Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Stripped-star binaries produce fast blue supernovae.

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 12:16 UTC pith:RGJ4PYWG

load-bearing objection A solid and honest mapping of an already-proposed binary scenario to SCE light curves; the biggest uncertainty is the assumed ~20 km/s CSM velocity, which the authors flag but do not quantify. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19598 v1 pith:RGJ4PYWG submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.HE

Shock cooling emission from late-time mass loss in low-mass He star binaries

Samantha C. Wu , Anthony L. Piro This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw
keywords shock cooling emissionstripped-envelope supernovaeType Ibn supernovaecircumstellar mediumbinary mass transferfast blue optical transientshelium recombination plateaulate-time radio emission
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.

Explosions of low-mass helium stars in binaries are usually expected to be faint and fast. This paper shows that when such a star overflows its Roche lobe in its final months to years before core collapse, it ejects dense helium-rich circumstellar gas, and shock cooling of that gas—followed by shock cooling of the star's extended helium envelope—dominates the supernova light curve. The resulting grid of model light curves spans extremely bright, rapidly evolving events similar to the brightest Type Ibn supernovae (hydrogen-poor SNe interacting with helium-rich surrounding gas), down to dimmer, broader plateaus, and overlaps significantly with fast blue optical transients (rapid, hot, blue, short-lived explosions). If this channel is real, it explains a meaningful fraction of hydrogen-poor interacting supernovae from a single progenitor scenario and makes a testable prediction of bright radio emission rising months to years after the explosion.

Core claim

The central claim is that late-time binary mass transfer in low-mass stripped stars (initial helium cores of roughly 2.5–2.75 solar masses, orbital periods of roughly 30–500 days) creates dense circumstellar material at rates of 10^-3 to 10^-1 solar masses per year in the final months to years before core collapse, with total CSM masses of 10^-3 to 10^-1 solar masses extending to 10^13–10^14 cm. When these progenitors explode, shock cooling emission from the CSM produces a bright, hot, fast-evolving peak that can reach bolometric luminosities above 10^44 erg/s for CSM masses above ~0.1 solar masses; thereafter, shock cooling of the extended helium envelope creates a plateau pinned near 10^4

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a two-phase shock cooling sequence. First, the supernova shock breaks out at the edge of dense CSM built up by late-time binary mass transfer, with CSM density set by the ratio of mass-loss rate to ejection velocity (rho = Mdot / 4π r² v_csm) and the ejection velocity tied to the binary orbital velocity. This produces the early bright peak. Second, as the photosphere recedes into the extended helium envelope, helium recombination near 10^4 K pins the thermalization depth at a constant color temperature, creating a plateau analogous to hydrogen recombination plateaus in Type IIP supernovae. Analytic scalings for plateau duration and luminosity (t_pl ∝ E^-1/4 M^1/2 R^1/6; L_pl

Load-bearing premise

The entire light-curve grid rests on the assumed CSM velocity of about 20 km/s (a fraction of the binary orbital velocity); if the real CSM is moving at the hundreds of km/s implied by narrow-line observations, the CSM would be more diffuse and extended, changing breakout radii, luminosities, and colors.

What would settle it

Measure the flash-ionized narrow-line widths of a Type Ibn SN soon after explosion: line widths of ~100–1000 km/s would contradict the ~20 km/s CSM velocity assumed here and shift the predicted breakout properties. Alternatively, monitor one of the modeled FBOTs at 3 GHz for about a year: the model predicts emission rising above ~10^27 erg/s/Hz at ~1 yr, so a deep non-detection at that epoch would rule out the dense extended CSM from the earlier mass-transfer phase.

