pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05145 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

SN2023ixf: Radiative-transfer modeling of the photospheric phase evolution from the ultraviolet to the infrared

Luc Dessart , Wynn V. Jacobson-Galan , K. Azalee Bostroem , Alexei V. Filippenko , Weikang Zheng , Thomas G. Brink , Stefano Valenti
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaeType II supernovaeradiative transfercircumstellar materialSN2023ixfphotospheric phaseultravioletinfrared
0
0 comments X

The pith

Prolonged interaction with decreasing circumstellar material density is required to match the multi-wavelength evolution of SN2023ixf.

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

This paper models the evolution of SN2023ixf, a Type II supernova, using radiative transfer calculations from the ultraviolet through the infrared during the photospheric phase from about 20 to 120 days after explosion. The authors test an explosion model based on a 15 solar mass star and find that it requires additional prolonged interaction with surrounding material whose density decreases over time to fit the observed brightness, line profiles such as H-alpha, and fluxes across bands. A reader would care because this interaction reveals details about the mass loss history of the progenitor star and how it affects the supernova's appearance. The calculations also highlight the role of a cold dense shell in the emission, particularly in the infrared.

Core claim

The radiative transfer modeling shows that the photospheric phase of SN2023ixf is best reproduced by the explosion of a 15 solar mass progenitor with an ejecta of 7-8 solar masses, kinetic energy of 1.2 x 10^51 erg, and 0.05 solar masses of nickel-56, but only when including prolonged interaction with a decreasing density circumstellar medium. This interaction sustains the UV continuum and lines, boosts the optical brightness and specific line shapes, and enhances the infrared flux through free-free emission. No faster material than the cold dense shell at around 8000 km/s is needed or found.

What carries the argument

Non-local thermodynamic equilibrium time-dependent radiative-transfer calculations incorporating ejecta-CSM interaction and the resulting cold dense shell.

If this is right

  • The UV spectra show complexity from metal line blanketing.
  • Two-dimensional models with asymmetry produce varied absorption profiles with flat bottoms or notches.
  • The cold dense shell becomes more apparent at later times, especially in infrared observations.
  • Clumping in the cold dense shell influences the results, though smooth cases show larger discrepancies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar modeling could help interpret other supernovae with early interaction signatures to map progenitor mass-loss rates.
  • Later-time infrared observations might provide stronger constraints on the cold dense shell properties.
  • Accounting for asymmetry in future models could explain variations in line profiles seen in different supernovae.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations rely on a specific 15 solar mass progenitor model with enhanced red-supergiant mass loss that produces a decreasing circumstellar density profile allowing interaction to persist without requiring material faster than 8000 km/s.

