Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A multiwavelength view of the nearby Calcium-Strong Transient SN 2025coe in the X-Ray, Near-Infrared, and Radio Wavebands

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The nearby calcium-strong transient SN 2025coe carries near-infrared helium fingerprints of helium-rich Type Ib stripped-envelope supernovae, and its early X-ray emission points to a compact shell of circumstellar gas; together these indica

desk verdict The NIR time series is a genuine first for CaSTs, but the headline CSM mass rests on a ~17-count X-ray spectrum and unconstrained spectral assumptions; referee it, but expect the CSM claim to soften. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.19018 v2 pith:H7NF6MBL submitted 2026-01-26 astro-ph.HE

Sahana Kumar , Raphael Baer-Way , Aravind P. Ravi , Maryam Modjaz , Poonam Chandra , Stefano Valenti , Lindsey A. Kwok , Samaporn Tinyanont
show 13 more authors
Ryan J. Foley D. Andrew Howell Daichi Hiramatsu Jennifer E. Andrews K. Azalee Bostroem Collin Christy Noah Franz Brian Hsu Jeniveve Pearson David J. Sand Manisha Shrestha Nathan Smith Bhagya Subrayan
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords calcium-strongtransientSN2025coestripped-envelopesupernovacore-collapsecircumstellarmediumnear-infraredspectroscopyX-rayastronomyradionon-detection
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

This paper argues that SN 2025coe, one of the nearest calcium-strong transients, is most plausibly a core-collapse supernova, not a thermonuclear one. Its near-infrared spectra at 10, 23, and 45 days after explosion show strong helium P-Cygni profiles that closely match helium-rich Type Ib stripped-envelope supernovae and do not match white-dwarf explosion models. Early X-ray detections are read as the supernova ejecta running into a compact circumstellar shell of roughly a tenth of a solar mass, and radio non-detections show that this shell does not extend far beyond about 4×10^15 cm. If the interpretation is right, the three nearest calcium-strong transients share a dense, nearby circumstellar shell expelled shortly before explosion, favoring massive-star mass loss over white-dwarf origins.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is the pair of helium lines at 1.083 and 2.058 microns in the near-infrared: their P-Cygni profiles, a blueshifted absorption trough combined with redshifted emission, trace helium in the outer ejecta and carry velocity information that can be compared against template spectra of helium-rich stripped-envelope supernovae and of thermonuclear models. The X-ray side uses a thermal bremsstrahlung fit to the reverse-shock emission to turn a measured emission measure into a circumstellar mass, assuming a spherical constant-density shell and a shock speed of about 0.1c. The radio side uses non-detections across 1-240 GHz to place a synchrotron and free-free absorption-ba

What would settle it

A radio detection of SN 2025coe at any epoch between 20 and 150 days above the reported limits (for example, more than 0.1 mJy at 240 GHz at 20 days, or more than 0.015 mJy at 6 GHz at 153 days) would directly contradict the claim that dense circumstellar material ends near 4×10^15 cm; likewise, a deep X-ray detection after 20 days, or an independent measurement putting the shock speed well below 20,000 km/s, would remove the load-bearing assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The near-infrared spectra of SN 2025coe at 10, 23, and 45 days show strong helium P-Cygni profiles at 1.083 and 2.058 microns whose velocities and shapes match helium-rich Type Ib stripped-envelope supernova templates, while failing to match normal Type Ia spectra or a hybrid white-dwarf merger model. X-ray detections at 3 and 8 days, at a luminosity near 3×10^40 erg/s with a soft spectrum, are modeled as reverse-shock bremsstrahlung, implying interaction with 0.12±0.11 solar masses of circumstellar material out to at least 2×10^15 cm. Radio non-detections from 20-153 days cap that dense material at roughly 4×10^15 cm. The paper concludes that the panchromatic data are consistent with a stri

