Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 125 references

A magnetar-driven bubble can take over ejecta–CSM shocks and power superluminous supernova light curves without extreme nickel or explosion energy.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 11:10 UTC pith:KEXNDJ4J

load-bearing objection Solid semi-analytic hybrid that couples magnetar PWB dynamics to CSI and maps the Em/Esn–tsd/tc plane; the clean FS1 takeover after RS collision is the main untested assumption, but the paper is still worth engaging. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08216 v1 pith:KEXNDJ4J submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.HE

A Magnetar Engine and Circumstellar Medium Interaction: Synergistic Effects in Producing Superluminous Supernovae

Guang-Lei Wu , Yun-Wei Yu , Liang-Duan Liu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords Superluminous supernovaeMagnetarsLight curvesCircumstellar matterPulsar wind bubbleShock 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.

Superluminous supernovae are usually explained either by a spinning magnetar or by shocks into dense circumstellar gas, treated as separate power sources. This paper argues those engines can be dynamically coupled: a magnetar wind inflates a hot bubble that accelerates through the ejecta, catches the outer interaction region, and then drives the subsequent collision with unshocked CSM. The semi-analytical hybrid model tracks energy partition among bulk kinetic energy, shock heating, and radiative diffusion across multiple stages. The resulting light curves can show luminous interaction peaks, steep post-peak declines, late magnetar-powered emission, and under some parameters a post-peak bump. If correct, ordinary core-collapse explosions plus a magnetar can supply the energy that pure interaction or pure nickel models demand only from extreme progenitors.

Core claim

When a magnetar-driven pulsar-wind bubble expands through supernova ejecta that are already interacting with dense CSM, its forward shock can overtake the reverse shock, break out of the CSI region, and thereafter dominate interaction with unshocked CSM; the coupled dynamics and diffusion produce diverse SLSN light-curve morphologies while converting magnetar rotational energy into both kinetic energy and radiated luminosity, thereby relaxing extreme nickel-mass or initial-explosion-energy requirements of pure radioactive or pure CSI models.

What carries the argument

The semi-analytical hybrid dynamical model of the isobaric pulsar-wind bubble (PWB) and the Chevalier self-similar CSI region, closed by coupled energy equations and diffusion timescales that let FS1 catch FS2 and take over the unshocked CSM.

Load-bearing premise

The one-dimensional self-similar shock structure and thin-shell pressure balance still hold after the magnetar-driven shock collides with the outer interaction region, so the bubble can cleanly break out rather than being strongly decelerated or disrupted.

What would settle it

A well-sampled SLSN with an asymmetric light curve and high kinetic energy whose multi-band photometry and late-time broad-line velocities cannot be fit by any hybrid track that uses canonical explosion energy ~10^51 erg plus magnetar spin-down, or whose spectra show no reprocessed continuum or high-velocity interaction signatures when the model predicts FS1 has entered the outer CSM.

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

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semi-analytical hybrid model for superluminous supernovae in which a magnetar-driven pulsar-wind bubble (PWB) expands through the ejecta while the outer ejecta interact with dense CSM. The model couples magnetar spin-down injection, shock heating at FS1/RS/FS2, and radiative diffusion, and follows four dynamical stages culminating in FS1 catching the CSI region and taking over interaction with unshocked CSM. Analytic asymptotic scalings are derived for breakout time, radius, pressure ratio, and heating rate (Eqs. 36–46; Figs. 8–9). The authors argue that this framework can produce luminous interaction-like peaks, asymmetric post-peak declines, late magnetar-powered emission, and post-peak bumps, while allowing a canonical initial explosion energy (~10^51 erg) rather than extreme nickel masses or explosion energies. Illustrative multi-band comparisons are shown for SN 2015bn, SN 2018gft, and SN 2020auv (Fig. 6; Table 2).

