free parameter in the hybrid model; fit to the light curves. Strongly dependent on the assumed steady-wind CSM geometry; a shell-CSM fit gives 3.9 Msun.
  • Kinetic energy (E_ej) = 0.14 +0.06/-0.02 x 10^51 erg
    Free parameter of the MOSFiT model, fit to the light curves.
  • 56Ni mass (M_Ni) = 3.54e-3 Msun, quoted upper limit 3.8e-2 Msun
    Free parameter; posterior has a long tail and is poorly constrained by the lack of late-time photometry, so the paper adopts an upper limit.
  • Explosion time (t_exp) = -10.96 days relative to r-band peak
    Sampled in the MCMC with a uniform prior (-20,-8) days, constrained by the first detection and last non-detection.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric, homogeneous steady-wind CSM
    Invoked in Sec. 3.3 for the MOSFiT CSM-interaction model; the authors note it may contradict polarimetric evidence and therefore treat the CSM mass as an upper limit.
  • domain assumption Photon diffusion in the unshocked CSM is neglected
    Sec. 3.3 explicitly states the model does not include diffusion in unshocked CSM, which may bias the explosion time and the UV rising light curve.
  • domain assumption All measured radial velocity is cosmological redshift
    Sec. 2 assumes the -11,700 km/s radial velocity is entirely due to z=0.039 and adopts H0=70, giving a distance of 165 Mpc; peak luminosity and extinction-derived quantities depend on this.
  • domain assumption Absence of He I lines indicates a helium-poor CSM
    Sec. 3.2 attributes the 5890 A feature to C II rather than He I 5876 and uses the lack of He I 6678/7065 to conclude helium absence; the classification is labeled tentative.
  • domain assumption ATLAS c/o bands approximate V/r bands in the fit
    Figure 8 caption and Sec. 3.3 state the c- and o-band ATLAS observations were used as V- and r-band light curves in the fitting procedure, an approximation whose effect on parameters is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Analytic MOSFiT/Arnett/Chatzopoulos radiation-diffusion prescription is valid
    Sec. 3.3 follows the prescription of Eq. 9 of Chatzopoulos et al. (2012) for radiation diffusion through ejecta; the adequacy of this analytic model is not independently checked in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18942 in / 12605 out tokens · 131398 ms · 2026-08-03T12:49:21.997930+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present multiband photometric and spectroscopic observations of supernova (SN) 2024abvb, which exhibits early-time prominent photoionized narrow emission lines of C II superposed on a blue continuum. The absence of Balmer features indicates that the SN exploded within hydrogen-poor circumstellar matter (CSM). Together with the lack of explicit evidence of helium signatures, we tentatively identify SN 2024abvb as a Type Icn SN (SN Icn). After correcting for extinction, we estimate an r-band peak absolute magnitude of -19.7, placing SN 2024abvb in the luminous regime of SNe Icn. We adopted a hybrid model that accounts for both the energy released by the ejecta-CSM interaction and the radioactive decay of nickel synthesized in the SN ejecta to fit the light curve of SN 2024abvb. The best-fit model to the multiband light curves within the first ~ 40 days after explosion suggests that the CSM, radioactive nickel, and ejecta masses to be 0.28 Msun, < 3.8 * 10^-2 Msun, and 0.12 Msun, respectively. Such a low ejecta mass indicates that the progenitor star of SN 2024abvb experienced a significant mass-stripping process, consistent with the hydrogen-poor and helium-poor spectral features. SN 2024abvb provides important insights into the physical origins of the rare subclass of SNe Icn.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.01333 by Abdusamatjan Iskandar, Alexei V. Filippenko, Ali Esamdin, Jujia Zhang, Letian Wang, Lifan Wang, Lingzhi Wang, Liping Li, Liyang Chen, Maokai Hu, Ruifeng Huang, Shengyu Yan, Thomas G. Brink, Xiaofeng Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a): TNOT r-band image showing the location of SN 2024abvb. The black dashed square outlines the sky regions displayed in panels (b), (c), and (d), which show respectively the latest c-band prediscovery image, and the c- and o-band first-detection images obtained by ATLAS. Epochs are labeled in the upper right of each panel. 