Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Two neural-network surrogates reproduce simulated type II supernova spectra closely enough to replace full radiation-hydrodynamics runs in Bayesian fits, cutting inference time from days to minutes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 17:49 UTC pith:XHAUICGI

load-bearing objection The interaction-model surrogate is a genuinely useful extension; the photospheric-model inference rests on two masked weaknesses — a possibly leaking split and an off-manifold prior mismatch — so its SN 1999em posterior is provisional until fixed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17488 v1 pith:XHAUICGI submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Surrogate models for type II supernovae: Probing low-energy explosions and interaction-free regimes

Zhengyang Zhang , Shuai Zha , Nikhil Sarin , Takashi J. Moriya , Chengyuan Wu , Bo Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords type II supernovaesurrogate modelsneural network emulatorsautoencoder latent spacelatent mixup regularizationBayesian parameter inferencecircumstellar medium interactionsupernova light curves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that two surrogate models—one for low-energy type II supernovae with possible circumstellar-medium interaction, one for standard interaction-free type IIP events—can reproduce full simulated spectral energy distributions with mean squared errors around 1e-4 in normalized units. If true, a single forward pass through the surrogate is nearly interchangeable with a full radiation-hydrodynamics evaluation across the covered parameter space, making full Bayesian parameter inference possible in minutes instead of days. Applied to three benchmark supernovae, the surrogates recover low-mass progenitors consistent with direct imaging, including a resolution of the historical mass discrepancy for SN 2005cs by invoking confined dense circumstellar material. The paper's load-bearing claim is that this fidelity is sufficient for physically meaningful posterior constraints, not just for fast light-curve generation.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a two-stage architecture—an autoencoder that compresses the 100x100 time–wavelength SED grid into a 256-dimensional latent space, followed by a parameter-to-latent emulator, regularized by latent mixup—yields normalized test-set reconstruction MSEs of about 9.1e-5 (interaction model) and 1.0e-4 (photospheric model), with nearly all of the error budget already set by the autoencoder rather than the parameter mapping. The paper argues this accuracy is enough to stand in for radiation-hydrodynamics simulations when doing Bayesian inference: for SN 2005cs it infers a progenitor mass of 10.40(+0.04/-0.05) solar masses with a confined dense C

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the two-stage autoencoder–emulator surrogate with latent mixup: an autoencoder compresses a 100x100 time–wavelength spectral energy distribution into a 256-dimensional latent vector, and a separate emulator maps the six physical parameters (progenitor mass, 56Ni mass, explosion energy, and, for the interaction model, mass-loss rate, CSM radius, and density slope) to that latent space. The frozen decoder then generates the full SED from the predicted latent code. Latent mixup—decoding interpolated latent codes and penalizing deviation from the interpolated input spectra—keeps the latent manifold smooth enough for reliable parameter mapping and is shown to cut midpoint

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported generalization errors were measured on truly held-out models: for the photospheric model, the paper reports an 80/10/10 split of the augmented dataset without stating that all augmented copies of a given physical model stayed in the same split, so if that grouping was not enforced, the ~1.0e-4 test MSE would be optimistic and the SN 1999em posterior would not be an honest out-of-sample result.

What would settle it

A concrete check: re-run the photospheric model's train/validation/test split with model identity preserved (all augmented copies of the same physical model confined to one split), then compare the test MSE with the reported 1.0e-4. If the MSE rises substantially above ~1e-4, the claimed generalization and the SN 1999em posterior would not be an honest out-of-sample result. Additionally, running the same surrogate-based inference on a supernova whose progenitor mass is independently known from deep pre-explosion detection or asteroseismology would settle whether the posteriors track truth.