Significance. If the coupled dynamics are approximately correct, the work offers a useful unification of two standard SLSN power sources that are usually treated as independent add-ons. The multi-stage dynamical map and the Em/Esn–tsd/tc parameter-space diagnostics (Figs. 8–9) are concrete, falsifiable contributions that go beyond pure light-curve fitting. The explicit reduction of the initial kinetic-energy requirement for CSI-powered peaks is scientifically valuable for SLSN progenitor and engine studies. Strengths include a carefully written energy-budget treatment, transparent asymptotic scalings, and an honest discussion of binary/CSM geometry caveats in Section 4. The main limitation is that quantitative takeover predictions rest on 1-D self-similar and thin-shell assumptions after FS1–RS collision, which the paper itself notes are incomplete relative to existing hydrodynamics.

major comments (3)
  1. Sections 2.2–2.4, 3.1, and 3.5 (Eqs. 26–28, 36–42; Fig. 9): The central takeover claim—that FS1 cleanly breaks out of FS2 and thereafter dominates unshocked-CSM interaction—rests on continued use of Chevalier (1982) self-similar CSI profiles and an isobaric thin-shell PWB after the FS1–RS collision, justified mainly by Ppwb/Pcsi ≳ 1. The manuscript itself cites hydro results showing flatter CSI structure, possible compression/reverberation, and FS1–CD1 separation/blowout (footnote 3; Blondin et al. 2001; Suzuki & Maeda 2017). Please either (i) restrict the quantitative scalings for tb, Rb, and Hb to order-of-magnitude estimates with explicit failure criteria, or (ii) add a focused comparison/discussion against published hydro runs showing when clean takeover remains valid. Without this, the luminous hybrid peaks and post-peak-bump formulae are not yet on firm dynamical footing.
  2. Section 3.3, Figure 6, and Table 2: The text states that the hybrid model can “broadly reproduce” SN 2015bn, SN 2018gft, and SN 2020auv, but the comparisons use hand-chosen parameters with fixed Esn = 10^51 erg, no formal fits, no uncertainties, and no degeneracy exploration (e.g., magnetar-only vs hybrid vs pure CSI). Please reframe these as illustrative morphology demonstrations, quantify which features require the hybrid coupling (vs independent magnetar+CSI sum), and state which observables would falsify the takeover picture. As written, the observational support for the synergistic claim is overstated relative to the evidence shown.
  3. Section 3.2 and Eqs. (13)–(17), (29)–(30): After FS1 enters the CSM, emission is treated as quasi-blackbody until τus < 2/3, with diffusion times averaged under simplified density profiles. Footnote 4 already notes tension with radiation-mediated-shock criteria and possible non-thermal/transmitted spectra. Because the peak luminosity and post-peak decline shape are attributed to FS1 shock heating plus cooling, please clarify how sensitive the claimed asymmetric declines and FS1-dominated peaks are to this thermalization cutoff, and whether the late Lpwn,th component remains robust if FS1 becomes optically thin earlier.
minor comments (6)
  1. Figure 1 caption: “Nano Banana Pro” is an unusual attribution for a scientific schematic; either remove the tool credit or replace with a conventional author-drawn figure statement.
  2. Table 1 is helpful; consider adding tb and tpb cross-references next to the equations where they are first used so readers can navigate the multi-stage analysis more easily.
  3. Equation (35) and surrounding text: the non-monotonic peak-time behavior with Rcsm is interesting but dense; a short sentence stating the Mcsm ≪ Mthin vs Mcsm ≳ Mthin regimes would help non-specialists.
  4. Section 3.4 / footnote 5: the post-peak-bump discussion correctly flags 1-D limitations; consider moving a one-sentence version of that caveat into the main text near Figure 7.
  5. References: several 2025–2026 entries are fine for a draft, but ensure all arXiv-only items are consistently formatted before final submission.
  6. Notation: κγ is introduced with a broad range (0.01–0.1 cm2 g−1); a brief note on which Table 2 choices affect only late-time tails (not peak morphology) would reduce reader confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: dynamics and scalings are derived from conservation laws plus standard self-similar solutions; only the three illustrative light-curve matches are parameter-tuned.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Figure 6, Table 2]
    "For illustrative purposes, we apply our model to the nearby event SN 2015bn ... and two events (SN 2018gft and SN 2020auv ...). Figure 6 compares the resulting model multi-band light curves with the observations, and the corresponding parameters are listed in Table 2. In this comparison, we do not attempt to place stringent constraints on individual parameter values. Instead, we adopt a typical CCSN kinetic energy of 10^51 erg ..."