Load-bearing premise

The circumstellar mass and dimensions rest on interpreting the early X-rays as reverse-shock radiation from a spherical, constant-density shell hit by ejecta moving at roughly a tenth of light speed; lower that shock speed, make the shell clumpy or asymmetric, or give the X-rays another source, and the inferred circumstellar mass and radius shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpretation holds, SN 2025coe becomes the third X-ray-detected calcium-strong transient, and all three nearest examples show dense circumstellar shells, making such shells a likely common feature of the subclass.
  • The near-infrared helium lines strongly favor a stripped-envelope core-collapse origin and disfavor normal thermonuclear explosions; any viable white-dwarf model must reproduce these strong helium P-Cygni features.
  • The implied mass-loss rate of roughly 0.2 to 0.5 solar masses per year is orders of magnitude above normal stripped-envelope supernovae, pointing to eruptive or binary-driven mass loss in the final months to years before explosion.
  • The radio outer-radius cap means the dense circumstellar material is confined inside about 4×10^15 cm, so observations within the first ten days after explosion are the key window for catching direct interaction.
  • The paper notes that if calcium-strong transients are thermonuclear, this object would be among the first thermonuclear supernovae detected in X-rays, but the helium evidence points the other way.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the actual shock speed is lower than the assumed 0.1c, the inferred circumstellar radius and mass shrink; this scaling could be tested by a late-time X-ray temperature measurement or by comparing with the optical shock-cooling radius inferred from photometry.
  • Editorial extension: the boxy helium 2.058 micron profile at +34 days coincides with an independently claimed third optical peak; a dedicated near-infrared radiative-transfer calculation of line blending could decide whether the boxiness is genuine interaction or a blend artifact.
  • Editorial extension: the confined-shell geometry proposed here predicts that very early ultraviolet or optical spectroscopy of future calcium-strong transients, within days of explosion, might catch narrow emission lines from the shocked shell that geometry hid in this object.
  • Editorial extension: because the three X-ray-detected calcium-strong transients are also the three nearest, a systematic X-ray survey of more distant members could test whether the dense circumstellar shell is truly universal or a property of the nearest, most easily followed objects.
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 coordinated X-ray, near-infrared (NIR), and radio observations of the nearby Calcium-Strong Transient SN 2025coe, with data spanning roughly 2 to 153 days post-explosion. The NIR spectra (10–45 days) show strong He I 1.083 and 2.058 micron P-Cygni profiles that the authors compare with templates and models, concluding that SN 2025coe is a He-rich stripped-envelope (Type Ib-like) event rather than a thermonuclear explosion. Swift-XRT detections at ~3 and ~8 days are combined and modeled; after approximating the spectrum with a 5 keV thermal bremsstrahlung model, the authors infer CSM mass M_CSM = 0.12 ± 0.11 M_sun extending to ~2e15 cm, with a constant-density spherical geometry. Radio non-detections (1–240 GHz, 20–153 days) place an upper limit on the dense CSM outer radius of ~4e15 cm. The paper interprets the panchromatic data as consistent with a core-collapse origin, with a compact, dense CSM that may be common among the nearest CaSTs.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable addition to the CaST literature: it is the first NIR spectral time series of a CaST, and the clear He I P-Cygni features provide strong spectroscopic evidence linking at least some CaSTs to He-rich stripped-envelope core-collapse supernovae. The X-ray and radio observations add to a small sample of CaSTs with interaction constraints, and the paper's comparison of the CSM environment to other transient classes (Fig. 10) is informative. The paper also makes good use of machine-checked fitting (MCMC for line profiles) and openly discusses several limitations, including the shock-speed dependence of the X-ray radius and the possibility of clumpy/asymmetric CSM. However, the headline CSM mass and the quantitative comparison to other CaSTs rest on an X-ray spectral fit with very few counts and an arbitrarily fixed temperature; this weakens the quantitative interaction claims even though the qualitative X-ray detection and the NIR origin conclusions remain credible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The CSM mass M_CSM = 0.12 ± 0.11 M_sun is derived by replacing the absorbed power-law fit with a 5 keV thermal bremsstrahlung model, but the combined Swift-XRT spectrum contains only ~17 counts. The best-fit power-law index is Γ = 2.0 +2.6/-1.7 and N_H = 1.5 +1.5/-3.8 ×10^22 cm^-2, i.e., both parameters are effectively unconstrained. The paper notes that fits for thermal emission give similar flux with slightly worse χ², but it does not propagate the degeneracy in kT. For a free-kT thermal fit, values of kT from ~1 keV to >20 keV are plausible, and the emission measure—hence ρ and M_CSM—would change by more than an order of magnitude. Thus the quoted statistical uncertainty (0.11 M_sun) substantially understates the systematic uncertainty. This is load-bearing because the paper's comparison of SN 2025coe to SN 2019ehk/2021gno and the claim of '~20 times more CSM' depend directly on this