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

If this is right

  • If typical, this channel makes a subset of Type Ibn supernovae extremely bright and fast, with shock-cooling peaks above 10^44 erg/s for CSM masses above ~0.1 solar masses.
  • The helium-recombination plateau gives observers a photometric ruler: measuring plateau luminosity and duration, combined with an ejecta-velocity estimate, yields the progenitor's envelope radius and total ejected mass.
  • The same binary evolution predicts dense CSM out to ~10^18 cm from an earlier carbon-burning mass-transfer phase, so these transients should be accompanied by radio emission that rises months to years after optical discovery.
  • The grid's fast, blue, short-timescale properties place many models in the same region of peak-magnitude versus rise-time space as observed fast blue optical transients, suggesting a common origin for some of those events.
  • High-cadence surveys should uncover a population of dimmer, faster-evolving transients corresponding to lower-CSM-mass models that are underrepresented in current Type Ibn samples.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the CSM is accelerated well above the assumed ~20 km/s before the explosion—as narrow emission lines in interacting SNe hint—the breakout radius and SCE peaks would shift toward fainter, longer-lived emission; this is a natural stress test of the grid that could be studied with the same machinery.
  • The helium plateau mechanism suggests a direct analogy between Type IIP hydrogen recombination plateaus and stripped-envelope helium plateaus, implying that scaling relations calibrated on H-rich events could be transferred to H-poor ones.
  • Late-time radio monitoring at ~1 year provides a discriminant: prompt (first ~100 day) radio non-detections are consistent with the model, while rising 3 GHz emission above ~10^27 erg/s/Hz at ~1 year would be a smoking gun for the binary mass-loss channel.
  • The same progenitor channel, extended to tighter orbits or unstable mass transfer, may also produce the fastest FBOTs; whether that extrapolation holds is a testable extension beyond the paper's grid.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models supernovae from low-mass stripped helium stars in binaries (M_He,i = 2.5–2.75 Msun, P_orb = 30–500 d) using MESA binary evolution, converts the late-time mass-loss histories into spherical CSM density profiles, and explodes the resulting progenitors with SNEC. The central results are: (i) shock-cooling emission from the CSM and the extended He envelope dominates the early light curves; (ii) analytic scalings for the He recombination plateau duration, luminosity, and g-band magnitude reproduce the numerical grid; (iii) the model grid overlaps with the brightest/fastest Type Ibn SNe and with a subset of Type Ib/n FBOTs; and (iv) the scenario predicts late-time rising radio emission from interaction with extended CSM. The authors conclude that explosions of low-mass stripped stars in binaries with late-time mass loss may contribute to the observed population of interacting H-poor SNe and FBOTs.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a valuable step toward connecting a specific binary evolutionary channel to the observed diversity of hydrogen-poor interacting SNe. The use of MESA-derived mass-loss histories rather than ad hoc CSM profiles is a clear strength, and the analytic plateau relations (Eqs. 11–15) could be practically useful for interpreting observed light-curve plateaus. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction of late-time radio emission in Section 5.2. The main caveat is that the quantitative light-curve predictions, and hence the FBOT/Type Ibn overlap, are tied to the assumed CSM velocity, which is acknowledged but not varied or quantified. The comparison to individual observed events is also qualitative and uses tuned explosion parameters, so the population-overlap claim should be read as a plausibility argument rather than a unique identification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2 / Eq. (2) / Section 5.4] The CSM velocity assumption is load-bearing but not quantified. The manuscript states v_csm ≈ 20 km/s and acknowledges in Section 5.4 that narrow-line widths in interacting SNe suggest 10^2–10^3 km/s, yet no sensitivity study is given. Since rho ∝ 1/v_csm (Eq. 1) and R_sbo depends on R_d ∝ 1/v_csm (Eqs. 4–5), a tenfold larger v_csm lowers the CSM column and can move the tau=2/3 photosphere inward, reducing the CSM mass actually included in the SNEC grid. This directly affects the M_csm ≳ 0.1 Msun models that drive the Fig. 8 overlap. I request either a v_csm parameter study or analytic estimates showing how t_d, L_SCE, and M_g,pl shift with v_csm, plus a re-assessment of the FBOT/Type Ibn comparison. In addition, f_inf ≈ 0.2 with q ≈ 0.5–0.56 gives v_csm/v_orb,c ≈ 0.35, not the stated 0.42–0.44; the normalization should be reconciled.
  2. [Section 3.3 / Eqs. (11)–(15) / Fig. 4] The analytic plateau scalings are calibrated to the same numerical grid used for the comparison. The constants 12 d, 1.25e41 erg/s, and −13.2/−12.8 mag are fits to the models, so the agreement in Fig. 4 demonstrates internal consistency rather than an independent predictive test. The claim in Section 3.3 that these relations can be used to infer M_sum and R_ej from observations should be framed as a calibrated fitting formula, with the scatter shown in Fig. 4 propagated into the inferred quantities.
  3. [Section 2.3.1 / Section 5.4 / Fig. 8] The color temperature is stated to be an upper limit, but the absolute magnitudes in g and r are computed from T_color via bolometric corrections, and these magnitudes are used in the Fig. 8 FBOT overlap. Appendix A reports that a factor ~2 change in T_color causes g−r changes of ~0.2 mag. This uncertainty should be propagated into the model locus in Fig. 8 before claiming significant overlap with FBOTs; the current discussion is only qualitative.
  4. [Section 4.1 / Figs. 5–7] The per-event comparisons use explosion parameters tuned individually to each observed event (e.g., M_Ni = 0.1 Msun for SN 2019kbj, E_SN = 3e51 erg for iPTF15ul), and the text acknowledges that MOSFiT fits infer different CSM parameters for the same events. This is appropriate for demonstrating plausibility, but the wording in Section 4.2 that the model 'can be observed in nature' is stronger than the by-eye comparisons support. A quantitative goodness-of-fit or at least a more systematic statement of degeneracies would strengthen this claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption labels are confusing: the text refers to the right panel as the g-band plot, while the caption seems to label the right panel as r-band and the left panel as g-band. Please correct so that panel labels match the text.
  2. [Section 4.1 / Fig. 6 caption] The model name is inconsistent for the iPTF14gqr comparison: the text uses M2.75P30 but the Figure 6 caption and a later sentence use M2.72P30. Please verify which model is actually shown.
  3. [Section 4.3] Typo: 'which inclues both' should be 'which includes both.' Also, the footnote marker for ZTF BTS appears as a bare '3' after the URL; format it as a proper footnote.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'a cooler temperature would increase the flux in these bands' seems physically backwards for a fixed bolometric luminosity in the Rayleigh–Jeans limit. Please clarify the intended argument.
  5. [Section 3.1 / Table 1] Table 1 lists R_sbo/R_csm = 1.0 for some models. Since R_sbo < R_csm by definition, please clarify whether these are rounded values or indicate the shock breaks out exactly at the grid edge.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Independent MESA/SNEC light-curve grid; mild in-sample calibration of analytic plateau constants only.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Equations (11)-(13), Figure 4 caption]
    "t_pl = 12 d E^{-1/4}_SN M^{1/2}_sum R^{1/6}_ej ... The analytic predictions are evaluated using the expressions written in each panel."