    Parameters (M_ej, M_csm, R_csm, L_sd,i, t_sd, κ_γ) are chosen so that the hybrid light curves match the three observed events. Those particular morphologies are therefore partly forced by the fit rather than predicted from independent first principles. The general multi-stage dynamics and analytic scalings remain independent of these three fits, so the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing for the paper’s central claim.

full rationale

The hybrid model is constructed from magnetar spin-down (Eq. 1), broken-power-law ejecta and wind-like CSM densities (Eqs. 2–3), energy/momentum balance for the PWB and CSI regions (Eqs. 4–8, 20–25), radiation-pressure isobaric thin-shell approximations, and Chevalier (1982) self-similar profiles (Eqs. 26–28). Analytic breakout times, radii, pressure ratios and heating rates (Eqs. 36–44, Figs. 8–9) follow directly from those inputs and asymptotic power-law solutions; they are not fitted to the SLSN light curves they later illustrate. Multi-band comparisons for SN 2015bn, SN 2018gft and SN 2020auv (Fig. 6, Table 2) do choose parameters to reproduce observed morphologies, so those particular curves are partly fitted rather than a priori predictions. That is ordinary model illustration, not a circular derivation of the central claim that magnetar-driven FS1 can overtake CSI and power diverse light-curve shapes while reducing extreme E_sn or nickel requirements. Self-citations (Yu et al. 2015, 2017; Liu et al.) supply context or prior magnetar-only results and are not used as uniqueness theorems that force the hybrid construction. The paper’s own caveats about 1-D self-similarity after FS1–RS collision (footnote 3, Sec. 3.5) are correctness/hydrodynamic limitations, not circularity. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing fitting of three example light curves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard supernova hydrodynamics plus a set of free magnetar/ejecta/CSM parameters that are chosen by hand to illustrate light curves. No new particles or forces are introduced; the load-bearing modeling choices are the spherical power-law profiles, radiation-dominated isobaric PWB, self-similar CSI, and diffusion approximations.