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Sec. 3.5] The inferred CSM mass and density additionally assume a spherical, constant-density CSM with ΔR = R, solar composition, and a shock speed of 30,000 ± 10,000 km/s. The paper acknowledges the shock-speed dependence and the possibility of asphericity/clumping, but these assumptions, combined with the kT degeneracy, mean that the derived density (ρ = 1.96 ± 1.90 ×10^-14 g/cm^3) and mass are not constrained to the precision implied by Fig. 10 and the abstract. A sensitivity table varying v_shock (e.g., 15,000–40,000 km/s), kT (1–20 keV), and filling factor f (0.1–1.0) would make the model-dependence explicit and is necessary to support the quantitative comparison with other CaSTs and with mass-loss-rate estimates (0.2–0.5 M_sun/yr).
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 3.4, Sec. 3.5] The characteristic CSM radii are quoted inconsistently across the paper. The abstract says the CSM extends to at least 2×10^15 cm and gives an outer radius of 'at most ~5×10^15 cm', while later stating 'extending out to (3.5 ± 1.5) ×10^15 cm'. Section 3.4 derives 4.0×10^15 cm from the SMA non-detection, and Section 3.5 states 3±1×10^15 cm. Section 3.1 gives R = 1.44×10^15 cm and an outer extent of 2.1×10^15 cm. These numbers should be harmonized; the abstract's precision (3.5 ± 1.5) is not supported by the body, and the different values confuse the main spatial-scale result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract has a missing closing parenthesis after '~30,000 R_sun' and the value '3.5 ± 1.5 ×10^15 cm' later becomes '3±1 ×10^15 cm' in the body; please unify the notation and fix the parenthesis.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The statement 'S/N>2.5 at both epochs' is used to claim detections. Please specify the exact detection significance (e.g., Poisson false-alarm probability) and the number of source and background counts, since ~17 total counts is low for spectral fitting.
  3. [Table 3] The table reports Fν in mJy and image RMS in µJy; for clarity, use a single unit or explicitly state the conversion in the caption. Also, the first SMA row lists Fν < 0.1 mJy with RMS 20 µJy, which is a 5σ limit; the caption says all limits are 3σ, so please reconcile.
  4. [Fig. 7] Typo: 'He Absoprtion Velocity' should be 'He Absorption Velocity'.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] Typo: 'P-cyngi' should be 'P-Cygni'.
  6. [Sec. 3.4] The radio-derived outer radius assumes 'deceleration of the shock to 20000 km/s' at 20 days. This deceleration is assumed rather than derived; please justify or label as a conservative assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: X-ray CSM mass, NIR He-line classification, and radio constraints are grounded in new data; companion-paper optical inputs are independent.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined by the review patterns. The X-ray CSM mass is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: observed Swift count rates are converted to flux via an absorbed power-law fit, and the resulting emission measure is inverted to density/mass using a standard emission-measure formula with explicitly stated assumptions (kT ~5 keV, shock speed ~0.1c, spherical constant-density CSM with DeltaR=R, solar composition). None of these assumptions is defined in terms of the target M_CSM; changing them changes the result, which is exactly what a model-dependent inference does. The paper explicitly flags the shock-speed dependence, showing the authors are not treating the derived radius as independently measured. The radio non-detection analysis uses a separate synchrotron/free-free formalism and constrains the outer CSM radius from the first non-detection epoch; it does not reuse the X-ray-derived mass as an input. The NIR classification is a template comparison against externally published SESN, SN Ia, and hybrid-WD-merger spectra/models, and the conclusion (He-rich, Type-Ib-like) follows from observed line profiles rather than from a parameter fitted to the conclusion. The principal self-citation is the companion optical paper (A. P. Ravi et al. 2026), used for explosion epoch, distance, and optical properties. This is an independent, different-wavelength dataset, so the citation is real external evidence and does not raise the circularity score. The few-count X-ray spectral fit (Gamma statistically unconstrained) is a robustness concern, not a circularity concern. No equation reduces by construction to an earlier fitted value, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The paper's central quantitative claims depend on a small set of fitted/assumed parameters: the X-ray spectral fit (Gamma, N_H), the assumed shock speed, and the assumed CSM geometry/composition. The radio upper limit further depends on standard equipartition parameters. These are all conventional astrophysical modeling choices, but they carry substantial systematic uncertainty that is not propagated into the headline CSM mass.