What would settle it

Observing spectral signatures of material expanding faster than 8000 km/s during the late photospheric phase or failing to detect the expected infrared flux boost from the interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05145 by Alexei V. Filippenko, K. Azalee Bostroem, Luc Dessart, Stefano Valenti, Thomas G. Brink, Weikang Zheng, Wynn V. Jacobson-Galan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Density and composition structure at 22.3 d for the ejecta models used in this work. This includes the original, reference model x6p0, and its variants with interaction power and a CDS (e.g., x6p0 + Pwr(t)). Bottom: Shuffled-shell composition used in a subset of models at the end of the photospheric phase. Only H, He, and O are shown for better visibility. (28,196), Cr iii (30,145), Cr iv (29,234), Fe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows a comparison between the observations of SN 2023ixf at an epoch of 22.5 d (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the optical observations of SN 2023ixf at an epoch of 52.4 d (black) and model x6p0 at 52.6 d with an interaction power of 7.0 × 1041 erg s−1 (red) and without (blue). 4.3. Comparison with observations at 52.4 d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between the optical (top) and optical and IR (bot￾tom) observations of SN 2023ixf at an epoch of 34.5 d (black) and model x6p0 with an interaction power of 1.2 × 1042 erg s−1 (red) and without (blue). 4.2. Comparison with observations at 34.5 d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows a comparison of the UV to NIR observations of SN 2023ixf at about 61.5 d with the three different incarnations of model x6p0 at 63.6 d.3 We show the predictions for model x6p0 with an interaction power of 6.0 × 1041 erg s−1 (red), x6p0 with an interaction power of 8.0×1040 erg s−1 (green), as well as the reference model x6p0 that exploded in a vacuum (blue). At this epoch, SN 2023ixf is well into the… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the optical observations of SN 2023ixf at an epoch of 84.5 d (black) and model x6p0 at 87.0 d with an interaction power of 5.0 × 1040 erg s−1 (red; this model also has a shuffled-shell structure) and without interaction power (nor CDS; blue). although at such late times in the photospheric phase, this effect can be mitigated by asymmetry or mixing of material from the metal-rich inner ej… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the inferred bolometric light curve (left) and observed V-band light curve of SN 2023ixf (right), and models x6p0o (gray), x6p0 (blue), and x6p0 augmented by various amounts of interaction power (red and green curves; see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: illustrates the evolution of the photospheric proper￾ties (radius, density, and temperature) for the reference model x6p0 and its counterpart with interaction power. With interaction power, additional energy is made available in the outer ejecta (and CDS), causing a larger temperature, ionization, and thus optical depth, so that the photosphere resides in the CDS at 25 d in the interacting model whereas it… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the photospheric-phase evolution of spectral regions centered on the rest wavelengths of Na i D, Hα, O i λλ 7771 − 7775, and Pa γ for models x6p0 and x6p0/Pwr. Shading is used to highlight the contribution from selected species. of sight. The present analysis complements the earlier work of Park et al. (2025), but here guided by detailed radiative-transfer simulations. Interaction power pla… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Counterpart of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation of the optical spectrum (top) or Hα region (bottom panels) with inclination for a 2D, axisymmetric radiative-transfer model based on model x6p0 with interaction along all directions except within a cone of 60 deg opening angle (i.e., within 30 deg of the polar axis). An inclination of 0 deg corresponds to viewing down along the center of that cone. The material within 30 deg of the polar axis is… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectral properties blueward of 5500 Å for SN 2023ixf and the x6p0 model with interaction power at 24.7 d. The top-left panel compares observations and model, whereas the other panels show the total flux (red), the continuum flux (dashed red curve) and the contribution from selected species (gray shading; see label). A similar illustration with similar properties is shown for the epoch of 67.5 d in Fig. A… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between optical and IR observations of SN 2023ixf with various incarnations of the x6p0 model with and without interaction power. The shaded red area represents the contribution from bound-bound transitions of H i. Labels indicate the main contributor to the spectral feature at the corresponding wavelength. Observations have been corrected for redshift and reddening. Models have been scaled to … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: thus explains the different profile morphology in the IR between models. In the reference model x6p0, the lines form at both optical and IR wavelengths over a large volume 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 30.0 Wavelength [µm] 6 8 10 12 14 V ( τλ = 2/3, p = 0 ) [1000 km s − 1 ] Age= 35.9 d x6p0 x6p0 + Pwr(t) x6p0 + Pwr1(t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: shows the impact on the CDS properties and emer￾gent spectra when the volume filling factor is varied from 1 % to 10 %, 30 %, and 100 %, the last value corresponding to a smooth density structure in the CDS and thus in the entire ejecta. As expected, the temperature and the ionization rise when the vol￾ume filling factor is increased (or equivalently when the clump￾ing level is reduced; see also Dessart e… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Predicted reverse shock (RS) and forward shock (FS) powers for the formalism presented in Fransson et al. (1996) (dotted red line) and for thermal bremsstrahlung emission from adiabatic shocks (solid red and blue lines). These shock powers assume a mass loss rate of M˙ = 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 , a wind velocity vw = 20 km s−1 , an ejecta density profile index n = 12, an ejecta velocity vej = 8000 km s−1 , a wind-li… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

