Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

SN 2024aecx's late near-infrared glow is an infrared echo: light from the supernova peak re-radiated by pre-existing dust in a face-on circumstellar disk, making it the first such echo seen around a Type Ic supernova.

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 05:17 UTC pith:YUAEOT5Y

load-bearing objection The paper reports a genuinely new NIR excess in a Type Ic SN that looks like an IR echo from pre-existing CSM dust, and the data are strong — but the luminosity tuning and the equally good optically thick new-dust fit mean the central claim is not yet closed. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.02691 v2 pith:YUAEOT5Y submitted 2026-02-02 astro-ph.HE

An infrared echo from a circumstellar disk in the hydrogen- and helium-poor SN 2024aecx

Samaporn Tinyanont , Kittipong Wangnok , Jennifer E. Andrews , Ryan J. Foley , Methawee Kaewmookda , Jacob E. Jencson , Armin Rest , Katie Auchettl
show 29 more authors
K. A. Bostroem David A. Coulter Poemwai Chainakun Ryan Chornock Kyle W. Davis Ori D. Fox Llu\'is Galbany Thomas R. Geballe Brian Hsu Wynn Jacobson-Gal\'an Saurabh W. Jha Ravjit Kaur Mansi M. Kasliwal Ryan M. Lau Natalie LeBaron Raffaella Margutti Seong Hyun Park Jeniveve Pearson Anthony L. Piro Conor L. Ransome Aravind P. Ravi Jeonghee Rho C\'esar Rojas-Bravo Sam Rose David J. Sand Nathan Smith Manisha Shrestha Bhagya M. Subrayan Stefano Valenti
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords infrared echoType Ic supernovacircumstellar dustcircumstellar mediumstripped-envelope supernovanear-infrared spectroscopydust formationshock interaction
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.

This paper explains an odd near-infrared brightening in the Type Ic supernova SN 2024aecx that begins about 32 days after peak light. The authors show the brightening is thermal dust emission: a single-temperature component whose temperature falls from roughly 1130 K to 870 K while its inferred mass rises and its luminosity stays about constant. Because the excess appears too early for dust to condense in the ejecta, they conclude it is an infrared echo from pre-existing circumstellar dust heated by the supernova peak. Comparing the observed temperature and mass evolution with geometric models, they favor a thick, nearly face-on disk of dust with an inner edge near 5×10^16 cm. If right, this is the first infrared echo from circumstellar dust around a Type Ic supernova, and the shock should begin hitting the disk about 440±200 days after explosion — a directly testable prediction.

Core claim

The central claim: the strong near-infrared excess that appears in SN 2024aecx 12–32 days past peak is thermal emission from pre-existing circumstellar dust, not newly formed ejecta dust. The dust is optically thin, about 10^-4 solar masses, with temperature declining from ~1130 to ~870 K, mass growing as (t-t_peak)^2, and luminosity roughly constant. The authors identify this as an infrared echo powered by the slowly evolving supernova peak, since powering it with the brief shock-cooling flash would require an implausibly dense, optically thick CSM. The single-temperature SED implies the echoing dust sits at roughly one distance per epoch, selecting a thick, nearly face-on disk with inner e

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the infrared echo geometry: at each observing time, light from the SN peak that traveled an extra path length ct reaches a paraboloid of dust with the supernova at its focus, placing the echoing dust near distance c(t-t_peak). The authors combine single-temperature, optically thin dust fits with a 3D grid simulation of spherical, wind, shell, and thick-disk geometries; only the disk reproduces the observed temperature and mass evolution. They also use the equal-arrival-time volume to compute lower-limit optical depths and an analytic dust-heating relation (T_dust ∝ L_SN^1/2/r) to identify the echo's light source as the SN peak rather than shock cooling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the echo's light source has a luminosity near 1×10^42 erg/s; if the true peak luminosity is closer to the published 2.5×10^42 erg/s, the inferred dust distances grow and the preferred face-on disk geometry — along with the 440-day interaction prediction — shifts.

