pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21759 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Magnetar Engines in Broad-lined Type Ic Supernovae and a Unified Picture for Magnetar-powered Stripped-envelope Supernovae

Jin-Ping Zhu , Bing Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords magnetarbroad-lined Type Ic supernovaestripped-envelope supernovaelightcurve modelinggamma-ray burstsprogenitor frameworknickel decay
0
0 comments X

The pith

All broad-lined Type Ic supernovae lightcurves are consistent with magnetar spin-down plus nickel decay, supporting a single progenitor framework for stripped-envelope events.

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

The paper fits the multi-band lightcurves of 80 SNe Ic-BL, including 11 with long gamma-ray bursts, using a central engine model that combines magnetar rotational energy loss with radioactive nickel decay. Every event in the sample produces a high-quality match under this model, with no events requiring additional power sources. Median parameter values cluster around an initial spin period of roughly 2 ms, a polar magnetic field near 4 times 10^15 gauss, an ejecta mass of about 2.3 solar masses, and a nickel mass of 0.18 solar masses. Statistically significant correlations appear between ejecta mass and spin period, and between nickel mass and ejecta mass. The same framework reveals a universal ejecta-mass versus spin-period relation that extends to superluminous and fast blue optical transients, leading to a proposed unified classification that groups magnetar-powered and ordinary stripped-envelope supernovae by shared progenitor channels.

Core claim

The multi-band lightcurves of 80 broad-lined Type Ic supernovae are all consistent with a magnetar central engine plus 56Ni decay, yielding high-quality fits across the sample with median parameters P_i approximately 2.04 ms, B_p approximately 3.96 times 10^15 G, M_ej approximately 2.30 solar masses, and M_Ni approximately 0.18 solar masses. Strong correlations exist between M_ej and P_i (anti-correlation) and between M_Ni and M_ej (positive correlation). The GRB-associated subsample shows no significant parameter differences from the non-GRB subsample, though it is slightly brighter. SNe Ic-BL share similar nickel and ejecta masses with ordinary SNe Ic, while a universal M_ej-P_i relation,

What carries the argument

Magnetar spin-down luminosity combined with 56Ni radioactive decay, which supplies the energy for the lightcurves and produces the observed parameter correlations.

If this is right

  • Every event in the 80-SN sample yields a high-quality fit under the magnetar plus nickel model.
  • No statistically significant parameter differences separate the GRB-associated and non-GRB SNe Ic-BL subsamples.
  • A universal anti-correlation between ejecta mass and initial spin period holds across all magnetar-powered stripped-envelope supernovae.
  • SNe Ic-BL magnetars rotate faster and possess stronger fields than those inferred for superluminous Type Ic events.
  • A single physical classification scheme can encompass both magnetar-powered and ordinary stripped-envelope supernovae through differences in progenitor rotation and magnetic field.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Ordinary SNe Ic may arise from the same progenitors as SNe Ic-BL but without a rapidly rotating, strongly magnetized neutron star remnant.
  • Binary population synthesis calculations can now be tested against the observed distribution of ejecta masses and spin periods to predict the fraction of events that produce magnetars.
  • Fast blue optical transients with ejecta masses above 0.5 solar masses would occupy the same parameter space as SNe Ic-BL and should be searched for in current and future surveys.

Load-bearing premise

The observed lightcurves are powered solely by magnetar spin-down and nickel decay with no significant contribution from other energy sources or viewing-angle effects.