SN2023ixf, a Type II supernova (SN) showing early signs of interaction with circumstellar material (CSM), has been observed with unprecedented detail across the electromagnetic spectrum since shock breakout. Here, we present nonlocal thermodynamic equilibrium time-dependent radiative-transfer calculations of its photospheric-phase evolution (i.e., ~20 to ~120d), and for the first time encompassing from the ultraviolet (UV) to the infrared (IR). The explosion of a 15Msun progenitor star, evolved with enhanced mass loss during the red-supergiant phase, yielding an ejecta of 7-8Msun, a kinetic energy of 1.2x10^51 erg, and a 56Ni mass of 0.05Msun, yields a satisfactory match to the photospheric-phase duration and brightness. Prolonged interaction with a decreasing CSM density is required to match a number of salient features of SN2023ixf during the photospheric phase, including the persistent UV continuum and line fluxes, the optical brightness and line profiles (in particular Halpha), as well as the IR flux (interaction boosts the free-free emission at long wavelengths). The presence of a cold dense shell (CDS), which is hard to infer at early times when the CDS and photosphere lie at similar velocities, becomes evident at later times and more so in the IR - we find no evidence for material faster than the CDS at ~8000km/s. Exploratory two-dimensional radiative-transfer calculations based on axially symmetric CSM or ejecta suggest that asymmetry can produce a diversity of profile shapes, with absorption troughs exhibiting a flat bottom or notches at any Doppler velocity. We emphasize the complexity of UV spectra influenced by complex metal-line blanketing at these phases. We document the sensitivity of model results to the adopted clumping in the CDS, though the largest offset is obtained here in the unlikely case of a smooth CDS.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents nonlocal thermodynamic equilibrium time-dependent radiative-transfer calculations for the photospheric phase (~20-120 d) of SN2023ixf from UV to IR. A 15 M⊙ progenitor with enhanced RSG mass loss yields 7-8 M⊙ ejecta, 1.2×10^51 erg kinetic energy, and 0.05 M⊙ of 56Ni that matches photospheric duration and brightness; prolonged interaction with a decreasing CSM density is required to match persistent UV continuum/line fluxes, optical brightness and Hα profiles, and IR free-free flux. The cold dense shell (CDS) becomes evident later (no material faster than ~8000 km/s), exploratory 2D axially symmetric models suggest asymmetry can produce diverse line-profile shapes, and results are sensitive to CDS clumping.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work demonstrates the necessity of prolonged CSM interaction for explaining multi-wavelength features in a well-observed Type II supernova, with implications for progenitor mass-loss rates and the challenges of UV metal-line blanketing. The inclusion of IR diagnostics and the CDS velocity constraint adds value, though the exploratory 2D calculations and noted parameter sensitivities limit the robustness of some conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and modeling description] Abstract and modeling description: The claim that the baseline explosion parameters already give a satisfactory match to duration and brightness while the decreasing-CSM model is required for UV continuum, Hα, optical evolution, and IR flux is load-bearing, yet no spectra or light curves from the identical radiative-transfer setup with zero CSM density are shown. Without this explicit no-interaction control, it remains possible that adjustments to 56Ni mixing, ionization, or clumping could close the gap.
  2. [Exploratory 2D calculations] Exploratory 2D calculations: The axially symmetric 2D radiative-transfer models are presented as exploratory and suggest diversity in absorption-trough shapes, but they do not quantitatively test whether asymmetry can reproduce the observed mismatches in the 1D baseline without the specific decreasing CSM profile. This leaves the necessity argument dependent on the unshown 1D zero-CSM case.
  3. [CDS clumping and velocity constraint] CDS clumping and velocity constraint: Sensitivity to CDS clumping is documented (largest offset in the smooth case), but the impact on the IR flux boost and the inference of no material faster than the CDS at ~8000 km/s is not quantified in detail; this affects the robustness of the prolonged-interaction scenario.
minor comments (2)
  1. A summary table of all adopted parameters (progenitor mass, ejecta mass, kinetic energy, 56Ni mass, CSM density profile, clumping factors) with their ranges would improve clarity and reproducibility.
  2. Notation for velocities (e.g., the CDS at ~8000 km/s) and the distinction between 1D and 2D results could be made more consistent across text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment point by point below with the strongest honest defense possible, without misrepresenting the manuscript. Revisions will be made where they strengthen the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and modeling description] Abstract and modeling description: The claim that the baseline explosion parameters already give a satisfactory match to duration and brightness while the decreasing-CSM model is required for UV continuum, Hα, optical evolution, and IR flux is load-bearing, yet no spectra or light curves from the identical radiative-transfer setup with zero CSM density are shown. Without this explicit no-interaction control, it remains possible that adjustments to 56Ni mixing, ionization, or clumping could close the gap.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on this point. The baseline model uses the stated explosion parameters (15 M⊙ progenitor, 7-8 M⊙ ejecta, 1.2×10^51 erg, 0.05 M⊙ 56Ni) in the identical radiative-transfer setup but with zero CSM density; these runs match the photospheric duration and brightness as claimed. Variations in 56Ni mixing, ionization, and clumping were tested in the baseline and do not reproduce the persistent UV continuum, Hα evolution, or IR free-free excess. To make the control explicit, we will add a direct comparison figure of no-CSM versus interacting light curves and spectra in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Exploratory 2D calculations] Exploratory 2D calculations: The axially symmetric 2D radiative-transfer models are presented as exploratory and suggest diversity in absorption-trough shapes, but they do not quantitatively test whether asymmetry can reproduce the observed mismatches in the 1D baseline without the specific decreasing CSM profile. This leaves the necessity argument dependent on the unshown 1D zero-CSM case.