free parameters (7)
  • X-ray power-law photon index Gamma = 2.0 (+2.6/-1.7)
    Fitted with XSPEC to the combined Swift-XRT spectrum (~7 ks); used to convert count rates to unabsorbed luminosities and upper limits.
  • Absorbing column density N_H = 1.5 (+1.5/-3.8) x 10^22 cm^-2
    Fitted from the same weak X-ray spectrum; much larger than the Galactic column and directly affects the unabsorbed luminosity.
  • Shock speed v_shock = 30000 +/- 10000 km/s
    Assumed ~0.1c based on typical interacting SESNe; sets CSM radius R ~ 1.44e15 cm and therefore the inferred CSM mass.
  • CSM geometry / filling factor f = 1 (spherical, Delta R = R)
    Assumed spherical uniform CSM; paper notes clumping with f=0.1-0.5 would raise clump densities by factors of 2-10.
  • CSM mean molecular weights = mu_e = 1.25, mu_I = 1.15
    Assumes solar abundances and fully ionized CSM; a helium-rich CSM would increase the mass estimate by about a factor of two.
  • Bremsstrahlung temperature = kT ~ 5 keV
    Choice used to approximate the non-thermal power law with photon index 2 when deriving the emission measure and CSM mass.
  • Radio model parameters = p = 3, epsilon_e = epsilon_B = 0.1, wind speed = 1000 km/s
    Chevalier (1998) synchrotron self-absorbed/free-free model parameters used to convert the 240 GHz non-detection into the mass-loss-rate upper limit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Early X-ray emission is powered by ejecta-CSM interaction, not by a central engine or other process.
    Invoked in Sections 1 and 3.1; the radio and X-ray emission is treated as coming from interaction alone, which is the basis for converting luminosity into CSM properties.
  • standard math The bremsstrahlung emission-measure formula (Eq. 2 of Brethauer et al. 2022) correctly relates the X-ray flux to CSM density and mass.
    Used in Section 3.1 to derive rho_CSM and M_CSM from the fitted emission measure; assumes optically thin thermal emission.
  • ad hoc to paper The CSM around SN 2025coe is spherical, constant-density, and has Delta R = R.
    Section 3.1 states this geometric assumption explicitly; the paper acknowledges the CSM may be aspherical or clumpy, which would alter the derived density.
  • domain assumption The explosion epoch, distance (25 +/- 9.3 Mpc), and optical parameters from the companion paper (Ravi et al. 2026) are correct.
    All phases, radii, and luminosities are computed relative to this distance and explosion date; the companion paper is by largely the same team.
  • standard math The Chevalier (1998) synchrotron self-absorption/free-free absorption model correctly converts radio non-detections to mass-loss-rate upper limits.
    Used in Section 3.4 to derive Mdot < 1e-5 Msun/yr at 1000 km/s from the SMA non-detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A multiwavelength view of the nearby Calcium-Strong Transient SN 2025coe in the X-Ray, Near-Infrared, and Radio Wavebands." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7NF6MBL