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

If this is right

  • A single surrogate evaluation can replace a full radiation-hydrodynamics run in the covered parameter space, reducing full Bayesian inference for one type II supernova from days to minutes.
  • The interaction model supports the interpretation that SN 2005cs had a low-mass (~10.4 solar masses) progenitor with a confined dense CSM shell, reconciling pre-explosion imaging with light-curve modeling.
  • The photospheric model recovers a ~10.05 solar-mass progenitor for SN 1999em without invoking CSM interaction, consistent with direct imaging limits and supporting its adequacy for standard type IIP events.
  • The reported posteriors for SN 2012aw (progenitor mass ~11.05 solar masses) agree with earlier independent estimates, serving as validation of the surrogate-based inference pipeline.
  • The surrogates are distributed as part of an open-source Bayesian inference tool, making near-real-time physical characterization of large survey streams practical.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the surrogate accuracy holds on truly held-out models, the same architecture could be extended to neighboring parameter regimes, such as higher mass-loss rates for strongly interacting events, provided new training grids are generated since the current interaction grid stops at 10^-1 solar masses per year.
  • The near-identical Stage 1 and Stage 2 errors suggest that further gains in surrogate fidelity would come mainly from improving the autoencoder's representation rather than the emulator, pointing toward richer latent models or physics-informed losses.
  • The photospheric model's reported systematic ~0.3–0.6 mag excess in the first ~10 days, which the paper attributes to possible weak interaction or cooling effects, offers a testable target: adding a simple early-time excess component and checking whether posteriors shift would sharpen the distinction between weak interaction and missing physics.
  • The discrepancy between the zero mixing inferred for SN 1999em and the half-mixing fixed in the interaction model suggests that comparing the two surrogates on the same events could map how mixing assumptions bias mass and energy estimates.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents two neural-network surrogate emulators of STELLA spectral energy distributions for type II supernovae: an interaction model covering low-energy explosions with CSM interaction, and a photospheric model for standard interaction-free SNe IIP. Both use a two-stage autoencoder-plus-emulator design with latent-mixup regularization. The authors report normalized test MSEs of about 9.1e-5 (interaction model) and 1.0e-4 (photospheric model), validate the emulated light curves against STELLA, and demonstrate the surrogates in Bayesian parameter inference for SN 2005cs, SN 2012aw, and SN 1999em using redback/dynesty. The paper claims that the full inference workflow reduces runtime from days to minutes and that the recovered progenitor masses are physically meaningful.

Significance. If the surrogate fidelity and coverage claims hold, this is a practically valuable contribution for survey-scale analyses of SNe II: it offers open-source integration through redback_surrogates, an explicit low-energy/CSM-interaction regime, and validation against held-out STELLA models for the interaction model. The paper's strengths include clearly describing the no-leakage split for the interaction model, comparing with previous emulator work, and testing the surrogates on three well-observed benchmark supernovae. The main scientific value—the physical interpretation of the photospheric-model posterior for SN 1999em—currently depends on two unresolved technical points: whether the photospheric model was validated on genuinely held-out physical models, and whether the inference was restricted to the low-dimensional stellar-model manifold on which the surrogate was trained. These issues are load-bearing for the central claims and require correction before the results can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [§II.C, Table I, Table II, Sec. III.B.3] The photospheric model's M_env and R0 are marked in Table I as derived parameters that depend on M_ZAMS, but Table II assigns them independent uniform priors alongside M_ZAMS. The STELLA grid and hence the surrogate are trained only on the stellar-model relation (M_ZAMS → M_env, R0); in the dynesty run for SN 1999em, most likelihood evaluations draw M_env/R0 combinations that are inconsistent with any physical M_ZAMS and lie outside the training distribution. The reported test MSE of 1.0e-4 in Sec. III.A measures performance only on the in-manifold test set, so it does not validate the off-manifold region sampled during inference. Consequently, the tight posterior M_ZAMS = 10.05(+0.07/−0.04) in Fig. 6 cannot be interpreted as a physical constraint as presented. The authors should either reparameterize the inference so that M_env and R0 are deterministic functions of M_ZAMS, or explicitly
  2. [§II.C] For the interaction model, the text explicitly states that each original physical model and its Gaussian-augmented copies were assigned exclusively to the same train/validation/test split. For the photospheric model, the paper only reports an 80/10/10 split of the 10,320 augmented samples and does not state whether augmented copies of the same physical model were kept together. If the split was performed after augmentation without preserving model identity, the 1,032 test samples would be near-duplicates of training samples (σ = 0.01 perturbations), making the reported 1.0e-4 test MSE optimistic and undermining the SN 1999em benchmark as a test of generalization. Please state the exact split procedure and, if necessary, repeat the photospheric-model evaluation with a model-level split.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.A] The normalized test MSE values are reported in the [0,1]-normalized log10 Lν space, which is hard to interpret. The text says errors are 'expressed in dex' after conversion, but no dex or magnitude-space numbers are given. Please report the corresponding errors in dex or in representative broadband magnitudes.
  2. [§III.B, Eq. (5)] The likelihood in Eq. (5) includes a fixed additional uncertainty σ_add, but its value is not stated in the text. Fig. 4 caption mentions 0.2 mag error bars; please clarify whether this is σ_add and state the value used for all three fits. If σ_add was tuned per object, say so.
  3. [§II.C] The comparison between ResNet and CNN backbones is reported only as 'ResNet shows a 42.15% higher test-set MSE.' Please give the actual MSE values or a small table so the reader can assess the magnitude of the difference.
  4. [§IV] The claim that 'a full Bayesian fit can be completed in minutes' should specify wall-clock time, hardware (CPU/GPU), and whether the surrogate forward model was run on GPU. The preceding paragraph notes that the nested-sampling workflow is primarily CPU executed, so the runtime claim should be quantified.
  5. [Appendix A] The latent-mixup ablation in Fig. 7 is useful, but the 'No Mixup' baseline should be specified precisely: same architecture, training epochs, and loss weights as the latent-mixup model, differing only in the mixup term? Please state this explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; surrogate is a standard supervised-learning model validated on held-out STELLA outputs.