What would settle it

Discovery of even one broad-lined Type Ic supernova whose multi-band lightcurve cannot be reproduced by any combination of magnetar period, magnetic field strength, ejecta mass, and nickel mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21759 by Bing Zhang, Jin-Ping Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Bolometric lightcurves of magnetar-pow￾ered SESN with 56Ni contribution, assuming Pi = 2 ms, Mej = 2.3 M⊙, and MNi = 0.18 M⊙. The solid red, or￾ange, yellow, green, and blue lines correspond to polar magnetic field strengths of Bp = 1014, 3.2 × 1014, 1015 , 3.2 × 1015, and 1016 G, respectively. Here, Ekin,i = 1051 erg and κγ = 0.30 cm2 g −1 are adopted. The black dashed line shows the lightcurve of a SN po… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Relationship between observed kinetic energy and ejecta mass for ordinary SESNe. The observed data (pink points) are collected from J. D. Lyman et al. (2016); F. Taddia et al. (2018). The best-fit log-log line and its 1σ credible region are marked as a blue solid line and shaded blue area, respectively. (GRB 980425), SN 2003dh (GRB 030329), SN 2003lw (GRB 031203), SN 2010bh (GRB 100316D), SN 2013dx (GRB 13… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic field strengths against initial spin pe￾riods of GRB-SN (blue) and Non-GRB-SN (purple) magne￾tars. The top and right panels show the probability density distributions of the initial spin period and magnetic field strength, respectively, derived by the method of kernel den￾sity estimation. Since the spin-down timescale of SNe Ic-BL is al￾ways much shorter than the ejecta diffusion timescale, a larg… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Multi-band observations of SN 1998bw with best– fit results from the 56Ni-powered model (top panel) and the magnetar-powered model with 56Ni contribution (bot￾tom panel). In the magnetar-powered case, the solid lines represent the best-fit multi-band lightcurves, while the con￾tributions from magnetar and 56Ni emissions are shown as dotted and dashed lines, respectively. The colors correspond to different … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Initial spin periods of magnetars against ejecta masses for GRB-SNe (blue) and Non-GRB-SNe (purple). The best-fit log-log lines and 1σ credible regions for GR￾B-SNe and Non-GRB-SNe are shown as solid lines and shaded areas, respectively. The top and right panels show the probability density distributions of the ejecta mass and initial spin period, respectively. spectively. For the entire SN Ic-BL sample, t… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Rising timescales against decline timescales (mid￾dle panel) and against peak absolute magnitudes (bottom panel) for GRB-SNe (blue) and Non-GRB-SNe (purple). In the middle panel, the median and 1σ credible region of the fitted proportional relation tdec ∝ trise for GRB-SNe and Non-GRB-SNe are shown as colored solid lines and shaded areas, respectively. The top panel show the probability den￾sity distributi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ratio of the diffusion timescale to the spin-down timescale is shown as gray solid lines corresponding to tdiff /tsd = 10−1 , 100 , 101 , 102 , and 103 in the parameter space of initial spin period and magnetic field strength. tdiff is calculated with Mej = 0.2 M⊙ and Ekin,i ∼ 1.1 × 1050 erg (left panel), and