@misc{pith2026260119018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A multiwavelength view of the nearby Calcium-Strong Transient SN 2025coe in the X-Ray, Near-Infrared, and Radio Wavebands},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7NF6MBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.19018}
}
abstract

Calcium-strong transients (CaSTs) are a subclass of faint and rapidly evolving supernovae (SNe) that exhibit strong calcium features and notably weak oxygen features. The small but growing population of CaSTs exhibits some aspects similar to thermonuclear supernovae but others similar to massive star core-collapse events, leading to intriguing questions on their physical origins. SN~2025coe is one of the nearest CaSTs discovered to date, and our coordinated multi-wavelength observations obtained days to weeks post-explosion reveal new insights on these enigmatic transients. With the most robust NIR spectroscopic time-series of a CaST collected to date, SN 2025coe shows spectral signatures characteristic of Type Ib SNe (i.e. He-rich stripped-envelope SNe). SN~2025coe is the third X-ray detected CaST and our analysis of \textit{Swift} X-ray data suggest interaction with 0.12 $\pm\,0.11\ M_{\odot}$ of circumstellar material (CSM) extending to at least $2 \times 10^{15} $cm ($\sim 30,000\ R_{\odot}$, while our analysis of the 1--240 GHz radio non-detections gives an outer radius of that CSM of at most $\sim 5\times 10^{15}$ cm. This inferred nearby high-density CSM extending out to $(3.5 \pm 1.5) \times10^{15}$ cm is similar to that seen in the other two X-ray detected CaSTs, and its presence suggests that either intensive mass-loss from a massive star or some exotic pre-supernova mass ejection may be a common feature of this subclass. Our work also expands upon recent studies on the optical properties of SN 2025coe and explores our current understanding of different progenitor systems that could possibly produce CaSTs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The X-ray detections of SN 2025coe in con￾text with the other two X-ray detected calcium-rich tran￾sients SN 2019ehk and 2021gno (W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. 2020a, 2022). We also show the non-detection of the CaST-Ia SN 2016hnk (P. H. Sell et al. 2018; W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. 2020b) and the X-ray evolution of the SN Ib 2008D. Vertical dashed lines denote epochs of radio non-detections for SN 2025coe. absorbin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The absorbed power-law fit to the combined X-ray spectrum of SN 2025coe. Data are combined from epochs at 2.98 and 8.17 days post-explosion. (S. Tinyanont et al. 2024). An additional NIR spectrum of SN 2025coe was taken on April 10, 2025 with the MMT and Magellan Infrared Spectrograph (MMIRS) (B. McLeod et al. 2012). These observations were re￾duced using the MMIRS pipeline (I. Chilingarian et al. 2015), and the res… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. All NIR spectra of 2025coe compared to other Ca-strong transients. To date, 2025coe has the most robust NIR spectral times series of any CaST. All phases are listed with respect to optical maximum of the secondary, nickel-powered light curve peak. At earlier times, SN 2025coe does not show many similarities to Ca-rich transients Ca-Ic 2022oqm (S. K. Yadavalli et al. 2024) or Ca-Ia 2016hnk (L. Galbany et al. 2019), b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A view of the upper limits on radio luminosity for 3 CaSTs: SN 2019ehk, 2021gno and 2025coe. SNe 2019ehk and 2021gno data are from W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. (2020a, 2022). To date, no CaST has ever been detected at radio wavelengths. VLA data are S/C/X band (3-10 GH…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison between SN 2025coe optical and NIR He line profiles at the 3 epochs at which NIR spectra were taken, with all phases indicated with respect to r-band peak. At earlier phases, the optical and NIR He features exhibit similar P-Cygni profiles. As SN 2025coe e…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolution of the two NIR helium lines’ ab￾sorption velocities in SN 2025coe. We also show the opti￾cal He 5876 ˚A velocity evolution (A. P. Ravi et al. 2026) for comparison. In addition, we show measurements from other CaSTs with NIR spectra, as well as from SN Ib …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MCMC Fits to the He 1.083 µm and 2.058 µm profiles. The emission component is fit in the 1.083 µm pro￾file but not the 2.058 µm profile due to its relative lack of strength. The fit continuum is noted with the orange line. The evolution of these NIR He features are fur…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A comparison of our NIR spectra of SN 2025coe with template spectra for Helium-rich SESNe (M. Shahbandeh et al. 2022) and normal SNe Ia (J. Lu et al. 2023). We split the data into J, H and K band regions, and all epochs are relative to the optical peak (nickel-driven p…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A view of the measured CSM densities for SN 2025coe, other CaSTs and other SNe subtypes in general. All density values and upper limits are obtained directly from either optical spectroscopy or Radio/X-ray data. Mass-loss rate curves are plotted for a 500 km/s wind sp…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Traces of Helium Detected in Type Ic Supernova 2014L