What would settle it

Watch SN 2024aecx between roughly 440 and 640 days post-explosion with radio, X-ray, and optical spectroscopy: the disk-echo model predicts the shock slamming into the disk's inner edge in that window, producing interaction signatures. If the supernova fades cleanly past about 700 days with no interaction, the inferred inner edge or the pre-existing-dust interpretation is wrong.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the echo interpretation is correct, this is the first infrared echo from circumstellar dust reported for a Type Ic supernova, showing that at least some stripped-envelope progenitors shed mass close to explosion.
  • The dusty disk's inner edge, ~5.7±2.6×10^16 cm, is similar to the CSM around the interacting SN 2014C, placing SN 2024aecx in a small class of stripped-envelope supernovae with close-in circumstellar material.
  • The shock should reach the disk 440±200 days post-explosion; follow-up spectroscopy and imaging in that window will test the geometry and reveal whether the CSM is hydrogen-rich or hydrogen-poor.
  • The implied mass-loss rate of about 10^-4 solar masses per year (for a 100 km/s wind) is lower than strongly interacting stripped-envelope supernovae, suggesting a weaker or different mass-loss channel shortly before death.
  • The alternative optically thick scenario would require more than 10^-3 solar masses of dust formed within ~54 days of explosion, which the authors argue is implausible; thus the echo reading also constrains how fast supernova dust can form.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Not in the paper, but if the echo picture holds, the same near-infrared monitoring strategy should find similar echoes in other stripped-envelope supernovae, turning a rare event into a census of late-stage mass loss.
  • If the higher published peak luminosity (2.5×10^42 erg/s) is correct rather than the 1×10^42 erg/s adopted to match the dust temperatures, the inferred dust distances and disk inner edge grow, and the 440-day interaction date would come later; an independent bolometric light curve would discriminate.
  • A face-on disk predicts little time-variable extinction of the supernova; if later spectra show reddening or broadened emission as the shock plows into the disk, the assumed geometry would need revision.

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 a dense NIR spectroscopic monitoring campaign of the Type Ic SN 2024aecx, covering -18 to +60 d from peak. A strong NIR excess appears between 12 and 32 d, while the optical colors remain normal. The authors fit the excess with single-temperature dust models, finding two equally good solutions: optically thin dust (temperature declining from ~1130 K to ~870 K; mass growing as roughly (t-t_peak)^2) and optically thick dust (hotter, with a mass lower limit of ~10^-3 M_sun). They argue that the optically thick scenario would require dust formation too early in the ejecta, and instead interpret the optically thin solution as an IR echo from pre-existing CSM dust heated by SN peak light. A simple 3D geometry simulation is used to argue that a thick, face-on disk with an inner edge around 5×10^16 cm best matches the evolution, and they predict the SN shock will interact with this CSM at 440±200 d after explosion.