    Authors: The 2D models are labeled exploratory and serve only to illustrate that axial symmetry produces diverse absorption-trough shapes (flat bottoms or notches). They do not claim to quantitatively replace the 1D necessity argument for the decreasing CSM profile. The core support for prolonged interaction comes from the 1D models simultaneously fitting UV, optical, and IR data. We will revise the text to clarify this scope and note that asymmetry alone is unlikely to produce the IR flux boost. With the explicit 1D zero-CSM comparison added per the first comment, the necessity argument will stand on firmer ground. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [CDS clumping and velocity constraint] CDS clumping and velocity constraint: Sensitivity to CDS clumping is documented (largest offset in the smooth case), but the impact on the IR flux boost and the inference of no material faster than the CDS at ~8000 km/s is not quantified in detail; this affects the robustness of the prolonged-interaction scenario.

    Authors: We agree that more detailed quantification of clumping effects would improve robustness. The manuscript already states the largest offset occurs for a smooth CDS. In revision we will add quantitative estimates of IR flux variation across clumping factors and confirm that the CDS velocity constraint (no material faster than ~8000 km/s) remains consistent, as it derives from the absence of high-velocity absorption features in the data. This will be supported by additional model outputs or a summary table. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard parameter-tuned radiative-transfer modeling with no self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper selects a 15 Msun progenitor, ejecta mass, energy, and Ni mass, then adds a decreasing CSM density profile, and reports that the combined setup reproduces photospheric duration, brightness, UV continuum, Halpha, and IR free-free flux. This is ordinary forward modeling in which parameters are adjusted until the synthetic observables match data; the 'requirement' for CSM interaction is asserted by contrasting the baseline (no-CSM) match to duration/brightness against the improved match when CSM is included. No equation, ansatz, or uniqueness theorem is shown to reduce to its own input by construction, no self-citation carries the central claim, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as an independent prediction. The derivation therefore remains self-contained and does not meet the criteria for any enumerated circularity pattern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several fitted explosion parameters and the assumption of a specific CSM density profile to achieve the match to observations; the CDS is inferred rather than independently detected.

free parameters (4)
  • progenitor mass = 15 Msun
    15 solar masses chosen to produce 7-8 solar mass ejecta after enhanced mass loss
  • kinetic energy = 1.2e51 erg
    1.2 x 10^51 erg set to match photospheric phase duration and brightness
  • 56Ni mass = 0.05 Msun
    0.05 solar masses to match overall brightness
  • CSM density profile = decreasing
    Decreasing density required to match persistent UV, Halpha, and IR features
axioms (2)
  • standard math Non-local thermodynamic equilibrium time-dependent radiative transfer applies to the photospheric phase
    Standard assumption in supernova spectral modeling invoked throughout the calculations
  • domain assumption Progenitor evolved with enhanced mass loss during red-supergiant phase
    Used to set initial ejecta mass and structure
invented entities (1)
  • cold dense shell (CDS) no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains later-time IR features and lack of faster material
    Inferred from model when CDS and photosphere velocities diverge; hard to detect early

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5692 in / 1592 out tokens · 77519 ms · 2026-05-10T19:00:22.388017+00:00 · methodology

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. SN2023ixf: ultraviolet-to-infrared radiative-transfer modeling of the nebular-phase evolution until 1000 days

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Radiative-transfer models of SN2023ixf require a 0.2 solar-mass cold dense shell plus rising dust mass to match its nebular-phase UV-optical-IR evolution to 1000 days.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H., et al

    Baron, E., Branch, D., Hauschildt, P. H., et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 444

    2000

  2. [2]

    C., Orellana, M., Folatelli, G., et al

    Bersten, M. C., Orellana, M., Folatelli, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L18

    2024

  3. [3]

    J., Ramsbottom, C

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Ramsbottom, C. A., & Storey, P. J. 2023, A&A, 678, A170

    2023

  4. [4]