full rationale

No significant circularity found. The paper makes no first-principles derivation; its central claims are (i) surrogate SED reconstructions achieve MSE ~9e-5/1e-4 on held-out STELLA models and (ii) Bayesian fits to three benchmark SNe yield plausible parameters. Claim (i) is standard supervised learning: the error is quoted on test splits explicitly held out from training, and the interaction-model split explicitly preserves model identity across augmented copies (Sec. II.B.1). Claim (ii) uses the surrogate only as a forward model inside a dynesty likelihood; the inferred masses are fits to published photometry, not quantities used to set any surrogate constant. Self-citations—Moriya et al.'s STELLA grid [43], Moriya's private-communication low-energy models [59], Sarin et al.'s redback [5]/surrogates, and Li et al.'s SN 2024abfl [69]—supply training data, software, and ancillary support; none functions as an unverified theorem forcing the posterior. The manuscript's genuine weaknesses are validity issues, not circularity: the photospheric split (Sec. II.C) is described only as 80/10/10 augmented samples, so identity-based leakage is not excluded; and Table I marks M_env and R0 as derived from M_ZAMS while Table II gives them independent uniform priors, so the SN1999em inference samples largely off the training manifold. These could compromise generalization claims, but they do not make any equation reduce to its own input or rename a fit as a prediction. Therefore score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted physical constants; its free parameters are ML hyperparameters and the likelihood's extra noise term. The load-bearing assumptions are inherited from STELLA and the training grids: LTE, the beta-law CSM profile, grid coverage, and the Gaussian likelihood. These assumptions are not derived in the paper, and the private-communication dataset makes them hard to independently audit.

free parameters (5)
  • sigma_add (additional magnitude uncertainty) = 0.2 mag (inferred from figure captions; value not stated in text)
    Added in quadrature to observed photometric errors in Eq. (5). Posterior widths depend directly on this choice, and it is intended to absorb calibration and surrogate error, but its value is not reported in the methods.
  • w_mixup (latent mixup regularization weight) = not reported
    Weight in Eq. (3) balancing reconstruction and mixup losses. Chosen by hand; the paper does not state its value or a sensitivity analysis.
  • alpha (Beta distribution shape for mixup) = 0.2
    Controls how the mixup coefficient lambda is sampled in Eq. (4); a hyperparameter selected by the authors.
  • Gaussian augmentation sigma = 0.01 (normalized space)
    Noise level for 5x (interaction) and 10x (photospheric) data augmentation. Chosen by hand; it directly affects the effective training set and can make test metrics optimistic if splits are not carefully grouped.
  • Latent dimensionality = 256
    Dimensionality of the autoencoder latent code; a design choice that trades reconstruction fidelity against emulator complexity.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption STELLA radiation-hydrodynamics simulations are sufficiently accurate in the modeled regimes, including the LTE assumption.
    The surrogate inherits all STELLA systematics. The paper explicitly notes LTE becomes unreliable at late epochs (Section IV), and this limits any late-time inference drawn from the surrogates.
  • domain assumption The Moriya et al. (2023) grid plus the private-communication low-energy models adequately cover the true SN II parameter space for the targets analyzed.
    If the grid misses relevant physics or parameter combinations, the surrogates cannot recover them. The paper relies on this coverage for the benchmark SNe, particularly in the low-energy CSM regime.
  • domain assumption The beta-law wind-acceleration CSM density profile (Eqs. 1-2) describes the real circumstellar environment of SNe II.
    This profile is built into the training grid. Inferred CSM parameters for SN 2005cs and SN 2012aw are only as valid as this assumed density structure.
  • domain assumption A Gaussian likelihood with fixed sigma_add and a multiplicative nuisance parameter A captures all observational and model uncertainty.
    The posterior widths and central values depend on this statistical model. No posterior-predictive or mock-recovery validation is provided.
  • domain assumption The 100x100 time-wavelength grid and filter convolution produce synthetic broadband magnitudes that are directly comparable to observed photometry.
    The SEDs are interpolated onto a fixed grid and then convolved with filter response functions. Any interpolation or binning loss is ignored in the likelihood.
  • ad hoc to paper Latent mixup regularization enforces linear interpolation in the latent space without distorting the physical SED manifold.
    This regularization is introduced to smooth the latent space. Its benefit is shown on the test set, but it is an imposed training constraint, not a physical law.
invented entities (1)
  • 256-dimensional latent space z no independent evidence
    purpose: Compressed learned representation of STELLA SEDs, enabling the parameter-to-latent emulator to generate spectra through a frozen decoder.
    This is a computational construct, not a physical postulate. It is a standard ML component and does not require independent observational evidence, but it is technically an invented mathematical dimension introduced by the authors.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18475 in / 16545 out tokens · 154462 ms · 2026-08-01T17:49:26.510468+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