Significance. If the echo interpretation is correct, this is the first reported IR echo from CSM dust around a Type Ic SN, providing rare observational leverage on the mass-loss history of a stripped-envelope progenitor. The observational dataset is a clear strength: 14 epochs, five instruments, consistent flux checks, and clean line-free continuum fits. The paper also makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction—shock interaction with the disk at ~440±200 d—which makes the claim testable with ongoing or scheduled follow-up. The main weaknesses are that the key interpretation is anchored to an adopted source luminosity that is not derived from the paper's own extinction analysis, and that the equally good optically thick/new-dust fit is not quantitatively excluded.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3.2, Fig. 10] The IR-echo model is anchored to an adopted echo source L_SN = 10^42 erg/s and T_SN = 7000 K, below the published peak (2.5×10^42 erg/s; Zou et al. 2026, Xi et al. 2025). The paper justifies this by suggesting the host extinction in those works is overestimated, but it never recomputes the bolometric peak with its own A_V,host = 0.46 ± 0.08, R_V = 1.4 ± 0.2. Because dust temperature scales roughly as L^(1/4) at fixed radius, the inner-disk radius, the optical-depth argument against shock cooling, and the predicted interaction epoch 440 ± 200 d all shift if L is higher. I request a recomputed peak luminosity and an explicit sensitivity analysis over L = 1–2.5 × 10^42 erg/s.
  2. [§5.3 vs. §4.4] Table 2 and Fig. 8 show that the optically thick and optically thin dust fits are equally good. The rejection of the optically thick scenario is based on the promptness of >10^-3 M_sun dust formation and the lack of strong interaction luminosity, but no quantitative dust-formation model is presented. The paper itself notes in §4.4 that the boxy Mg I line suggests a cold dense shell 'ripe for later dust formation', and it cites SN 2006jc as a hydrogen-poor interacting SN with prompt CDS dust. If prompt dust formation cannot be excluded, the unique echo/pre-existing-dust conclusion is not established. Please provide a quantitative upper limit on CDS dust mass for this SN, or soften the conclusion to a preferred scenario and state the degeneracy explicitly.
  3. [§5.3.2, Fig. 12] The geometry comparison is calibrated to the data in several ways: L_SN is chosen to match the temperature curve, η=0.35 is chosen as the smallest value for which the disk is optically thin, and the models are scaled to the third-epoch dust mass. Consequently, the good agreement of the disk model is partly by construction. To claim that a thick face-on disk 'best explains' the evolution, the authors should marginalize over or vary L, η, and the normalization and show the corresponding best fits for the sphere/wind/shell geometries. Otherwise the comparison is not a fair discrimination of CSM geometry. In addition, the text is internally inconsistent: it states that 'wind and disk models produce temperature and mass evolution that are more in tension with the data' and then immediately states that the thick disk temperature evolution is in good agreement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4 caption vs. §3] The caption reports A_V,host = 0.39 ± 0.09 and R_V,host = 0.89 ± 0.16, while §3 gives A_V,host = 0.46 ± 0.08 and R_V,host = 1.4 ± 0.2. Please reconcile these values and state which set is used in the analysis.
  2. [§5.3 (near Fig. 10)] The phrase 'c(t−t peak/2' is missing a closing parenthesis and is ambiguous; it should read c(t−t_peak)/2. Similar notation should be checked in the caption of Fig. 10 and in the schematic of Fig. 11.
  3. [References] The surname 'Pyykkinen' in the reference list likely contains a typo; please verify the spelling against the original source.
  4. [§5.1, Table 2] For the optically thin fits, the reported radius column is a lower limit, but the table header just says 'r_BB'. Consider labeling it as a lower limit to avoid confusion with the blackbody radius of the optically thick case.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Source luminosity and disk-model mass are tuned to the observed dust temperature/mass; the IR-echo claim retains an independent promptness argument, so circularity is partial.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3.2, Figure 10 and the disk simulation]
    "To better fit the observations, we set the temperature and luminosity of the source to 7000 K and 10^42 erg/s (see Figure 10), and compute the dust temperature for each cell."

    The adopted source luminosity is the key input to the dust-temperature/distance relation (Eq. 2) and to the CSM-geometry simulation. The paper chooses L_SN = 10^42 erg/s, below the published peak of 2.5x10^42 erg/s, with the stated justification that this value 'is consistent with our observed temperature.' The observed T_dust is therefore used to select L_SN, after which the same observed T_dust is presented as being explained by the IR-echo model and used to favor the face-on disk and to scale the inferred dust distances/inner edge. The temperature match is thus partly by construction rather than an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3.2, Figure 12]
    "we scale the model so that the mass in the third epoch match the observation"

    The disk simulation's absolute dust mass is normalized to the third-epoch observed dust mass. The paper then concludes that the thick disk 'can best explain the dust mass and temperature evolution.' The temperature comparison is physically meaningful, but the mass comparison is anchored to one fitted data point, so the model cannot independently reproduce the observed dust mass normalization. This is a standard model-normalization step rather than a complete circularity, but it is a second place where the 'explanation' depends on tuning the model to the data it is then said to explain.

full rationale

The central claim that the NIR excess is an IR echo from pre-existing CSM dust is not definitionally circular. The strongest independent evidence is the rapid onset of the excess between 12 and 32 days post-peak, together with the argument that an optically thick, newly formed dust shell would require an implausibly large dust mass at very early epochs, and the observed optical colors staying normal while the NIR becomes very red. These empirical arguments do not reduce to the model inputs. However, the quantitative echo interpretation contains two fitted inputs that are then presented as successful explanations: (1) the source luminosity/temperature for the echo is set to 7000 K and 10^42 erg/s specifically 'to better fit the observations,' even though the published bolometric peak is about 2.5x10^42 erg/s; and (2) the disk simulation is normalized to the third-epoch observed dust mass. Both choices weaken the predictive content of the geometry comparison, but they do not force the conclusion because the promptness and optically-thin/optically-thick arguments are independent of these tunings. The self-citations to Tinyanont et al. (2019, 2024, 2025) are used for reduction methods, spectral comparison, and the SN 2014C analogy; they are not load-bearing for the IR-echo conclusion. On balance, this is partial circularity through fitted inputs, not a derivation equivalent to its inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central IR-echo interpretation depends on per-epoch dust parameters fitted to the NIR spectra, on assumed grain properties and source luminosity, and on a face-on disk geometry whose simulation is normalized to the data.