    The normalization constants (12 d, 1.25e41 erg/s, -13.2/-12.8 mag) are chosen to match the same SNEC numerical grid whose plateau properties they are then said to 'predict'. The 1:1 agreement in Figure 4 is therefore partly forced by construction. The scaling exponents are imported from independent Type IIP recombination theory (Kasen & Woosley 2009), so only the zero-points are fit, and the central light-curve grid plus FBOT comparison do not depend on these calibrated constants.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is self-contained: MESA binary evolution of stripped stars produces mass-loss histories, Equation (1) converts those into CSM density profiles with v_csm from the external SPH calibration of Pejcha et al. (2016), and SNEC explosions of the resulting progenitors generate the light curves. The population comparison in Figure 8 uses a model grid with E_SN and M_Ni varied over literature-motivated ranges, not fitted to the observed events, so the claimed overlap with Type Ib/n SNe and FBOTs is not constructed from those events. Self-citations (Wu & Fuller 2022 for evolution methods, Wu & Tsuna 2025 for radio predictions) are supported by independent calculations in this paper or prior parameter-free work and are not invoked as uniqueness theorems. The main caveats are the uncertain CSM velocity (Section 5.4) and per-event tuning of E_SN and M_Ni in Section 4; these affect robustness but are not definitional circularity. The only in-sample element is the normalization of the analytic plateau scalings in Equations (11)-(15), which is transparently calibrated to the numerical grid and does not bear the weight of the paper's main conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the binary mass-loss history from MESA, the spherical CSM reconstruction, and 1D radiation-hydrodynamic explosion models. Many of these are standard tools, but the load-bearing choices (fully non-conservative transfer, single-velocity spherical CSM, f_inf≈0.2, grey opacities) are taken from prior work or chosen by hand, not derived here.