To address the computational bottleneck of analyzing type II supernova samples from surveys such as the Legacy Survey of Space and Time, we present two STELLA-based neural-network surrogates: an interaction model for low-energy explosions with possible circumstellar-material (CSM) interaction and a photospheric model for standard interaction-free SNe IIP. Each uses an autoencoder to compress spectral energy distributions and an emulator to map physical parameters to the latent space. Latent-mixup regularization improves latent-space continuity, with ResNet blocks used for the interaction model and 2D CNNs for the photospheric model. Their normalized test-set reconstruction MSEs are approximately 9.1e-5 and 1.0e-4, respectively. Applied to SN 2005cs, the interaction model favors a low-mass progenitor, M_ZAMS = 10.40(+0.04/-0.05) M_sun, and confined dense CSM, providing a scenario consistent with direct imaging and helping resolve the historical mass discrepancy. For SN 2012aw, it recovers M_ZAMS = 11.05(+0.06/-0.06) M_sun, consistent with previous studies. For SN 1999em, the photospheric model gives M_ZAMS = 10.05(+0.07/-0.04) M_sun, broadly consistent with preexplosion imaging limits without explicit CSM modeling. These surrogates reduce full Bayesian inference from days to minutes and enable rapid physical characterization of large supernova samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17488 by Bo Wang, Chengyuan Wu, Nikhil Sarin, Shuai Zha, Takashi J. Moriya, Zhengyang Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the two-stage surrogate modeling framework. This schematic is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Spectral reconstruction performance on the held-out test sets. The top row (a–c) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of multiband absolute magnitude light curves among ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Parameter inference validation for SN 2005cs using the interaction model. Panel (a): Com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig. 4, but for SN 2012aw. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig. 5, but for the archetypal type IIP SN 1999em using the interaction-free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Latent space interpolation test. We compare the reconstruction error of latent midpoints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] 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

89 extracted references · 69 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    cm” (central mixing) denotes no 56Ni mixing into the hydrogen-rich envelope; “fm

    Data preprocessing and augmentation The interaction model dataset is based on thestellaradiation-hydrodynamics simula- tion grid of Moriyaet al.[43], supplemented by low-energy and low-mass models obtained from Moriya [59]. After filtering invalid or incomplete outputs, the Interaction dataset con- tains 298,375 original valid SED samples on a uniform 100...

  2. [2]

    latent mixup consistency

    Spectral compression via latent mixup The primary objective of the first stage, as illustrated in the blue left panel of Figure 1, is to compress the high-dimensional spectral inputx∈R 10000 into a low-dimensional latent vectorz∈R 256. Both the encoder and decoder are constructed with 12 residual blocks, utilizing SiLU activation functions to capture nonl...

  3. [3]

    For this purpose, we construct an emulator network consisting of 12 ResNet blocks with SiLU activations between layers

    Physical parameter emulation The second stage, shown in the green right panel of Figure 1, learns the mapping from the six-dimensional physical parameter spacep∈R 6 to the latent codez. For this purpose, we construct an emulator network consisting of 12 ResNet blocks with SiLU activations between layers. During this phase, the pretrained decoder from Stag...