free parameters (9)
  • Dust temperature T_d (per epoch) = 1126.6–869.8 K (optically thin); 1583.9–1130.5 K (optically thick)
    MCMC fit to NIR spectra, Table 2. Central to the dust evolution argument.
  • Dust mass M_d (per epoch) = 0.66–2.6e-4 Msun (thin); >0.85–7.0e-3 Msun (thick)
    MCMC fit; mass growth M∝(t−t_peak)^2 used to support the echo interpretation.
  • Blackbody radius r_BB (per epoch) = >1.1–1.7e16 cm (thin); 0.62–1.2e16 cm (thick)
    MCMC fit; compared to light radii c(t−t_peak) and echo focal lengths.
  • Echo source luminosity L_SN = 1e42 erg/s (chosen; published peak 2.5e42 erg/s)
    Set in Section 5.3.2 to match the observed dust temperature; lower than literature value.
  • Shock velocity v_shock = 15,000 km/s (arbitrary)
    Chosen to pass through the optically thick radius; used for the shock-interaction timing prediction.
  • Disk thickness parameter η = 0.35
    Minimum value for the disk to be optically thin in geometry simulations, Section 5.3.2.
  • CSM outer radius R_out = 5e17 cm
    Assumed conservative outer radius for the optical-depth calculation in Section 5.3.1.
  • Gas-to-dust ratio = 100
    Assumed to convert dust density to gas density and mass-loss rate.
  • Host extinction A_V, R_V = A_V = 0.46±0.08, R_V = 1.4±0.2
    Fitted to CSP-I Ic color templates; affects absolute luminosity but not the NIR excess directly.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Dust emission formula F = M_d B_ν(T_d) κ_ν P_esc / d^2 (Eq. 1)
    Modified blackbody radiative transfer; standard in the field.
  • standard math Dust temperature-radius relation from Fox et al. 2010 (Eq. 2)
    Used to relate observed T_d to distance and L_SN.
  • standard math IR echo equal-arrival-time paraboloid geometry (Dwek 1983)
    Used to compute echoing volume and optical depth in Section 5.3.1.
  • domain assumption Single-temperature, optically thin dust with 0.1 μm carbonaceous grains
    Motivated by SN 2005ip; NIR data insensitive to composition/size; affects mass/radius scaling.
  • domain assumption Pre-existing dust in CSM rather than newly formed dust
    Load-bearing assumption for the IR-echo interpretation; argued from timescale and extinction, not directly observed.
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry for dust-density lower-limit calculation
    Used to compute optical depth lower limits in Section 5.3.1; authors note the geometry is likely not spherical.
  • ad hoc to paper Disk geometry with η = 0.35 and face-on orientation
    Introduced to match mass/temperature evolution; η choice is the minimal optically thin value; simulation scaled to data.
invented entities (1)
  • Thick face-on circumstellar dust disk independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the IR echo geometry, dust mass/temperature evolution, and predicts a future shock interaction.
    Falsifiable handle: shock interaction predicted at 440±200 days post explosion and future JWST observations; not directly imaged.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28074 in / 12392 out tokens · 124326 ms · 2026-08-03T05:17:25.118595+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An infrared echo from a circumstellar disk in the hydrogen- and helium-poor SN 2024aecx." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUAEOT5Y