free parameters (6)
  • Lsd,i (initial magnetar spin-down luminosity)
    Set by hand for fiducial runs (10^47 erg s^-1) and for three SN fits (Table 2); controls peak heating and breakout timing.
  • tsd (magnetar spin-down timescale)
    Free parameter (10^5–10^6 s range) that sets energy-injection history and whether breakout occurs before or after spin-down.
  • Mej, Esn (ejecta mass and initial kinetic energy)
    Chosen as typical CCSN values (∼10 M⊙, 10^51 erg) rather than fitted; still free inputs that set vt and the Em/Esn ratio.
  • Mcsm, Rcsm (CSM mass and outer radius)
    Varied across grids (Figs. 5, 7) and tuned per SN (Table 2); directly control interaction luminosity and photospheric radius.
  • κ, κγ (optical and gamma-ray opacities)
    Fixed at 0.2 cm^2 g^-1 and 0.01–0.1 cm^2 g^-1; control diffusion timescales and thermalization fraction of PWN emission.
  • δ, n, s (density power-law indices)
    Fiducial δ=0, n=10, s=2 adopted; change the self-similar exponents α, β and therefore all analytic scalings.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Magnetar spin-down luminosity follows the standard magnetic-dipole form Lsd ∝ (1 + t/tsd)^-2 with Em = 2×10^52 P_i,-3^-2 erg.
    Section 2.1, Eq. (1); standard in SLSN magnetar literature.
  • domain assumption Ejecta density is a broken power law (flat core + steep envelope) and CSM is a steady wind ρ ∝ r^-s with s=2.
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (2)–(3); Chevalier & Soker / Matzner & McKee profiles.
  • ad hoc to paper PWB is isobaric and radiation-dominated; FS1 shell is thin; CSI region obeys Chevalier (1982) self-similar profiles even after FS1 collision.
    Sections 2.2–2.4; the post-collision validity is an extra modeling choice not guaranteed by the cited hydro papers.
  • domain assumption Photon diffusion timescales are given by the optical-depth integrals (Eqs. 14–17, 30) with constant opacity, and emission is quasi-blackbody until τus < 2/3.
    Section 2.3; standard diffusion approximation used in SLSN light-curve codes.
  • domain assumption PWN high-energy radiation is thermalized with an effective κγ and light-crossing time inside the bubble.
    Section 2.3; analogous to 56Ni γ-ray leakage prescriptions.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 31860 in / 3584 out tokens · 38553 ms · 2026-07-10T11:10:49.237837+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Superluminous supernovae (SLSNe) are often modeled as being powered either by a central engine or by strong interaction with dense circumstellar material (CSM). These two mechanisms may be dynamically coupled if the ejecta interact with dense CSM while being energized by a newborn magnetar. We develop a semi-analytical hybrid model that follows the coupled dynamics, energy conversion, and radiative output of such systems. A rapidly rotating magnetar injects energy through a relativistic wind, inflating a hot bubble inside the expanding ejecta. Part of the injected energy is stored as radiation, while the rest is converted into bulk kinetic energy of the swept-up ejecta. At the same time, the outer ejecta collide with the surrounding CSM and form a circumstellar interaction (CSI) region. As the shock driven by the magnetar accelerates through the ejecta, it can catch up with the CSI region and take over the subsequent interaction with the unshocked CSM. The emergent light curves are therefore governed by the coupled effects of magnetar energy injection, shock heating, and radiative diffusion. We show that this hybrid model can produce diverse SLSN light-curve morphologies, including luminous interaction-powered peaks, asymmetric post-peak declines, and late-time emission sustained by delayed leakage of magnetar-powered radiation. The model provides a plausible way to reduce the extreme nickel-mass or initial explosion-energy requirements often encountered in purely radioactive or purely interaction-powered interpretations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08216 by Guang-Lei Wu, Liang-Duan Liu, Yun-Wei Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the dynamical evolution of our hybrid model, from the early coexistence of the PWB and CSI region to the later breakout of FS1 into the CSM. The black solid line shows the density profiles inspired by Chevalier (1982) and Jun (1998). The color rendering is assisted by Nano Banana Pro, based on an author-drawn draft. 2.1. Physical inputs Following the central-engine interpretation … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolutions of different radii. Different back￾ground colors indicate that FS1 is moving in different re￾gions. where Lcsi ≈ Ucsi td,csi (29) is the emission luminosity of the CSI region. In view of the CSI region being a thin shell, its photon diffusion time is shorter than that ahead of FS2, and hence we adopt td,csi ≃ Z Rph Rfs2 κρcsm(r ′ )d(r ′ − Rfs2) 2 c . (30) 3. RESULTS AND ANALYSES 3.1. Dynamics Fo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The bolometric luminosities of different compo￾nents, where the dashed orange line shows the CSI emission in the model without a magnetar. upstream optical depth satisfies τus > c/vfs1, FS1 re￾mains radiation mediated and efficiently traps the ther￾mal photons. When the optical depth drops below τus < c/vfs1, photons begin to escape from FS1 and diffuse through the CSM, enhancing the radiative losses from … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the accumulated energies of differ￾ent components (top), instantaneous heating rate (middle), and effective emission temperature (bottom). Different back￾ground colors indicate the region in which FS1 is moving. For comparison, the dashed orange line shows the CSI com￾ponent for the model without a magnetar. viously deposited in the PWN is gradually released and powers the SN light curve. In c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the multi-band light curves of SN 2015bn, SN 2018gft and SN 2020auv with model light curves, where the data are taken from the Catalog of Type I SLSNe a (Gomez et al. 2024). a https://github.com/gmzsebastian/SLSNe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bolometric luminosity evolution for a parameter set that produces a post-peak bump. Different background colors indicate the region in which FS1 is moving. converted into internal energy and subsequently radi￾ated. To clarify how the dynamical and emission behav￾iors depend on the magnetar, SN, and CSM parameters, we use the asymptotic solutions discussed in Section 3.1 to derive analytical estimates below… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Different breakout regions of FS1 from FS2, il￾lustrating whether the breakout occurs in the inner core or outer envelope of the SN ejecta and whether the magnetar has spun down at the time of breakout. The region above the dashed-dot line implies that FS1 cannot break out of FS2 before FS2 enters the optically thin region. the CSM. The shock velocity vfs1 remains close to the breakout velocity vb until su… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Variations of the breakout time tb, radius Rb, Ppwb/Pcsi, and the heating rate Hb in the Em/Esn − tsd/tc parameter space. The left and bottom axes show the plane spanned by Em/Esn and tsd/tc, while the top and right axes indicate the corresponding values of Esn and tc obtained for the representative choices. or even compressed by the pressure exerted by the CSI region, roughly corresponding to Ppwb ≲ Pcsi.… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 125 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 2674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1113

    Aamer, A., Nicholl, M., Gomez, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1113

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1113 2025

  2. [2]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  3. [3]

    Torres, D. F. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2956 —. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 2451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad134

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2956 2020

  4. [4]

    Bandiera, R., Bucciantini, N., Olmi, B., & Torres, D. F. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2387

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2387

  5. [5]

    1967, PhRvL, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, PhRvL, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.18.379 1967

  6. [6]