Mej = 2 M⊙ and Ekin,i ∼ 9.3 × 1050 erg (right panel). The distributions of initial spin period an… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A possible unified picture of magnetar-powered and ordinary SESNe. Bc = 4.4 × 1013 G represents the critical field of the electron Landau quantization. processes through wind-driven mass loss to spin down stellar cores, making it challenging for single-star mod￾els to meet both requirements. One of the most popular progenitor scenarios involves either single main-sequence stars born with rapid rotation (e… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Initial magnetar rotational energies against ejecta masses for SNe Ic-BL (violet points), SLSNe Ic (green points; Y.-W. Yu et al. 2017), and FBOTs (yellow points; J.-F. Liu et al. 2022; R.-C. Hu et al. 2023). The solid lines show simulations of helium stars in close binary systems (R.-C. Hu et al. 2023) with different initial orbital periods (0.16−10 d), while the dotted lines show simulations with differ… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the trise–Mpeak distributions of GRB-SNe (blue points) and Non-GRB-SNe (purple points) with the observed r-band afterglow lightcurves of cosmologi￾cal lGRBs (gray solid lines; M. G. Dainotti et al. 2024). The dark gray and light gray shaded regions represent the 1σ and 1.5σ (∼ 90%) credible regions of the observed afterglow lightcurves, respectively. sidering that the early rising phase of S… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We model the multi-band lightcurves of 80 SNe Ic-BL, including 11 associated with lGRBs, using a magnetar engine model with $^{56}$Ni decay. We find that the data are all consistent with a magnetar central engine, and such a model yields high-quality fits across the sample. The medians with $1\sigma$ regions of the key parameters are $P_{\rm{i}}\sim2.04^{+1.84}_{-0.96}\,{\rm{ms}}$, $B_{\rm{p}}\sim3.96^{+3.28}_{-1.40}\times10^{15}\,{\rm{G}}$, $M_{\rm{ej}}\sim2.30^{+1.48}_{-1.02}\,M_\odot$, and $M_{\rm{Ni}}\sim0.18^{+0.14}_{-0.09}\,M_\odot$, with strong and statistically significant correlations observed for both $M_{\rm{ej}}-P_{\rm{i}}$ (anti-correlation) and $M_{\rm{Ni}}-M_{\rm{ej}}$ (correlation). Comparing the SN Ic-BL samples with and without lGRB association using fitting parameters, we find no significant difference between them, although the GRB-associated sample is slightly brighter, possibly due to an observational bias. Relative to ordinary SNe Ic, SNe Ic-BL have similar $^{56}$Ni and ejecta masses, suggesting comparable pre-SN progenitor properties, with differences possibly arising from the presence of a magnetar engine. In comparison with other possible magnetar-powered SESNe, including SLSNe Ic and FBOTs, we confirm a strong universal $M_{\rm{ej}}-P_{\rm{i}}$ correlation, indicating a common origin. SNe Ic-BL and SLSNe Ic have similar ejecta mass distributions, typically $M_{\rm ej}\gtrsim0.5\,M_\odot$, while FBOTs mostly lie below this value. Differences between SNe Ic-BL and SLSNe Ic may arise from magnetar properties, with SN Ic-BL magnetars rotating faster and having stronger fields. Moreover, the $P_{\rm{i}}-B_{\rm{p}}$ distribution of lGRB magnetars largely overlaps with that of SN Ic-BL magnetars. In connection with binary simulation results, we propose a unified physical classification and progenitor framework for magnetar-powered and ordinary SESNe.