@misc{pith2026260202691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An infrared echo from a circumstellar disk in the hydrogen- and helium-poor SN 2024aecx},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUAEOT5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.02691}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy of the hydrogen- and helium-poor (Type Ic) supernova (SN) 2024aecx, which displays a strong NIR excess emerging 32 days post peak. SN 2024aecx is a peculiar SN Ic that exhibited luminous shock-cooling emission at early times, suggestive of close-in circumstellar medium (CSM), unexpected for this class of SNe. Its early NIR spectra are typical for a SN Ic but with strong C I absorption features. By $\sim$32 days post peak, the spectra show a strong NIR excess, while maintaining normal optical colors, unprecedented for SNe Ic. We find that the NIR excess is well fit with a single-temperature, optically thin dust model with declining temperature, increasing mass, and roughly constant luminosity over time. The NIR excess appears too promptly for dust to have formed in the SN ejecta, indicating an IR echo from pre-existing dust in the CSM. The IR echo is likely powered by the relatively slowly evolving SN peak light, and not the brief shock cooling emission, as the latter requires unrealistically high CSM densities to explain the observed dust mass. We consider different potential CSM geometries and find that a thick face-on disk with an inner edge of around $5\times 10^{16} \rm \ cm$ can best explain the dust mass and temperature evolution. In this scenario, the SN shock should start interacting with this CSM $440\pm200$ days post explosion. CSM around SN Ic is rare, and follow-up observations of SN 2024aecx will probe the mass-loss process responsible for removing hydrogen and helium from their progenitor star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.02691 by Anthony L. Piro, Aravind P. Ravi, Armin Rest, Bhagya M. Subrayan, Brian Hsu, C\'esar Rojas-Bravo, Conor L. Ransome, David A. Coulter, David J. Sand, Jacob E. Jencson, Jeniveve Pearson, Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeonghee Rho, K. A. Bostroem, Katie Auchettl, Kittipong Wangnok, Kyle W. Davis, Llu\'is Galbany, Manisha Shrestha, Mansi M. Kasliwal, Methawee Kaewmookda, Natalie LeBaron, Nathan Smith, Ori D. Fox, Poemwai Chainakun, Raffaella Margutti, Ravjit Kaur, Ryan Chornock, Ryan J. Foley, Ryan M. Lau, Samaporn Tinyanont, Sam Rose, Saurabh W. Jha, Seong Hyun Park, Stefano Valenti, Thomas R. Geballe, Wynn Jacobson-Gal\'an.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: NIR spectra of SN 2024aecx from −18 to 60 days from peak. Prominent spectral features are marked. Early spectra are dominated by a hot continuum with prominent C I absorptions, marked by the shaded regions. Between 12 and 32 days, a strong NIR continuum emerges and strengthens towards the end of spectral sequence shown here. Spectra in this phase show boxy Mg I 1.5033 µm. Comparatively weak CO first overto… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Optical light curves of SN 2024aecx in the uBV gri bands. The magnitudes are in the AB system. The photometry has not been corrected for extinction. Red ticks on top label epochs for our NIR spectra. 2 days after the SN discovery (J. Andrews et al. 2024b). The spectrum shows clear Na I doublet absorption both from the MW and from the host galaxy. The lines are partially resolved. We simultaneously fit the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: NIR spectrum of SN 2024aecx at 12 days post peak compared with those of a typical SN Ic 2013ge at 7.8 days (M. Shahbandeh et al. 2022), C-rich SN Ic 2016adj at 6.3 days (M. D. Stritzinger et al. 2024), and a helium-rich SN IIb 2022ngb at 18 days (S. Tinyanont et al. 2024). C I lines are plotted in dotted red lines. Other lines present are Mg I 1.5003 µm and Mg II 1.0938 µm, plotted in dashed magenta l… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Color evolution of SN 2024aecx B − V (left), V − r (middle), and r − i (right). Unfilled red circles mark the observed color. Filled cyan squares mark the colors corrected for MW extinction with AV,MW = 0.16 mag and RV,MW = 3.1. Filled blue squares mark the colors corrected for both MW and host extinction with AV,host = 0.39 ± 0.09 mag and RV,host = 0.89±0.16. Shaded bands mark the range of color temp… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NIR Spectra of SN 2024aecx at regions around Paβ (left) and the He I 2.059 µm and Brγ (right). We do not detect hydrogen or uncontaminated helium lines in the NIR at any phase. 20000 10000 0 10000 20000 Velocity (km s 1 ) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 C o n tin u u m N orm aliz e d F + O f f s e t s GNIRS, -18 d GNIRS, -16 d SpeX, -9 d GNIRS, -2 d GNIRS, 12 d GNIRS, 33 d SpeX, 50 d 20000 10000 0 10000 20000 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the Ca II triplet from −18 to 50 days from peak. Only GNIRS and SpeX cover this line. The velocity is calculated from the 8544 ˚A line, with the 8500 and 8664 ˚A lines marked. emission with peaks coinciding with the Mg I 1.4878 and 1.5033 µm lines, the Mg I feature in SN 2024aecx does not follow this description. If the two sides of the boxy profile are centered on these two Mg I, both have to… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: NIR Spectra of SN 2024aecx between 1.02 and 1.13 µm, along with possible line identifications of the feature centered around 1.09 µm. Right: Evolution of the Mg I 1.5033 µm line from 12 to 60 days post peak. The line emerges after peak light. The line profile is boxy, with some absorption at v = 0. The FWHM is ∼ 5000 km s−1 . The profile remains approximately constant from 32 days post peak. To fully… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dust model fit to the observed spectra with absolute flux calibration available. Only the line-free regions plotted in orange are used. The excess beyond 2.3 µm is likely due to CO emission. The optically thin fit is in solid red and the optically thick fit is in dashed black. Both scenarios fit the data equally well, from the MCMC results. The dust fit stays below any absorption features (apart from regio… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of dust parameters in SN 2024aecx, clockwise from top left: temperature, mass, radius, and luminosity. Results from the optically thick and thin are shown in different colors and markers. Observation epochs are shown both with respect to the explosion and the peak. Lower limits are shown as upward arrows. Statistical uncertainties are plotted, but small compared to the marker size. In the mass pl… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dust radius and temperature phase space, with SN 2024aecx dust parameters in the optically thin (lower lim￾its) and thick cases shown. The crosses indicate the light radii of the shock cooling and the SN peak c(t−texplosion/peak) at the corresponding epoch of observations for the optically thin dust data points. The focal length of the paraboloid of equal arrival time, c(t − tpeak)/2, is also shown for th… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Dust temperature (top) and mass (bottom) evo￾lution from models of IR echo with in the following CSM ge￾ometries: homogeneous sphere (red), thick disk (blue), wind with ρ ∝ r −2 (cyan), and shell with an inner radius of rsubl (yellow). The dust parameters of SN 2024aecx in the opti￾cally thin case are shown in black. disk models produce temperature and mass evolution that are more in tension with the data… 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. JWST observations of SN 2024abup: First Detection of CO in a broad-lined Type Ic Supernova and Constraints on r-process Nucleosynthesis