    M., & Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., & Chevalier, R. A. 2017, ApJ, 845, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8267

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8267 2017

  7. [7]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Chevalier, R. A., & Frierson, D. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806, doi: 10.1086/324042

    work page doi:10.1086/324042 2001

  8. [8]

    M., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R

    Blondin, J. M., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 472, 257, doi: 10.1086/178060

    work page doi:10.1086/178060 1996

  9. [9]

    M., Del Zanna, L., & Amato, E

    Bucciantini, N., Blondin, J. M., Del Zanna, L., & Amato, E. 2003, A&A, 405, 617, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030624

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030624 2003

  10. [10]

    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

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    C., Vinko, J., et al

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/94

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/2/94 2016

  13. [13]

    E., & Sukhbold, T

    Chen, K.-J., Woosley, S. E., & Sukhbold, T. 2016, ApJ, 832, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/73

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/73 2016

  14. [14]

    E., & Whalen, D

    Chen, K.-J., Woosley, S. E., & Whalen, D. J. 2020, ApJ, 893, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7db0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7db0 2020

  15. [15]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c58

    Chen, M., Kashiyama, K., & Sato, M. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c58

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c58 2026

  16. [16]

    J., Yates, R

    Chen, T.-W., Smartt, S. J., Yates, R. M., et al. 2017a, MNRAS, 470, 3566, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1428

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1428

  17. [17]

    W., Nicholl, M., Smartt, S

    Chen, T. W., Nicholl, M., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2017b, A&A, 602, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630163

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630163

  18. [18]

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

    Chen, Z. H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 943, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca161 —. 2023b, ApJ, 943, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca162

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca161

  19. [19]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 175, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.001135 —. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790, doi: 10.1086/160126 —. 1984, ApJ, 280, 797, doi: 10.1086/162053 —. 2005, ApJ, 619, 839, doi: 10.1086/426584 —. 2012, ApJL, 752, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.001135 1977

  20. [20]

    A., Blondin, J

    Chevalier, R. A., Blondin, J. M., & Emmering, R. T. 1992, ApJ, 392, 118, doi: 10.1086/171411

    work page doi:10.1086/171411 1992

  21. [21]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2003, in Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. K. Weiler, Vol. 598 (Springer,

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Berlin, Heidelberg), 171–194, doi: 10.1007/3-540-45863-8 10

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-45863-8

  23. [23]

    A., & Irwin, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Irwin, C. M. 2011, ApJL, 729, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L6 —. 2012, ApJL, 747, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L17

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

  24. [24]

    A., & Soker, N

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

    work page doi:10.1086/167545 1989

  25. [25]

    L., & Nicholl, M

    Cleland, C., McGee, S. L., & Nicholl, M. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3559, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2118

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2118 2023

  26. [26]

    Clocchiatti, A., & Wheeler, J. C. 1997, ApJ, 491, 375, doi: 10.1086/304961

    work page doi:10.1086/304961 1997

  27. [27]

    2019, A&A, 621, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834535

    Dessart, L. 2019, A&A, 621, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834535

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834535 2019

  28. [28]

    Dessart, L., Audit, E., & Hillier, D. J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv609

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv609 2015

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9, doi: 10.1086/186413

    work page doi:10.1086/186413 1992

  31. [31]

    2025, A&A, 696, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2025, A&A, 696, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453426 2025

  32. [32]

    R., Prust, L

    Farah, J. R., Prust, L. J., Howell, D. A., et al. 2026, Nature, 651, 321, doi: 10.1038/s41586-026-10151-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10151-0 2026

  33. [33]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 16 —

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 16 —. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer, Cham), 195, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 35 —. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1203601 2012

  34. [34]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 624, doi: 10.1038/nature08579

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08579 2009

  35. [35]

    D., Slane, P

    Gelfand, J. D., Slane, P. O., & Zhang, W. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2051, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2051

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/2051 2009

  36. [36]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/178

    Ginzburg, S., & Balberg, S. 2012, ApJ, 757, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/178 2012

  37. [37]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2270 2024

  38. [38]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd180

    Govreen-Segal, T., Nakar, E., & Levinson, A. 2021, ApJ, 907, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd180

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd180 2021

  39. [39]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag464

    Govreen-Segal, T., Nakar, E., & Quataert, E. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag464

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag464 2026

  40. [40]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487

    work page doi:10.1086/338487 2002

  41. [41]