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    Quantitative Bayesian inference using a deep-learning emulator detects 0.018-0.020 M_sun of helium in the Type Ic supernova 2014L.

  2. JWST Observations of Calcium-Strong Transients: I. Complex Nebular He Emission in SN 2024uj

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    JWST/NIRSpec data on SN 2024uj reveal complex He I emission overlapping central Ca and O, plus CO and dust, favoring a thermonuclear origin from low-mass white dwarfs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., & McCully, C

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

    2025

  2. [2]

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

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

    2025

  3. [3]

    Y., et al

    Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., Hsiao, E. Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab204b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab204b 2019

  4. [4]

    2025a, ApJ, 983, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

    Baer-Way, R., Chandra, P., Modjaz, M., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 983, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

  5. [5]

    J., Jacobson-Galan, W., et al

    Baer-Way, R., Nayana, A. J., Jacobson-Galan, W., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07080, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07080

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07080

  6. [6]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14

    Brethauer, D., Margutti, R., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b14 2022

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.20913, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.20913

    Chandra, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.20913, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.20913

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.20913 2025

  8. [8]

    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

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00135 2025

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676

    1998 doi

  2. [11]

    2015, PASP, 127, 406, doi: 10.1086/680598

    Chilingarian, I., Beletsky, Y., Moran, S., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 406, doi: 10.1086/680598

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    A., Modjaz, M., et al

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

    2025 doi

  4. [13]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907

    2004 doi

  5. [14]

    K., Kasliwal, M

    Das, K. K., Kasliwal, M. M., Fremling, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfeeb

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    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

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    M., Tzanidakis, A., et al

    De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., Tzanidakis, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb45c

    2020 doi

  8. [18]

    W., Roberts, I

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

    2024 doi

  9. [19]

    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

    2023 doi

  10. [20]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009

  11. [21]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    1997 doi

  12. [22]

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

    2015 doi

  13. [23]

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

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

    2013 doi

  14. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc0b

    Frohmaier, C., Sullivan, M., Maguire, K., & Nugent, P. 2018, ApJ, 858, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc0b

    2018 doi

  15. [25]

    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

    2019 doi

  16. [26]

    A., Taubenberger, S., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 70, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20464.x

    2012

  17. [27]

    Y., Marion, G

    Hsiao, E. Y., Marion, G. H., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/72

    2013 doi

  18. [28]

    Hung, T., Tinyanont, S., Dimitriadis, G., & Foley, R. J. 2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-884, 1 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Margutti, R., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 898, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e66 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Polin, A., Fole...

    2021 doi

  19. [29]

    Kale, R., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 95, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6

    2021 doi

  20. [30]

    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

    2012 doi

  21. [31]

    R., Masters, J

    Kent, B. R., Masters, J. S., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo, E. R. Deul, J. D. Mol, J. de Plaa, & H. Verkouter, 571

    2020

  22. [32]

    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

    2016 doi

  23. [33]

    Y., Phillips, M

    Lu, J., Hsiao, E. Y., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc100

    2023 doi

  24. [34]

    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

    2017 doi

  25. [35]

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

    2022 doi

  26. [36]

    S., Becklin, E

    McLean, I. S., Becklin, E. E., Bendiksen, O., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3354, Infrared Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. A. M. Fowler, 566–578, doi: 10.1117/12.317283