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 models the multi-band lightcurves of 80 SNe Ic-BL (including 11 lGRB-associated events) with a semi-analytic magnetar spin-down plus 56Ni decay model. It reports that all events yield high-quality fits, with median parameters Pi ≈ 2.04 ms, Bp ≈ 3.96×10^15 G, Mej ≈ 2.30 M⊙, MNi ≈ 0.18 M⊙, statistically significant Mej-Pi anti-correlation and MNi-Mej correlation, no significant parameter differences between GRB and non-GRB subsamples, and a unified progenitor framework for magnetar-powered SESNe by comparison to SLSNe Ic and FBOTs.

Significance. If the parameter inferences are robust to degeneracies, this would be a significant contribution to understanding stripped-envelope supernovae, providing evidence that magnetar engines operate across SNe Ic-BL and linking them to SLSNe and FBOTs via a common Mej-Pi relation and binary progenitor channels. The large sample size, multi-band coverage, and cross-class comparisons are strengths that could guide future progenitor modeling and observations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (fitting procedure): The four parameters (Pi, Bp, Mej, MNi) are fitted directly to each lightcurve, yet no covariance matrices, corner plots, or degeneracy analysis are presented. Because rise time and peak luminosity constrain combinations of spin-down timescale and diffusion time, the reported Mej-Pi anti-correlation may be partly induced by parameter trade-offs rather than independent physics; this is load-bearing for the unified classification and the claim that all data are consistent with a magnetar engine.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (correlations and sample comparisons): The abstract and results state 'strong and statistically significant correlations' for Mej-Pi and MNi-Mej, but supply neither correlation coefficients with uncertainties nor quantitative tests (e.g., Spearman rank with p-values or bootstrap errors). Without these, and absent model-comparison metrics such as AIC/BIC against pure-Ni or CSM-interaction models, the evidence for a universal framework and lack of difference between GRB and non-GRB samples rests on an insecure statistical foundation.
  3. [§5] §5 (unified framework): The placement of Ic-BL relative to SLSNe Ic and FBOTs, and the conclusion of similar progenitor properties to ordinary SNe Ic, relies on the fitted parameter distributions. No Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, selection-bias corrections, or discussion of possible viewing-angle effects in lGRB events are provided, weakening the load-bearing claim of a common origin.
minor comments (2)
  1. The 1σ intervals on median parameters are reported without specifying whether they derive from MCMC posteriors, grid searches, or bootstrap resampling; this notation should be clarified in the methods.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels for lightcurve fits would benefit from explicit residual panels and consistent band labeling to improve clarity of the 'high-quality fits' claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped improve the statistical rigor and clarity of our analysis. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (fitting procedure): The four parameters (Pi, Bp, Mej, MNi) are fitted directly to each lightcurve, yet no covariance matrices, corner plots, or degeneracy analysis are presented. Because rise time and peak luminosity constrain combinations of spin-down timescale and diffusion time, the reported Mej-Pi anti-correlation may be partly induced by parameter trade-offs rather than independent physics; this is load-bearing for the unified classification and the claim that all data are consistent with a magnetar engine.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of assessing parameter degeneracies, as the spin-down timescale and diffusion timescale (dependent on Mej) can trade off in shaping the light-curve rise and peak. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated discussion of these degeneracies in §3, including physical arguments from binary progenitor models that independently predict an Mej-Pi anti-correlation. We have also included representative corner plots and covariance summaries for a subset of events in a new appendix to illustrate the posterior distributions and convergence. Full degeneracy mapping for all 80 events remains computationally demanding, but we performed additional robustness checks by refitting with varied initial conditions and confirmed that the reported correlation persists. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (correlations and sample comparisons): The abstract and results state 'strong and statistically significant correlations' for Mej-Pi and MNi-Mej, but supply neither correlation coefficients with uncertainties nor quantitative tests (e.g., Spearman rank with p-values or bootstrap errors). Without these, and absent model-comparison metrics such as AIC/BIC against pure-Ni or CSM-interaction models, the evidence for a universal framework and lack of difference between GRB and non-GRB samples rests on an insecure statistical foundation.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative statistical measures strengthen the claims. The revised manuscript now reports Spearman rank correlation coefficients together with p-values and bootstrap-derived uncertainties for both the Mej-Pi anti-correlation and the MNi-Mej correlation. We have also added two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests comparing the parameter distributions of the GRB-associated and non-GRB subsamples, confirming the lack of significant differences. For model comparison we include a direct chi-squared comparison between the magnetar-plus-Ni model and a pure-Ni model, showing the former is statistically preferred for the large majority of events. A complete AIC/BIC analysis against all alternative models for every event would require substantial additional modeling and is identified as future work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (unified framework): The placement of Ic-BL relative to SLSNe Ic and FBOTs, and the conclusion of similar progenitor properties to ordinary SNe Ic, relies on the fitted parameter distributions. No Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, selection-bias corrections, or discussion of possible viewing-angle effects in lGRB events are provided, weakening the load-bearing claim of a common origin.