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    JWST spectra of SN 2024abup show CO, C, O, and Mg features plus possible dust emission, with no clear r-process signatures identified via SUMO modeling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Bostroem, K

    Andrews, J., Sand, D. J., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2024a, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4943, 1

    2024

  2. [2]

    A., Sand, D

    Andrews, J., Bostroem, K. A., Sand, D. J., et al. 2024b, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4974, 1

    2024

  3. [3]

    E., Clayton, G

    Andrews, J. E., Clayton, G. C., Wesson, R., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/45 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/45 2011

  4. [4]

    E., & Kassim, N

    Balasubramanian, A., Corsi, A., Polisensky, E., Clarke, T. E., & Kassim, N. E. 2021, ApJ, 923, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2154

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2154 2021

  5. [5]

    Banerjee, D. P. K., Joshi, V., Evans, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2255

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2255 2018

  6. [6]

    F., & Evans, A

    Bode, M. F., & Evans, A. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 21P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/193.1.21P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/193.1.21p 1980

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    A., Chugai, N., Milisavljevic, D., & Fransson, C

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Chugai, N., Milisavljevic, D., & Fransson, C. 2020, ApJ, 902, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb460

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb460 2020

  9. [9]

    W., Yang, S., Stevance, H

    Chen, T. W., Yang, S., Stevance, H. F., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 372, 1

    2024

  10. [10]

    A., & Fransson, C

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

    doi:10.1086/173557 1994

  11. [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

    doi:10.1086/680598 2015

  12. [12]