    A., Sand, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Sand, D. J., Dessart, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, L47

    2024

  5. [5]

    A., Valenti, S., Sand, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., et al. 2025, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2508.11756

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A., Laplace, E., Schneider, F

    Bronner, V . A., Laplace, E., Schneider, F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2025, A&A, 703, A61

    2025

  7. [7]

    A., Maeda, K., Ray, A

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Maeda, K., Ray, A. K., & Nayana, A. J. 2024, ApJ, 963, L4

    2024

  8. [8]

    & Blondin, J

    Chevalier, R. & Blondin, J. M. 1995, ApJ, 444, 312

    1995

  9. [9]

    A., Blondin, J

    Chevalier, R. A., Blondin, J. M., & Emmering, R. T. 1992, ApJ, 392, 118

    1992

  10. [10]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 1994, ApJ, 420, 268

    1994

  11. [11]

    N., Chevalier, R

    Chugai, N. N., Chevalier, R. A., & Utrobin, V . P. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1136

    2007

  12. [12]

    M., Ashall, C., Baron, E., et al

    DerKacy, J. M., Ashall, C., Baron, E., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 179

    2026

  13. [13]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, V ol

    Dessart, L. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, V ol. 2, 706–719

    2026

  14. [14]

    & Audit, E

    Dessart, L. & Audit, E. 2019, A&A, 629, A17

    2019

  15. [15]

    Dessart, L., Audit, E., & Hillier, D. J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4304

    2015

  16. [16]

    J., et al

    Dessart, L., Blondin, S., Brown, P. J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 644

    2008

  17. [17]

    P., Kuncarayakti, H., Fox, O

    Dessart, L., Gutiérrez, C. P., Kuncarayakti, H., Fox, O. D., & Filippenko, A. V . 2023, A&A, 675, A33

    2023

  18. [18]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 437, 667

    2005

  19. [19]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2006, A&A, 447, 691

    2006

  20. [20]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3497

    2011

  21. [21]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2019, A&A, 625, A9

    2019

  22. [22]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2022, A&A, 660, L9

    2022

  23. [23]

    J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R., & Livne, E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1745

    2013

  24. [24]

    J., & Wilk, K

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Wilk, K. D. 2018, A&A, 619, A30

    2018

  25. [25]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, 2113

    Dessart, L., Livne, E., & Waldman, R. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2113

    2010

  26. [26]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 71

    Dickinson, D., Milisavljevic, D., Garretson, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 71

    2025

  27. [27]

    J., Valenti, S., et al

    Dong, Y ., Sand, D. J., Valenti, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 28

    2023

  28. [28]

    J., Ferrari, L., et al

    Fang, Q., Moriya, T. J., Ferrari, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 36

    2025

  29. [29]

    Ferrari, L., Folatelli, G., Ertini, K., Kuncarayakti, H., & Andrews, J. E. 2024, A&A, 687, L20

    2024

  30. [30]

    2025, A&A, 698, A213

    Folatelli, G., Ferrari, L., Ertini, K., Kuncarayakti, H., & Maeda, K. 2025, A&A, 698, A213

    2025

  31. [31]

    & Goldberg, J

    Forde, S. & Goldberg, J. A. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 135

    2025

  32. [32]

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

    1996

  33. [33]

    A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B

    Goldberg, J. A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2019, ApJ, 879, 3

    2019

  34. [34]

    W., Brightman, M., Earnshaw, H

    Grefenstette, B. W., Brightman, M., Earnshaw, H. P., Harrison, F. A., & Margutti, R. 2023, ApJ, 952, L3 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, L15

    2023

  35. [35]

    Hillier, D. J. 1994, A&A, 289, 492

    1994

  36. [36]

    Hillier, D. J. 1996, A&A, 308, 521

    1996

  37. [37]

    Hillier, D. J. & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 252

    2012

  38. [38]

    Hillier, D. J. & Dessart, L. 2019, A&A, 631, A8

    2019

  39. [39]

    Hillier, D. J. & Miller, D. L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 407

    1998

  40. [40]

    A., et al

    Hsu, B., Smith, N., Goldberg, J. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 148

    2025

  41. [41]

    2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023-1158, 1

    Itagaki, K. 2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023-1158, 1

    2023

  42. [42]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 138 Jacobson-Galán, W