2024. TNOT is an equatorial telescope located at Nan￾shan Station of Xinjian… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multiband light curves of SN 2024abvb. The bandpass of each light curve is marked next to the color-coded symbols, and instruments used to obtain the photometry are indicated by the legend. The open upside-down triangles show the latest nondetection limits in the ATLAS c and o bands. The black curve and the color-shaded region underlying the photometry for each band provide the smoothed light curve and its… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spectral time series of SN 2024abvb acquired by NOT, LJT, XLT, and Lick 3 m Shane from approximately days −3 to +18 relative to the time of r-band maximum brightness (see Sec 3.1). All data are presented with 50 ˚A binning. The gray, purple, orange, and pink curves show the spectra obtained by NOT, LJT, XLT, and Shane, respectively. The vertical dashed lines indicate the spectral lines of C II and He I. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper and middle panels: the r- and g-band light curves of SN 2024abvb compared to those of other well-sampled SNe Icn, including SNe 2019hgp (A. Gal-Yam et al. 2022), 2019jc (C. Pellegrino et al. 2022), 2021ckj (C. Pellegrino et al. 2022; T. Nagao et al. 2023), 2021csp (D. A. Perley et al. 2022; C. Pellegrino et al. 2022), and 2022ann (K. W. Davis et al. 2023). The gray-shaded area presents the template l… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of C II emission lines of SN 2024abvb in velocity space relative to their rest-frame wavelengths. The dark-blue lines represent the arbitrarily scaled flux spectra in full resolution. The brown curves display the smoothed spectra. Phases are labeled on the right. Vertical pink lines mark the rest-frame wavelengths of the C II lines of interest. For illustration, the vertical dashed blue line in t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The day −1.2 (left-hand panel) and +3.7 (right-hand panel) spectra of SN 2024abvb compared with spectra of a selected sample of well-observed SNe Ibn/Icn at similar phases, namely SNe 2019kbj, 2019wep, 2020nxt (Ibn; A. Gangopadhyay et al. 2022; T. Ben-Ami et al. 2023; Q. Wang et al. 2024) and SNe 2019hgp, 2019jc, 2021csp (Icn; C. Pellegrino et al. 2022; D. A. Perley et al. 2022). The vertical dashed lines … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior distributions of the hybrid model that includes the CSM interaction and the 56Ni→56Co→56Fe decay from the MOSFiT code. Median values are marked by horizontal and vertical orange lines and labeled together with their 1σ uncertainties. These are used as the best-fit values. The explosion time texp is given relative to the time of the r-band light-curve peak. metric evolution of SN 2024abvb is beyon… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The best fit to the multiband light curves of SN 2024abvb with a hybrid model, which accounts for the CSM interaction and the 56Ni decay. Each color-coded band is formed by stacking 100 randomly selected models generated from MOSFiT. The upper-left, upper-right, and lower-left panels present the light curves from observations in Swift filters, Bessell BV JH, and SDSS griz bandpasses, respectively. The c- a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The upper triangles, circles, squares, stars, right triangles, diamonds, and hexagons respectively represent the Mej–MNi relationship of broad-lined SNe Ic (SNe Ic-BL; F. Taddia et al. 2018, 2019), SNe Ic (F. Taddia et al. 2018; A. Gangopadhyay et al. 2020b; C. Barbarino et al. 2021; A. Gagliano et al. 2022), SNe Ib (F. Taddia et al. 2018; A. Gangopadhyay et al. 2020b; M. D. Stritzinger et al. 2020; S. B. … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. JWST Reveals Large Reservoirs of Dust and Ongoing Circumstellar Interaction in SN Ibn/Icn 2023xgo over a Year Post-Explosion