  4. [4]

    twin” to SN 2005cs. Unlike the ambiguous early spectra of SN 2005cs—where the origin of similar features remained debated [67]—SN 2024abfl clearly displayed a broad “ledge

    SN 2005cs SN 2005cs serves as a critical stress test for our interaction model because of the long- standing tension in its inferred physical parameters. The multiband photometric data used in our fit are adopted from the observations presented by Pastorelloet al.[61]. While direct analyses of preexplosionHSTimages consistently support a low-mass progenit...

  5. [5]

    SN 2012aw As illustrated in Figure 5, we analyze SN 2012aw using the optical photometric dataset presented by Boseet al.[70]. The inferred progenitor ZAMS mass (M ZAMS = 11.05+0.06 −0.06 M⊙) agrees well with both direct progenitor-imaging constraints (≈12.5M ⊙; Fraseret al.71, Kochaneket al.72, Fraser 73) and the estimate of Sarinet al.[55] (10.61M ⊙). Fo...

  6. [6]

    latent mixup

    SN 1999em SN 1999em is widely regarded as an archetype of normal type IIP supernovae, serving as an ideal benchmark for our interaction-free photospheric model. The photometric dataset used for this benchmark is taken from the optical monitoring presented by Elmhamdiet al. [76]. Our emulator reproduces the observed photometry reasonably without invoking e...

    2021

  7. [7]

    Ivezi´ c, S

    ˇZ. Ivezi´ c, S. M. Kahn, J. A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman, D. Alonso, Y. AlSayyad, S. F. Anderson, J. Andrew,et al., Astrophys. J.873, 111 (2019), arXiv:0805.2366 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    E. C. Bellm, S. R. Kulkarni, M. J. Graham, R. Dekany, R. M. Smith, R. Riddle, F. J. Masci, G. Helou, T. A. Prince, S. M. Adams,et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 018002 (2019), arXiv:1902.01932 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    D. A. Perley, C. Fremling, J. Sollerman, A. A. Miller, A. S. Dahiwale, Y. Sharma, E. C. Bellm, R. Biswas, T. G. Brink, R. J. Bruch,et al., Astrophys. J.904, 35 (2020), arXiv:2009.01242 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Guillochon, M

    J. Guillochon, M. Nicholl, V. A. Villar, B. Mockler, G. Narayan, K. S. Mandel, E. Berger, and P. K. G. Williams, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.236, 6 (2018), arXiv:1710.02145 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Sarin, M

    N. Sarin, M. H¨ ubner, C. M. B. Omand, C. N. Setzer, S. Schulze, N. Adhikari, A. Sagu´ es- Carracedo, S. Galaudage, W. F. Wallace, G. P. Lamb,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.531, 1203 (2024), arXiv:2308.12806 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    W. Li, J. Leaman, R. Chornock, A. V. Filippenko, D. Poznanski, M. Ganeshalingam, X. Wang, M. Modjaz, S. Jha, R. J. Foley,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.412, 1441 (2011), arXiv:1006.4612 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Faran, D

    T. Faran, D. Poznanski, A. V. Filippenko, R. Chornock, R. J. Foley, M. Ganeshalingam, D. C. Leonard, W. Li, M. Modjaz, E. Nakar,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.442, 844 (2014), arXiv:1404.0378 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    J. P. Anderson, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, M. Hamuy, C. P. Guti´ errez, M. D. Stritzinger, F. Olivares E., M. M. Phillips, S. Schulze, R. Antezana, L. Bolt,et al., Astrophys. J.786, 67 (2014), arXiv:1403.7091 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    N. E. Sanders, A. M. Soderberg, S. Gezari, M. Betancourt, R. Chornock, E. Berger, R. J. Foley, P. Challis, M. Drout, R. P. Kirshner,et al., Astrophys. J.799, 208 (2015), arXiv:1404.2004 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Valenti, D

    S. Valenti, D. A. Howell, M. D. Stritzinger, M. L. Graham, G. Hosseinzadeh, I. Arcavi, L. Bildsten, A. Jerkstrand, C. McCully, A. Pastorello,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.459, 3939 (2016), arXiv:1603.08953 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    C. P. Guti´ errez, J. P. Anderson, M. Hamuy, N. Morrell, S. Gonz´ alez-Gaitan, M. D. Stritzinger, 23 M. M. Phillips, L. Galbany, G. Folatelli, L. Dessart,et al., Astrophys. J.850, 89 (2017), arXiv:1709.02487 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    D. J. Hillier and L. Dessart, Astron. Astrophys.631, A8 (2019), arXiv:1908.02973 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Martinez, M