    Iwata, Y ., Akimoto, M., Matsuoka, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 138 Jacobson-Galán, W. V ., Dessart, L., Davis, K. W., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 992, 100 Jacobson-Galán, W. V ., Dessart, L., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 994, L14 Jacobson-Galán, W. V ., Dessart, L., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L42

    2025

  43. [43]

    E., Pearson, J., Beasor, E

    Jencson, J. E., Pearson, J., Beasor, E. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, L30

    2023

  44. [44]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Jacobson-Galán, W. V ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, L23

    2023

  45. [45]

    2025, A&A, 694, A319

    Kozyreva, A., Caputo, A., Baklanov, P., Mironov, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2025, A&A, 694, A319

    2025

  46. [46]

    R., Singleton, A

    Kumar, A., Dastidar, R., Maund, J. R., Singleton, A. J., & Sun, N.-C. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 659

    2025

  47. [47]

    A., Schneider, F

    Laplace, E., Bronner, V . A., Schneider, F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2026, ApJ, 998, L40

    2026

  48. [48]

    2024, Nature, 627, 754

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

    2024

  49. [49]

    2025, A&A, 703, A168

    Li, G., Wang, X., Yang, Y ., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A168

    2025

  50. [50]

    2025, submitted to ApJL, arXiv:2510.14875

    Ma, J.-Z., Justham, S., Pakmor, R., et al. 2025, submitted to ApJL, arXiv:2510.14875

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Moriya, T. J. & Singh, A. 2024, PASJ, 76, 1050

    2024

  52. [52]

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

    Nayana, A. J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 51

    2025

  53. [53]

    Neustadt, J. M. M., Kochanek, C. S., & Smith, M. R. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5366

    2024

  54. [54]

    R., et al

    Niu, Z., Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, L15

    2023

  55. [55]

    H., Rho, J., Yoon, S.-C., et al

    Park, S. H., Rho, J., Yoon, S.-C., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A227

    2025

  56. [56]

    2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266

    Pastorello, A., Valenti, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2266

    2009

  57. [57]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  58. [58]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  59. [59]

    A., Gal-Yam, A., Irani, I., & Zimmerman, E

    Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., Irani, I., & Zimmerman, E. 2023, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 119, 1

    2023

  60. [60]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 271

    Qin, Y .-J., Zhang, K., Bloom, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 271

    2024

  61. [61]

    L., Villar, V

    Ransome, C. L., Villar, V . A., Tartaglia, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 93

    2024

  62. [62]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, L7

    2022

  63. [63]

    Shapiro, P. R. & Sutherland, P. G. 1982, ApJ, 263, 902

    1982

  64. [64]

    J., et al

    Shrestha, M., DeSoto, S., Sand, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, L32

    2025

  65. [65]

    S., Moriya, T

    Singh, A., Teja, R. S., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 132

    2024

  66. [66]

    J., et al

    Smith, N., Pearson, J., Sand, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 46

    2023

  67. [67]

    D., Szalai, T., Van Dyk, S

    Soraisam, M. D., Szalai, T., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 64

    2023

  68. [68]

    E., Brown, J

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

    2016

  69. [69]

    S., Singh, A., Basu, J., et al

    Teja, R. S., Singh, A., Basu, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L12

    2023

  70. [70]

    P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & Müller, E

    Utrobin, V . P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & Müller, E. 2017, ApJ, 846, 37 Van Dyk, S. D., Srinivasan, S., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 968, 27 Van Dyk, S. D., Szalai, T., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 977, 98

    2017

  71. [71]

    S., Dessart, L., Yang, Y ., et al

    Vasylyev, S. S., Dessart, L., Yang, Y ., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 18

    2026

  72. [72]

    S., Yang, Y ., Filippenko, A

    Vasylyev, S. S., Yang, Y ., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, L37 Vinkó, J., Bodola, Z. R., G˝odény, Á., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 39

    2023

  73. [73]

    & Wheeler, J

    Wang, L. & Wheeler, J. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 433

    2008

  74. [74]

    V ., et al

    Zheng, W., Dessart, L., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 61

    2025

  75. [75]

    A., Irani, I., Chen, P., et al

    Zimmerman, E. A., Irani, I., Chen, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 759 Article number, page 17 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no. ms Appendix A: Additional comparisons with observations Figure A.1 complements the results presented in Section 4 by showing comparisons at additional epochs and specifically at 31.5, 38.5, 71.9, and 97.4 d (for the last epoch, shuf...

    2024