    Authors: We have revised §5 to include Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests that quantitatively compare the Mej and Pi distributions across SNe Ic-BL, SLSNe Ic, and FBOTs, reinforcing the reported similarities and differences. We have expanded the text to discuss observational selection biases, noting that while the sample favors brighter events the universal Mej-Pi trend remains consistent across classes. A new paragraph addresses viewing-angle effects for lGRB events, explaining that the derived magnetar parameters for on-axis lGRBs overlap with the broader Ic-BL population, suggesting orientation does not strongly bias the engine properties. Full population-synthesis-based selection-bias corrections lie beyond the present scope but are now flagged as a valuable direction for follow-up studies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; parameter correlations derived from data fits, not by construction

full rationale

The paper applies a magnetar spin-down plus 56Ni decay model to fit multi-band lightcurves of 80 observed SNe Ic-BL events. Key parameters (Pi, Bp, Mej, MNi) are obtained via fitting to external photometric data, and the reported Mej-Pi anti-correlation and MNi-Mej correlation are statistical features of the resulting posterior distributions across the sample. The unified progenitor framework is an interpretive synthesis of these data-derived parameters compared against other SESN classes and binary simulations. No equation or step reduces the central claims (consistency with magnetar engine, lack of difference between GRB-associated and non-GRB samples, or unified classification) to the inputs by definition, self-citation, or renaming. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the observational inputs and does not invoke load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard magnetar spin-down assumptions and per-event parameter fitting; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial spin period Pi
    Fitted per supernova to match lightcurve rise and peak.
  • Surface magnetic field Bp
    Fitted per supernova to control spin-down timescale.
  • Ejecta mass Mej
    Fitted per supernova to set diffusion timescale.
  • Nickel mass MNi
    Fitted per supernova to account for late-time radioactive tail.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Magnetar rotational energy is injected via magnetic dipole radiation with standard braking index of 3.
    Invoked in the engine model used for all fits.
  • domain assumption Observed lightcurves are produced only by magnetar energy plus 56Ni decay with no other power sources.
    Core modeling assumption stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5770 in / 1431 out tokens · 51807 ms · 2026-05-09T20:35:48.736120+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. The jet-shaped pipe morphology in planetary nebulae and core-collapse supernova remnants

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Morphological similarity between pipe structures in planetary nebulae and supernova remnants, plus a jet simulation, indicates that jittering jets shaped both.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

212 extracted references · 209 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R., Khatami, D

    Afsariardchi, N., Drout, M. R., Khatami, D. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aeb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aeb 2021

  2. [2]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc1

    Schootemeijer, A. 2018, ApJ, 858, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc1 2018

  3. [3]

    R., M¨ uller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al

    Aguilera-Dena, D. R., M¨ uller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243519

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243519 2023

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11df

    Anand, S., Barnes, J., Yang, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad11df 2024

  5. [5]

    1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter from the Big Bang to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

    Arnett, D. 1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter from the Big Bang to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

    1996

  6. [6]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  7. [7]

    G., Cardone, V

    Barkov, M. V., & Komissarov, S. S. 2008, MNRAS, 385, L28, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00427.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00427.x 2008

  8. [8]

    S., Fragos, T., Zevin, M., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Zapartas, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141979

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141979 2022

  9. [9]

    A., & Wilson, J

    Bethe, H. A., & Wilson, J. R. 1985, ApJ, 295, 14, doi: 10.1086/163343

    work page doi:10.1086/163343 1985

  10. [10]

    K., Berger , E., Nicholl , M., & Villar , V

    Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E., Nicholl, M., & Villar, V. A. 2020, ApJ, 897, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9638

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9638 2020

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  12. [12]

    I., & Popov, S

    Bogomazov, A. I., & Popov, S. B. 2009, Astronomy Reports, 53, 325, doi: 10.1134/S1063772909040052

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772909040052 2009

  13. [13]

    S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adaaef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981...48B 981, 48

    Bright, J. S., Carotenuto, F., Fender, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaaef

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

  14. [14]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu995

    Bromberg, O., Granot, J., Lyubarsky, Y., & Piran, T. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu995 2014

  15. [15]

    J., et al

    Campana, S., Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008, doi: 10.1038/nature04892

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04892 2006

  16. [16]

    G., & Maeda, K

    Cano, Z., Johansson Andreas, K. G., & Maeda, K. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw122

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw122 2016

  17. [17]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/41

    Cano, Z., Bersier, D., Guidorzi, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/1/41 2011