    1998 doi

  27. [37]

    2012, PASP, 124, 1318, doi: 10.1086/669044

    McLeod, B., Fabricant, D., Nystrom, G., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 1318, doi: 10.1086/669044

    2012 doi

  28. [38]

    J., Raymond, J

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

    2017 doi

  29. [39]

    P., & Arcavi, I

    Modjaz, M., Guti´ errez, C. P., & Arcavi, I. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 717, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0856-2

    2019 doi

  30. [40]

    2009, ApJ, 702, 226, doi: 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

    2009 doi

  31. [41]

    L., & Valenti, S

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

    2017 doi

  32. [42]

    J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al

    Nayana, A. J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc2fb Padilla Gonzalez, E., Howell, D. A., Terreran, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad19c9

    2025 doi

  33. [43]

    J., et al

    Pearson, J., Subrayan, B., Sand, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae00ba

    2025 doi

  34. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace595

    Pellegrino, C., Hiramatsu, D., Arcavi, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace595

    2023 doi

  35. [45]

    B., Gal-yam, A., Crockett, R

    Perets, H. B., Gal-yam, A., Crockett, R. M., et al. 2011, ApJL, 728, L36, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/728/2/L36

    2011 doi

  36. [46]

    B., Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P

    Perets, H. B., Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2010, Nature, 465, 322, doi: 10.1038/nature09056

    2010 doi

  37. [47]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcccc

    Polin, A., Nugent, P., & Kasen, D. 2021, ApJ, 906, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcccc

    2021 doi

  38. [48]

    J., Maguire, K., Fl¨ ors, A., et al

    Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Fl¨ ors, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936515

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

    P., Kumar, S., Baer-Way, R., et al

    Ravi, A. P., Kumar, S., Baer-Way, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.00415, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.00415

    2026 doi arXiv

  40. [50]

    H., Arur, K., Maccarone, T

    Sell, P. H., Arur, K., Maccarone, T. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L111, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly011

    2018 doi

  41. [51]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9e93

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Fender, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9e93

    2025 doi

  42. [52]

    Y., Ashall, C., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4030

    2022 doi

  43. [53]

    J., Quataert, E., & Pakmor, R

    Shen, K. J., Quataert, E., & Pakmor, R. 2019, ApJ, 887, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5370

    2019 doi

  44. [54]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Taubenberger, S. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 317, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 37

    2017 doi

  45. [55]

    J., Taggart, K., et al

    Tinyanont, S., Foley, R. J., Taggart, K., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 014201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1b39

    2024 doi

  46. [56]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 1015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf069

    Touchard-Paxton, C.-G., Frohmaier, C., Pursiainen, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf069

    2025 doi

  47. [57]

    D., Cushing, M

    Vacca, W. D., Cushing, M. C., & Rayner, J. T. 2003, PASP, 115, 389, doi: 10.1086/346193

    2003 doi

  48. [58]

    W., Panagia, N., Montes, M

    Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., Montes, M. J., & Sramek, R. A. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 387, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093744

    2002

  49. [59]

    C., H¨ oflich, P., Harkness, R

    Wheeler, J. C., H¨ oflich, P., Harkness, R. P., & Spyromilio, J. 1998, ApJ, 496, 908, doi: 10.1086/305427

    1998 doi

  50. [60]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd244

    Williamson, M., Kerzendorf, W., & Modjaz, M. 2021, ApJ, 908, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd244

    2021 doi

  51. [61]

    Willingale, R., Starling, R. L. C., Beardmore, A. P., Tanvir, N. R., & O’Brien, P. T. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt175

    2013 doi

  52. [62]

    K., Villar, V

    Yadavalli, S. K., Villar, V. A., Izzo, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a7c

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    B., Dessart, L., et al

    Zenati, Y., Perets, H. B., Dessart, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf65

    2023 doi

  54. [64]

    2012, AJ, 144, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131

    Zhang, T., Wang, X., Wu, C., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.