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Late-time JWST spectra of SN 2023xgo detect cool silicate or carbonaceous dust masses of order 0.01-0.03 solar masses plus narrow He I emission indicating ongoing circumstellar interaction at +377 days.

  2. The Environments of Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients: Evidence for a Compact Object and Wolf-Rayet Star Merger Origin

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    LFBOT hosts are star-forming and moderately metal-poor, with many events offset from bright light, favoring a compact-object–Wolf-Rayet merger origin over TDEs or standard CCSNe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 675, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244751

    Agudo, I., Amati, L., An, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244751

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244751 2023

  2. [2]

    Arnett, W. D. 1980, ApJ, 237, 541, doi: 10.1086/157898

    doi:10.1086/157898 1980

  3. [3]

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

    doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  4. [4]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.20775

    Aster, C., Inserra, C., Pastorello, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.20775. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.20775

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    2021, A&A, 651, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038890

    Barbarino, C., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038890

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038890 2021

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb432

    Ben-Ami, T., Arcavi, I., Newsome, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb432

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb432 2023

  7. [7]

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

    Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/61

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/61 2011

  8. [8]

    2010,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    Bertin, E. 2010,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    2010

  9. [9]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  10. [10]

    J., & Fraser, M

    Brennan, S. J., & Fraser, M. 2022, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02635

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    2014, Ap&SS, 354, 89, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-2059-8

    Pritchard, T. 2014, Ap&SS, 354, 89, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-2059-8

    doi:10.1007/s10509-014-2059-8 2014

  12. [12]

    J., Holland, S

    Brown, P. J., Holland, S. T., Immler, S., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4517, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4517

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4517 2009

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd8be 2023

  15. [15]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  16. [16]

    C., & Vinko, J

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., & Vinko, J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/121

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/121 2012

  17. [17]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 1994, ApJ, 420, 268, doi: 10.1086/173557

    doi:10.1086/173557 1994

  18. [18]

    N., Blinnikov, S

    Chugai, N. N., Blinnikov, S. I., Cumming, R. J., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1213, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08011.x

    arXiv 2004

  19. [19]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Conconi, P., Cunniffe, R., D’Alessio, F., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1602–1612, doi: 10.1117/12.551289

    work page doi:10.1117/12.551289 2004

  20. [20]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Covino, S., Stefanon, M., Sciuto, G., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1613–1622, doi: 10.1117/12.551532

    doi:10.1117/12.551532 2004

  21. [21]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    W., Taggart, K., Tinyanont, S., et al

    Davis, K. W., Taggart, K., Tinyanont, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1433 2023

  23. [23]

    J., & Audit, E

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Audit, E. 2017, A&A, 605, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730942

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730942 2017

  24. [24]

    J., & Kuncarayakti, H

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2022, A&A, 658, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142436

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142436 2022

  25. [25]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    Dong, Y., Tsuna, D., Valenti, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6 2024

  26. [26]

    R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Soderberg, A. M., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/58

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/58 2013

  27. [27]

    2016, PASP, 128, 115005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/115005

    Fan, Z., Wang, H., Jiang, X., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 115005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/115005

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/115005 2016

  28. [28]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Chugai, N., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 907, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04282.x

    arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al

    Foley, R. J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 657, L105, doi: 10.1086/513145

    doi:10.1086/513145 2007

  30. [30]

    D., Brennan, S

    Fraser, M., Stritzinger, M. D., Brennan, S. J., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.07278, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.07278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07278 2021

  31. [31]

    D., et al

    Gagliano, A., Izzo, L., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac35ec 2022

  32. [32]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471, doi: 10.1038/nature13304

    doi:10.1038/nature13304 2014

  33. [33]

    2022, Nature, 601, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1

    Gal-Yam, A., Bruch, R., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1 2022

  34. [34]

    2020a, ApJ, 889, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hiramatsu, D., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 889, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328

  35. [35]

    K., et al

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2020b, MNRAS, 497, 3770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1821

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1821

  36. [36]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6187

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6187

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6187 2022

  37. [37]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa94

    Gangopadhyay, A., Maeda, K., Singh, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa94

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfa94 2023

  38. [38]

    SN 2023xgo: Helium-rich Type Icn or Carbon-Flash Type Ibn supernova?

    Gangopadhyay, A., Sollerman, J., Tsalapatas, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10700, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10700

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10700 2025

  39. [39]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  40. [40]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab761 2018

  41. [41]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Arcavi, I., Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158 2017

  42. [42]

    Hu, M., Wang, L., & Wang, X. 2025, ApJ, 984, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc802 15 MJD Phase Filter Magnitude Instrument System 60642.601 -2.149B17.10±0.10 TNOT Vega 60642.602 -2.148B17.10±0.08 TNOT Vega 60642.604 -2.146B17.07±0.06 TNOT Vega 60642.605 -2.145B17.09±0.08 TNOT Vega 60643.577 -1.174B17.03±0.10 TNOT Vega 60643.578 -1.172B17.03±0.13 TNOT Vega 60...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc802 2025