    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

  42. [42]

    Howell, D. A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer, Cham), 431, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 41

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

  43. [43]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca

    Hsu, B., Hosseinzadeh, G., & Berger, E. 2021, ApJ, 921, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca 2021

  44. [44]

    Formation of Fast-spinning Neutron Stars in Close Binaries and Magnetar-driven Stripped-envelope Supernovae

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.06402 2023

  45. [45]

    Hwang, U., & Laming, J. M. 2012, ApJ, 746, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/130

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/130 2012

  46. [46]

    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

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    W., et al

    Inserra, C., Nicholl, M., Chen, T. W., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx834

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx834 2017

  49. [49]

    J., Gall, E

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Gall, E. E. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3179

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3179 2018

  50. [50]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 2013

  51. [51]

    J., Inserra, C., et al

    Jerkstrand, A., Smartt, S. J., Inserra, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/13 2017

  52. [52]

    1998, ApJ, 499, 282, doi: 10.1086/305627

    Jun, B.-I. 1998, ApJ, 499, 282, doi: 10.1086/305627

    work page doi:10.1086/305627 1998

  53. [53]

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

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

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

  54. [54]

    D., & Bildsten, L

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B. D., & Bildsten, L. 2016, ApJ, 821, 36, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/36

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/36 2016

  55. [55]

    E., & Heger, A

    Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2011, ApJ, 734, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/102 2011

  56. [56]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0 K¨ onyves-T´ oth, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae04 K¨ onyves-T´ oth, R., & Vink´ o, J. 2021, ApJ, 909, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0 2024

  57. [57]

    S., & Olinto, A

    Kotera, K., Phinney, E. S., & Olinto, A. V. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt680

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt680 2013

  58. [58]

    M., & Hwang, U

    Laming, J. M., & Hwang, U. 2003, ApJ, 597, 347, doi: 10.1086/378268

    work page doi:10.1086/378268 2003

  59. [59]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534 2012

  60. [60]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv320

    Leloudas, G., Schulze, S., Kr¨ uhler, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv320

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv320 2015

  61. [61]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab718d

    Li, L., Wang, S.-Q., Liu, L.-D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab718d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab718d 2020

  62. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.05968, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.05968

    Li, S., Liang, Y.-F., Liao, N.-H., Lei, L., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.05968, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.05968

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.05968 2024

  63. [63]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2

    Liu, J.-F., Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., & Zhang, B. 2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2 2022

  64. [64]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf042

    Liu, L.-D., Gao, H., Wang, X.-F., & Yang, S. 2021, ApJ, 911, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf042

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf042 2021

  65. [65]

    2017a, ApJ, 842, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73d9

    Liu, L.-D., Wang, S.-Q., Wang, L.-J., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 842, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa73d9

  66. [66]

    Liu, Y.-Q., Modjaz, M., & Bianco, F. B. 2017b, ApJ, 845, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f74

  67. [67]

    2016, ApJ, 831, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/144

    Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/144

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/144 2016

  68. [68]

    D., & McKee, C

    Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJ, 510, 379, doi: 10.1086/306571

    work page doi:10.1086/306571 1999

  69. [69]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2224

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2224 2015

  70. [70]

    2014 , title=

    Metzger, B. D., Vurm, I., Hasco¨ et, R., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1922

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1922 2014

  71. [71]

    J., Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Blinnikov, S. I., Tominaga, N., et al. 2013a, MNRAS, 428, 1020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts075

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts075

  72. [72]

    J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., et al

    Moriya, T. J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 435, 1520, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1392

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1392

  73. [73]

    J., Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 6210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1352

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1352 2022

  74. [74]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/82

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., Kiuchi, K., & Bartos, I. 2015, ApJ, 805, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/82 2015

  75. [75]

    Murase, K., Omand, C. M. B., Coppejans, D. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 44, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2506

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2506 2021

  76. [76]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334 17

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334 17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334 2017

  77. [77]

    J., et al

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2016a, ApJ, 826, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/39

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/39

  78. [78]

    2016b, ApJL, 828, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/2/L18

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2016b, ApJL, 828, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/2/L18

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/2041-8205/828/2/l18 2041

  79. [79]

    Omand, C. M. B. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag112

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag112 2026

  80. [80]

    Omand, C. M. B., & Jerkstrand, A. 2023, A&A, 673, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245406

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245406 2023

Showing first 80 references.