    N., & Chevalier, R

    Chugai, N. N., & Chevalier, R. A. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1051, doi: 10.1086/500539

    doi:10.1086/500539 2006

  13. [13]

    Crotts, A. P. S. 1988, ApJL, 333, L51, doi: 10.1086/185286

    work page doi:10.1086/185286 1988

  14. [14]

    C., Vacca, W

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

    doi:10.1086/382907 2004

  15. [15]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2022, A&A, 660, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243372

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243372 2022

  16. [16]

    T., & Lee, H

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

    doi:10.1086/162480 1984

  17. [17]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/161435 1983

  18. [18]

    Dwek, E., & Arendt, R. G. 2008, ApJ, 685, 976, doi: 10.1086/589988

    doi:10.1086/589988 2008

  19. [19]

    G., et al

    Dwek, E., Sarangi, A., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ea

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ea 2021

  20. [20]

    G., et al

    Eikenberry, S., Bandyopadhyay, R., Bennett, J. G., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84460I, doi: 10.1117/12.925679

    work page doi:10.1117/12.925679 2012

  21. [21]

    S., Elston, R., Raines, S

    Eikenberry, S. S., Elston, R., Raines, S. N., 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, 1196–1207, doi: 10.1117/12.549796

    work page doi:10.1117/12.549796 2004

  22. [22]

    Crockett, R. M. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1612

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1612 2013

  23. [23]

    H., Joyce, R

    Elias, J. H., Joyce, R. R., Liang, M., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6269, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye, 62694C, doi: 10.1117/12.671817

    doi:10.1117/12.671817 2006

  24. [24]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, L33, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad195

    Ferrari, L., Folatelli, G., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, L33, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad195

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad195 2024

  25. [25]

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 1997

  26. [26]

    A., Fesen, R

    Finn, R. A., Fesen, R. A., Darling, G. W., Thorstensen, J. R., & Worthey, G. S. 1995, AJ, 110, 300, doi: 10.1086/117519

    work page doi:10.1086/117519 1995

  27. [27]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293 20

    doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  28. [28]

    D., Chevalier, R

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1768 2010

  29. [30]

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

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

    doi:10.1038/nature13558 2014

  30. [31]

    R., Meikle, W

    Graham, J. R., Meikle, W. P. S., Selby, M. J., et al. 1983, Nature, 304, 709, doi: 10.1038/304709a0

    doi:10.1038/304709a0 1983

  31. [32]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4947, 1

    Hinkle, J. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-4947, 1

    2024

  32. [33]

    D., Karamehmetoglu, E., et al

    Holmbo, S., Stritzinger, M. D., Karamehmetoglu, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245334

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245334 2023

  33. [34]

    J., Valenti, S., Kotak, R., et al

    Hunter, D. J., Valenti, S., Kotak, R., et al. 2009, A&A, 508, 371, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912896 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae157a

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912896 2009

  34. [35]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Jerkstrand, A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 795, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 29

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

  35. [36]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Drout, M. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2675 2018

  36. [37]

    D., Drout, M

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Drout, M. R., Auchettl, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab838

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab838 2021

  37. [38]

    Kotak, R., Meikle, W. P. S., Farrah, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 306, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/306

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/1/306 2009

  38. [39]

    2023, A&A, 678, A209, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346526

    Kuncarayakti, H., Sollerman, J., Izzo, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A209, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346526

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346526 2023

  39. [40]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044

    Labrie, K., Simpson, C., Cardenes, R., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044 2023

  40. [41]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    arXiv 2007

  41. [42]

    R., Walton, N

    Lewis, J. R., Walton, N. A., Meikle, W. P. S., et al. 1994, MNRAS, 266, L27, doi: 10.1093/mnras/266.1.L27

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/266.1.l27 1994

  42. [43]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/35

    Maeda, K., Hattori, T., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/35

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/35 2015

  43. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    Margutti, R., Kamble, A., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140 2017

  44. [45]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.16279 2023

  45. [46]

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

    arXiv 2008

  46. [47]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Mauerhan, J. C., Filippenko, A. V., Zheng, W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1307

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1307 2018

  47. [48]