    L. Martinez, M. C. Bersten, J. P. Anderson, M. Hamuy, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, M. Stritzinger, M. M. Phillips, C. P. Guti´ errez, C. Burns, C. Contreras,et al., Astron. Astrophys.660, A40 (2022), arXiv:2111.06519 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Ertini, J

    K. Ertini, J. P. Anderson, G. Folatelli, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, C. P. Guti´ errez, J. Sollerman, O. Rodr ´ ıguez, A. Aryan, T.-W. Chen, E. Concepcion, S. P. Cosentino, M. Dennefeld, N. Eras- mus, M. Fraser, L. Galbany, M. Gromadzki, C. Inserra, T. E. M¨ uller-Bravo, P. J. Pessi, T. Pessi, T. Petrushevska, G. Pignata, F. Ragosta, S. Srivastav, and D. R. Y...

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Dessart, D

    L. Dessart, D. J. Hillier, R. Waldman, and E. Livne, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.433, 1745 (2013), arXiv:1305.3386 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Dessart and D

    L. Dessart and D. J. Hillier, Astron. Astrophys.625, A9 (2019), arXiv:1903.04840 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    J. A. Goldberg, L. Bildsten, and B. Paxton, Astrophys. J.879, 3 (2019), arXiv:1903.09114 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Martinez, M

    L. Martinez, M. C. Bersten, J. P. Anderson, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, F. F¨ orster, and G. Folatelli, Astron. Astrophys.642, A143 (2020), arXiv:2008.05572 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Martinez, M

    L. Martinez, M. C. Bersten, J. P. Anderson, M. Hamuy, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, F. F¨ orster, M. Orellana, M. Stritzinger, M. M. Phillips, C. P. Guti´ errez,et al., Astron. Astrophys.660, A41 (2022), arXiv:2111.06529 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    R. A. Chevalier, Astrophys. J.258, 790 (1982)

    1982

  27. [27]

    R. A. Chevalier and C. Fransson, Astrophys. J.420, 268 (1994)

    1994

  28. [28]

    R. A. Chevalier and C. Fransson, inHandbook of Supernovae, edited by A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin (Springer International Publishing, 2017) p. 875

    2017

  29. [29]

    E. M. Schlegel, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.244, 269 (1990)

    1990

  30. [30]

    Smith, Annu

    N. Smith, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.52, 487 (2014), arXiv:1402.1237 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    Gal-Yam, I

    A. Gal-Yam, I. Arcavi, E. O. Ofek, S. Ben-Ami, S. B. Cenko, M. M. Kasliwal, Y. Cao, O. Yaron, D. Tal, J. M. Silverman,et al., Nature (London)509, 471 (2014), arXiv:1406.7640 24 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Khazov, O

    D. Khazov, O. Yaron, A. Gal-Yam, I. Manulis, A. Rubin, S. R. Kulkarni, I. Arcavi, M. M. Kasliwal, E. O. Ofek, Y. Cao,et al., Astrophys. J.818, 3 (2016), arXiv:1512.00846 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Smith, inHandbook of Supernovae, edited by A

    N. Smith, inHandbook of Supernovae, edited by A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin (Springer International Publishing, 2017) p. 403

    2017

  34. [34]

    Ercolino, H

    A. Ercolino, H. Jin, N. Langer, and L. Dessart, Astron. Astrophys.685, A58 (2024), arXiv:2308.01819 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Moriya, N

    T. Moriya, N. Tominaga, S. I. Blinnikov, P. V. Baklanov, and E. I. Sorokina, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.415, 199 (2011), arXiv:1009.5799 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    Dessart, D

    L. Dessart, D. J. Hillier, and E. Audit, Astron. Astrophys.605, A83 (2017), arXiv:1704.01697 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    F¨ orster, T

    F. F¨ orster, T. J. Moriya, J. C. Maureira, J. P. Anderson, S. Blinnikov, F. Bufano, G. Cabrera- Vives, A. Clocchiatti, T. de Jaeger, P. A. Est´ evez,et al., Nature Astronomy2, 808 (2018), arXiv:1809.06379 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    T. J. Moriya, F. F¨ orster, S.-C. Yoon, G. Gr¨ afener, and S. I. Blinnikov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.476, 2840 (2018), arXiv:1802.07752 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Boian and J

    I. Boian and J. H. Groh, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.496, 1325 (2020), arXiv:2001.07651 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    R. J. Bruch, A. Gal-Yam, S. Schulze, O. Yaron, Y. Yang, M. Soumagnac, M. Rigault, N. L. Strotjohann, E. Ofek, J. Sollerman,et al., Astrophys. J.912, 46 (2021), arXiv:2008.09986 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Morozova, A