  18. [18]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1327

    Cano, Z., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Perley, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1327

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1327 2015

  19. [19]

    2017, A&A, 605, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731005

    Cano, Z., Izzo, L., de Ugarte Postigo, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731005

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731005 2017

  20. [20]

    C., Langer, N., & Livio, M

    Cantiello, M., Yoon, S. C., Langer, N., & Livio, M. 2007, A&A, 465, L29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077115

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077115 2007

  21. [21]

    M., Arcavi, I., et al

    Cao, Y., Kasliwal, M. M., Arcavi, I., et al. 2013, ApJL, 775, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L7

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/l7 2013

  22. [22]

    and Clayton, Geoffrey C

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

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  23. [23]

    C., & Vinko, J

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

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

  24. [24]

    C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z. L., & Nagy, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/76 2013

  25. [25]

    2024, Nature, 625, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06787-x

    Chen, P., Gal-Yam, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06787-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06787-x 2024

  26. [26]

    H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al

    Chen, Z. H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca162

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca162 2023

  27. [27]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Chevalier, R. A., & Irwin, C. M. 2011, ApJL, 729, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L6

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/l6 2011

  28. [28]

    A., Soker N., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...341..867C 341, 867

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

    work page doi:10.1086/167545 1989

  29. [29]

    A., Stanway, E

    Chrimes, A. A., Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3246

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3246 2020

  30. [30]

    Clocchiatti, N

    Clocchiatti, A., Suntzeff, N. B., Covarrubias, R., & Candia, P. 2011, AJ, 141, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/163

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/163 2011

  31. [31]

    A., & McKee, C

    Colgate, S. A., & McKee, C. 1969, ApJ, 157, 623, doi: 10.1086/150102

    work page doi:10.1086/150102 1969

  32. [32]

    O., Frail, D

    Corsi, A., Ofek, E. O., Frail, D. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/76 2011

  33. [33]

    G., & Lu, T

    Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1998, A&A, 333, L87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810402

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9810402 1998

  34. [34]

    G., Wang, S

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, S. Q., Wang, J. S., Wang, L. J., & Yu, Y. W. 2016, ApJ, 817, 132, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/132

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/132 2016

  35. [35]

    G., De Simone, B., Mohideen Malik, R

    Dainotti, M. G., De Simone, B., Mohideen Malik, R. F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1484 de Mink, S. E., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., Sana, H., & de

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1484 2024

  36. [36]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

    Koter, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/166 2013

  37. [37]

    2005, ApJ, 624, 898, doi: 10.1086/429284

    Nomoto, K. 2005, ApJ, 624, 898, doi: 10.1086/429284

    work page doi:10.1086/429284 2005

  38. [38]

    R., & Langer, N

    Dessart, L., Yoon, S.-C., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., & Langer, N. 2020, A&A, 642, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038763

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038763 2020

  39. [39]

    G., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Izzard, R

    Detmers, R. G., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Izzard, R. G. 2008, A&A, 484, 831, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809371

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809371 2008

  40. [40]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd848

    Dong, X.-F., Liu, L.-D., Gao, H., & Yang, S. 2023, ApJ, 951, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd848

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd848 2023

  41. [41]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/23 2014

  42. [42]

    Dynamics and observational signatures of core-collapse supernovae with central engines: hydrodynamics simulations with Monte Carlo post-processing

    Eiden, K., & Kasen, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.13741, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.13741

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13741 2025

  43. [43]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1612 2013

  44. [44]

    R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18474.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011MNRAS.414.1418K 414, 1418

    Eldridge, J. J., Langer, N., & Tout, C. A. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3501, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18650.x 36

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

  45. [45]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H

    Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H. T. 2020, ApJ, 890, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458 2020

  46. [46]

    Eyles-Ferris, R. A. J., Jonker, P. G., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade1d9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade1d9 2025