  43. [43]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/245 2010

  44. [44]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/3

    Khazov, D., Yaron, O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/3

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/3 2016

  45. [45]

    C., Karamehmetoglu, E., Sollerman, J., et al

    Kool, E. C., Karamehmetoglu, E., Sollerman, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039137

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039137 2021

  46. [46]

    W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 2010

  47. [47]

    R., Lennon, M., et al

    Langer, N., Hamann, W. R., Lennon, M., et al. 1994, A&A, 290, 819

    1994

  48. [48]

    2025, A&A, 698, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452684

    Ma, X., Wang, X., Mo, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452684

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452684 2025

  49. [49]

    Maeda, K., & Moriya, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672 2022

  50. [50]

    A., Teffs, J., et al

    Medler, K., Mazzali, P. A., Teffs, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1192

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1192 2022

  51. [51]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Mohamed, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 372, 15th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. R. Napiwotzki & M. R. Burleigh, 397

    2007

  52. [52]

    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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1392 2013

  53. [53]

    1997, A&A, 318, 269

    Munari, U., & Zwitter, T. 1997, A&A, 318, 269

    1997

  54. [54]

    2023, A&A, 673, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346084

    Nagao, T., Kuncarayakti, H., Maeda, K., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346084

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346084 2023

  55. [55]

    P., & Vink´ o, J

    Nagy, A. P., & Vink´ o, J. 2016, A&A, 589, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527931

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527931 2016

  56. [56]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 904, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2010, ApJ, 725, 904, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/904 2010

  57. [57]

    B., Kumar, A., Kumar, B., et al

    Pandey, S. B., Kumar, A., Kumar, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1889

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1889 2021

  58. [58]

    J., Mattila, S., et al

    Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., Mattila, S., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 829, doi: 10.1038/nature05825

    doi:10.1038/nature05825 2007

  59. [59]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13602.x

    Pastorello, A., Mattila, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13602.x

    arXiv 2008

  60. [60]

    J., et al

    Pastorello, A., Benetti, S., Brown, P. J., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, 449, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2745

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2745 1921

  61. [61]

    2015b, MNRAS, 449, 1954, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv335

    Pastorello, A., Hadjiyska, E., Rabinowitz, D., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 449, 1954, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv335

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv335 1954

  62. [62]

    F., Ciabattari, F., et al

    Pastorello, A., Wang, X. F., Ciabattari, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2634

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2634 2016

  63. [63]

    A., Terreran, G., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Terreran, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff6 2022

  64. [64]

    A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al

    Perley, D. A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac478e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac478e 2022

  65. [65]

    Filippenko, A. V. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L81, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01084.x

    arXiv 2011

  66. [66]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 2005

  67. [67]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  68. [68]

    A cosmic formation site of silicon and sulphur revealed by a new type of supernova explosion

    Schulze, S., Gal-Yam, A., Dessart, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02054, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02054

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.02054 2024

  69. [69]

    2025, A&A, 693, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346313

    Schweyer, T., Sollerman, J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346313

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346313 2025

  70. [70]

    B., et al

    Shi, J., Auchettl, K., Hoogendam, W. B., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.16227, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16227

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16227 2026

  71. [71]

    D., et al

    Shivvers, I., Zheng, W., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1885

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1885 2017

  72. [72]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e 2020

  73. [73]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 2014

  74. [74]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith, N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 403, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 38

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

  75. [75]

    M., Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Chornock, R., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V., & Foley, R. J. 2010, ApJ, 709, 856, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/856

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/2/856 2010

  76. [76]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4674, 1

    Stritzinger, M., Fraser, M., Pastorello, A., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4674, 1

    2024

  77. [77]

    D., Taddia, F., Holmbo, S., et al

    Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., Holmbo, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936619

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936619 2020

  78. [78]

    M., Sand, D

    Subrayan, B. M., Sand, D. J., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L68, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfe52

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfe52 2025

  79. [79]

    D., Bersten, M., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Bersten, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730844

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730844 2018

  80. [80]

    2019, A&A, 621, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834429

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834429

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834429 2019

Showing first 80 references.