    V. Morozova, A. L. Piro, and S. Valenti, Astrophys. J.838, 28 (2017), arXiv:1610.08054 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Morozova, A

    V. Morozova, A. L. Piro, and S. Valenti, Astrophys. J.858, 15 (2018), arXiv:1709.04928 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    W. V. Jacobson-Gal´ an, L. Dessart, K. W. Davis, C. D. Kilpatrick, R. Margutti, R. J. Foley, R. Chornock, G. Terreran, D. Hiramatsu, M. Newsome,et al., Astrophys. J.970, 189 (2024), arXiv:2403.02382 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    D. K. Khatami and D. N. Kasen, Astrophys. J.878, 56 (2019), arXiv:1812.06522 [astro- ph.HE]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Dessart and W

    L. Dessart and W. V. Jacobson-Gal´ an, Astron. Astrophys.677, A105 (2023), arXiv:2307.08584 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    S. I. Blinnikov, R. Eastman, O. S. Bartunov, V. A. Popolitov, and S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J.496, 454 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9711055 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  47. [47]

    Blinnikov, P

    S. Blinnikov, P. Lundqvist, O. Bartunov, K. Nomoto, and K. Iwamoto, Astrophys. J.532, 1132 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911205 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  48. [48]

    S. I. Blinnikov, F. K. R¨ opke, E. I. Sorokina, M. Gieseler, M. Reinecke, C. Travaglio, W. Hille- brandt, and M. Stritzinger, Astron. Astrophys.453, 229 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603036 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  49. [49]

    T. J. Moriya, B. M. Subrayan, D. Milisavljevic, and S. I. Blinnikov, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 75, 634 (2023), arXiv:2303.01532 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    B. M. Subrayan, D. Milisavljevic, T. J. Moriya, K. E. Weil, G. Lentner, M. Linvill, J. Banovetz, B. Garretson, J. Reynolds, N. Sravan,et al., Astrophys. J.945, 46 (2023), arXiv:2211.15702 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Silva-Farf´ an, F

    J. Silva-Farf´ an, F. F¨ orster, T. J. Moriya, L. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, A. M. Mu˜ noz Arancibia, P. S´ anchez-S´ aez, J. P. Anderson, J. L. Tonry, and A. Clocchiatti, Astrophys. J.969, 57 (2024), arXiv:2404.12620 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Hinds, D

    K.-R. Hinds, D. A. Perley, J. Sollerman, A. A. Miller, C. Fremling, T. J. Moriya, K. K. Das, Y.-J. Qin, E. C. Bellm, T. X. Chen,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.541, 135 (2025), arXiv:2503.19969 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    T. J. Moriya and A. Singh, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn.76, 1050 (2024), arXiv:2406.00928 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Q. Fang, T. J. Moriya, L. Ferrari, K. Maeda, G. Folatelli, K. Y. Ertini, H. Kuncarayakti, J. E. Andrews, and T. Matsumoto, Astrophys. J.978, 36 (2025), arXiv:2409.03540 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    B. Hsu, N. Smith, J. A. Goldberg, K. A. Bostroem, G. Hosseinzadeh, D. J. Sand, J. Pear- son, D. Hiramatsu, J. E. Andrews, E. R. Beasor,et al., Astrophys. J.990, 148 (2025), arXiv:2408.07874 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Kozyreva, A

    A. Kozyreva, A. Caputo, P. Baklanov, A. Mironov, and H.-T. Janka, Astron. Astrophys.694, A319 (2025), arXiv:2410.19939 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Forde and J

    S. Forde and J. A. Goldberg, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society9, 135 (2025), arXiv:2504.12421 [astro-ph.SR]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    T. J. Moriya, D. A. Coulter, C. DeCoursey, J. D. R. Pierel, K. Hainline, M. R. Siebert, A. Rest, E. Egami, S. Gomez, R. M. Quimby,et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn.77, 851 (2025), arXiv:2501.08969 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    D. A. Coulter, J. D. R. Pierel, C. DeCoursey, T. J. Moriya, M. R. Siebert, B. A. Joshi, M. Engesser, A. Rest, E. Egami, M. Shahbandeh,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.05513 (2025), arXiv:2501.05513 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    C. Vogl, W. E. Kerzendorf, S. A. Sim, G. Dimitriadis, I. R. Seitenzahl, T. M. Reynolds, L. Galbany, B. Barna, C. E. Collins, and P. Hoflich, Astron. Astrophys.702, A41 (2025), arXiv:2411.04968 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Sarin, T