    S., Steidel, C

    McLean, I. S., Steidel, C. C., Epps, H. W., et al. 2012, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, 84460J, doi: 10.1117/12.924794

    doi:10.1117/12.924794 2012

  48. [49]

    2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 1318, doi: 10.1086/669044

    McLeod, B., Fabricant, D., Nystrom, G., et al. 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 1318, doi: 10.1086/669044

    doi:10.1086/669044 2012

  49. [50]

    Meikle, W. P. S., Mattila, S., Gerardy, C. L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 332, doi: 10.1086/506143

    doi:10.1086/506143 2006

  50. [51]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/120

    Milisavljevic, D., Margutti, R., Kamble, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/120

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/120 2015

  51. [52]

    2024, ApJL, 965, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b P´ erez-Fournon, I., Aguado, D

    Milisavljevic, D., Temim, T., De Looze, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b P´ erez-Fournon, I., Aguado, D. S., Poidevin, F., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 374, 1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b 2024

  52. [53]

    M., Simon, J

    Phillips, M. M., Simon, J. D., Morrell, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/38

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/38 2013

  53. [54]

    C., Vink´ o, J., et al

    Pooley, D., Wheeler, J. C., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e36

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e36 2019

  54. [55]

    X., & Bloom, J

    Poznanski, D., Prochaska, J. X., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1465, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21796.x

    arXiv 2012

  55. [56]

    Pozzo, M., Meikle, W. P. S., Rayner, J. T., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10204.x

    arXiv 2006

  56. [57]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    doi:10.21105/joss.02308 2020

  57. [58]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3743493 2020

  58. [59]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.11447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.11447

    Pyykkinen, N., Nagao, T., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.11447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.11447

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.11447 2025

  59. [60]

    M., Bregman, J., Witteborn, F

    Rank, D. M., Bregman, J., Witteborn, F. C., et al. 1988, ApJL, 325, L1, doi: 10.1086/185096

    work page doi:10.1086/185096 1988

  60. [61]

    P., Rho, J., Park, S., et al

    Ravi, A. P., Rho, J., Park, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accddc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accddc 2023

  61. [62]

    R., et al

    Rho, J., Evans, A., Geballe, T. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd850

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd850 2021

  62. [63]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac713d 2022

  63. [64]

    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

  64. [65]

    2024, A&A, 686, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348761

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348761

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348761 2024

  65. [66]

    Y., Ashall, C., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4030 21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4030 2022

  66. [67]

    2024, SN 2024aecx: A Gateway to Understanding Massive Star

    Shahbandeh, M., Ashall, C., Baron, E., et al. 2024, SN 2024aecx: A Gateway to Understanding Massive Star

    2024

  67. [68]

    D., Temim, T., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce77 2025

  68. [69]

    M., et al

    Shivvers, I., Mazzali, P., Silverman, J. M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1839

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1839 2013

  69. [70]

    2017, PASP, 129, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a6

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a6

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a6 2017

  70. [71]

    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

  71. [72]

    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

  72. [73]

    J., & Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Foley, R. J., & Filippenko, A. V. 2008, ApJ, 680, 568, doi: 10.1086/587860

    doi:10.1086/587860 2008

  73. [74]

    V., & Chornock, R

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

    arXiv 2011

  74. [75]

    2020, A&A, 643, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038960

    Sollerman, J., Fransson, C., Barbarino, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038960

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038960 2020

  75. [76]

    G., Tully, R

    Sorce, J. G., Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1450

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1450 2014

  76. [77]

    M., Haynes, M

    Springob, C. M., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Kent, B. R. 2005, ApJS, 160, 149, doi: 10.1086/431550

    doi:10.1086/431550 2005

  77. [78]

    W., Young, D

    Stevance, H., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 371, 1

    2024

  78. [79]

    D., Anderson, J

    Stritzinger, M. D., Anderson, J. P., Contreras, C., et al. 2018a, A&A, 609, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730842

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730842

  79. [80]

    D., Taddia, F., Burns, C

    Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., Burns, C. R., et al. 2018b, A&A, 609, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730843

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730843

  80. [81]

    D., Baron, E., Taddia, F., et al

    Stritzinger, M. D., Baron, E., Taddia, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347883

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347883 2024

Showing first 80 references.