  47. [47]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 434, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0710-6

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 434, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0710-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0710-6 2019

  48. [48]

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 1997

  49. [49]

    2025, A&A, 700, A200, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453047

    Finneran, G., Cotter, L., & Martin-Carrillo, A. 2025, A&A, 700, A200, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453047

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453047 2025

  50. [50]

    J., Papenkova, M

    Foley, R. J., Papenkova, M. S., Swift, B. J., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 1220, doi: 10.1086/378242

    work page doi:10.1086/378242 2003

  51. [51]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  52. [52]

    D., Van Dyk, S

    Fox, O. D., Van Dyk, S. D., Williams, B. F., et al. 2022, ApJL, 929, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5890

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5890 2022

  53. [53]

    L., & Heger, A

    Fryer, C. L., & Heger, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 302, doi: 10.1086/428379

    work page doi:10.1086/428379 2005

  54. [54]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac317

    Fuller, J., & Lu, W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac317

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac317 2022

  55. [55]

    L., & Jermyn, A

    Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz514 2019

  56. [56]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, 10.1126/science.1203601

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1203601 2012

  57. [57]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819 2019

  58. [58]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670, doi: 10.1038/27150

    work page doi:10.1038/27150 1998

  59. [59]

    K., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1821 2020

  60. [60]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts128

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts128

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts128 2013

  61. [61]

    J., Stanway, E

    Ghodla, S., Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., & Stevance, H. F. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 860, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3177 2023

  62. [62]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf5e3

    Gomez, S., Berger, E., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf5e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf5e3 2021

  63. [63]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8563

    Cantiello, M. 2024, ApJL, 976, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8563

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8563 2024

  64. [64]

    A., Kann, D

    Greiner, J., Mazzali, P. A., Kann, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 523, 189, doi: 10.1038/nature14579

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14579 2015

  65. [65]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    Guetta, D., & Della Valle, M. 2007, ApJL, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    work page doi:10.1086/511417 2007

  66. [66]

    L., Bejger, M., & Lattimer, J

    Haensel, P., Zdunik, J. L., Bejger, M., & Lattimer, J. M. 2009, A&A, 502, 605, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811605

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811605 2009

  67. [67]

    2025a, ApJ, 988, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd13

    Hamidani, H., Ioka, K., Kashiyama, K., & Tanaka, M. 2025a, ApJ, 988, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd13

  68. [68]

    2025b, ApJL, 986, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add99d

    Hamidani, H., Sato, Y., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2025b, ApJL, 986, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add99d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add99d 2041

  69. [69]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae172e

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., Hoeflich, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae172e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae172e 2025

  70. [70]

    Hjorth,et al., A very energetic supernova associated with the𝛾-ray burst of 29 March 2003

    Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01750 2003

  71. [71]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Kulkarni, S. R., Perley, D. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba630

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba630 2020

  72. [72]

    D., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67dd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac67dd 2022

  73. [73]

    2026, ApJ, 999, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3fa3

    Hu, R.-C., & Zhang, B. 2026, ApJ, 999, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3fa3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3fa3 2026

  74. [74]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.06402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.06402

    Hu, R.-C., Zhu, J.-P., Qin, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.06402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.06402

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.06402 2023

  75. [75]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4

    Inserra, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4 2019

  76. [76]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/128

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/128 2013

  77. [77]

    A., Nomoto, K., et al

    Iwamoto, K., Mazzali, P. A., Nomoto, K., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 672, doi: 10.1038/27155

    work page doi:10.1038/27155 1998

  78. [78]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

    Izzard, R. G., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Tout, C. A. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1215, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07436.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07436.x 2004

  79. [79]

    2020, A&A, 639, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038152

    Izzo, L., Auchettl, K., Hjorth, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038152

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038152 2020

  80. [80]

    , keywords =

    Izzo, L., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Maeda, K., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3 2019

Showing first 80 references.