    N. Sarin, T. J. Moriya, A. Singh, A. Gangopadhyay, K.-R. Hinds, S. Schulze, C. M. B. Omand, and K. K. Das, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.544, 2653 (2025), arXiv:2506.02107 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Spiro, A

    S. Spiro, A. Pastorello, M. L. Pumo, L. Zampieri, M. Turatto, S. J. Smartt, S. Benetti, E. Cappellaro, S. Valenti, I. Agnoletto,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.439, 2873 (2014), arXiv:1401.5426 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Verma, A

    V. Verma, A. Lamb, C. Beckham, A. Najafi, I. Mitliagkas, A. Courville, D. Lopez-Paz, and Y. Bengio, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1806.05236 (2018), arXiv:1806.05236 [stat.ML]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [64]

    Berthelot, C

    D. Berthelot, C. Raffel, A. Roy, and I. Goodfellow, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1807.07543 (2018), arXiv:1807.07543 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    Moriya (private communication)

    T. Moriya (private communication)

  66. [66]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Cisse, Y. N. Dauphin, and D. Lopez-Paz, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1710.09412 (2017), arXiv:1710.09412 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    Pastorello, S

    A. Pastorello, S. Valenti, L. Zampieri, H. Navasardyan, S. Taubenberger, S. J. Smartt, A. A. Arkharov, O. B¨ arnbantner, H. Barwig, S. Benetti,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.394, 2266 (2009), arXiv:0901.2075 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  68. [68]

    J. R. Maund, S. J. Smartt, and I. J. Danziger, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.364, L33 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507502 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  69. [69]

    W. Li, S. D. Van Dyk, A. V. Filippenko, J.-C. Cuillandre, S. Jha, J. S. Bloom, A. G. Riess, and M. Livio, Astrophys. J.641, 1060 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507394 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  70. [70]

    J. J. Eldridge, S. Mattila, and S. J. Smartt, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.376, L52 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701152 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  71. [71]

    V. P. Utrobin and N. N. Chugai, Astron. Astrophys.491, 507 (2008), arXiv:0809.3766 [astro- 27 ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  72. [72]

    Kozyreva, H.-T

    A. Kozyreva, H.-T. Janka, D. Kresse, S. Taubenberger, and P. Baklanov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.514, 4173 (2022), arXiv:2203.00473 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Dessart, S

    L. Dessart, S. Blondin, P. J. Brown, M. Hicken, D. J. Hillier, S. T. Holland, S. Immler, R. P. Kirshner, P. Milne, M. Modjaz,et al., Astrophys. J.675, 644 (2008), arXiv:0711.1815 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  74. [74]

    Gerard, J

    M. Gerard, J. E. Andrews, G. C. Clayton, D. J. Sand, K. A. Bostroem, J. Pearson, R. Dastidar, A. P. Ravi, C. L. Ransome, B. Subrayan,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.02638 (2026), arXiv:2601.02638 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    L. Li, J. Zhang, Z. Zhao, L. Li, X. Wang, L. Chen, Z. Wang, J. Luo, Z. Liu, Z. Han, and B. Wang, Astrophys. J.1002, 68 (2026), arXiv:2604.01806 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    S. Bose, B. Kumar, F. Sutaria, B. Kumar, R. Roy, V. K. Bhatt, S. B. Pandey, H. C. Chandola, R. Sagar, K. Misra,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.433, 1871 (2013), arXiv:1305.3152 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [77]

    Fraser, J

    M. Fraser, J. R. Maund, S. J. Smartt, M.-T. Botticella, M. Dall’Ora, C. Inserra, L. Tomasella, S. Benetti, S. Ciroi, J. J. Eldridge,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.759, L13 (2012), arXiv:1204.1523 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  78. [78]

    C. S. Kochanek, R. Khan, and X. Dai, Astrophys. J.759, 20 (2012), arXiv:1208.4111 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  79. [79]

    Fraser, Mon

    M. Fraser, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.456, L16 (2016), arXiv:1507.06579 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    Dall’Ora, M

    M. Dall’Ora, M. T. Botticella, M. L. Pumo, L. Zampieri, L. Tomasella, G. Pignata, A. J. Bayless, T. A. Pritchard, S. Taubenberger, R. Kotak,et al., Astrophys. J.787, 139 (2014), arXiv:1404.1294 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

Showing first 80 references.