free parameters (6)
  • M_He,i grid values = 2.51, 2.55, 2.62, 2.65, 2.72, 2.75 M_sun
    Initial helium-star masses chosen by hand to sample the low-mass range that expands and overflows near core collapse; the resulting CSM masses and light-curve diversity depend on this choice.
  • P_orb,i grid values = 30, 100, 300, 400, 500 d
    Initial orbital periods chosen by hand; strongly controls whether late-time mass loss occurs and hence M_csm and R_csm.
  • E_SN (per-model explosion energy) = 1e50 to 3e51 erg
    Varied across the grid; in event comparisons (Sec. 4.1-4.2) E_SN is selected individually to match each observed light curve.
  • M_Ni (56Ni mass) = 0.01 to 0.1 M_sun
    Varied across the grid and tuned per event (e.g., M_Ni=0.1 M_sun for SN 2019kbj) to match the radioactive tail.
  • f_inf CSM velocity normalization = ~0.2
    Sets v_csm ≈ 0.42-0.44 v_orb,c via Eq. (2); directly determines CSM density and radial extent, and is highlighted by the authors as a major uncertainty (Sec. 5.4).
  • Analytic plateau constants (tpl, Lpl, M_g,pl offsets) = 12 d; 1.25e41 erg/s; -13.2/-12.8 mag
    Calibrated to the numerical SNEC models in Fig. 4; Eqs. (11)-(15) therefore describe the model grid rather than providing independent predictions.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption MESA r15140 with the modified Kolb-Ritter implicit mass-transfer scheme tracks the late-stage RLOF mass-loss history of stripped stars.
    The entire CSM construction (Eq. 1) begins from these simulated Mdot histories; if the mass-transfer treatment is wrong, the CSM masses and radii change.
  • domain assumption Mass transfer is fully non-conservative (f_mt=0, beta_mt=1) and mass/angular momentum are lost as a fast wind near the accretor.
    Section 2.1; this assumes the compact companion cannot retain the transferred mass and fixes the amount of mass available to form CSM.
  • domain assumption The ejected CSM is spherically symmetric with rho_csm = Mdot/(4*pi*r^2*v_csm) and a single constant velocity v_csm.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (1); binary mass loss is likely asymmetric, and asymmetry would change the covering fraction and the resulting light curves.
  • domain assumption v_csm follows the SPH L2-outflow scaling of Pejcha et al. (2016) with f_inf ≈ 0.2.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (2); narrow-line CSM velocities in real interacting SNe are ~10^2-10^3 km/s, an order of magnitude higher, so this scaling is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption SNEC 1D radiation hydrodynamics with thermal-bomb explosions, grey Rosseland opacities, and the specified 56Ni mixing/recombination boxcar choices captures the relevant SCE physics.
    Section 2.3; these are numerical modeling choices, not independently verified against multi-dimensional or frequency-dependent radiation transport.
  • domain assumption Photons escape from tau_th=1 and the SED is a single-temperature blackbody at T_color; line blanketing and frequency-dependent absorption are negligible.
    Section 2.3.1 and Appendix A; authors state T_color is likely an upper limit and Planck-mean opacities can exceed Rosseland by an order of magnitude (Sec. 5.4).
  • domain assumption Excising material above the tau=2/3 photosphere does not affect the SCE light curves.
    Section 2.3; this removes potentially observable CSM and is justified only as a numerical convenience.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30227 in / 15148 out tokens · 121360 ms · 2026-08-01T12:16:23.001094+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A subset of hydrogen-poor supernovae (SNe) exhibit signatures of interaction with nearby dense circumstellar material (CSM). These SNe may originate from interacting binary systems, in which the SN progenitor experiences intense mass loss when it overflows its Roche lobe close to core collapse. In this work, we explore the appearance of SNe from low-mass stripped star progenitors in binary systems, for a range of initial orbital periods and masses. We model the CSM based on the stripped stars' mass loss history in binary stellar evolution simulations, then numerically explode the progenitors to calculate the SN light curves. Shock cooling emission (SCE) from the CSM dominates the early light curves, followed by SCE from the extended helium envelopes of the stripped stars, which form helium recombination plateaus. The appearance and properties of our model light curves are reflected in a subset of Type Ib/n SNe from the literature. Some of our models tend to evolve rapidly and are quite hot during SCE, so they may naturally explain some fraction of fast blue optical transients (FBOTs). Since the mass loss history of our binary progenitor models can produce dense CSM out to ~10^18 cm, interaction of this CSM with the SN shock could generate bright late-time radio emission in the years after the optical SN. Searching for late time rising radio emission from FBOTs could be used to test which events are explained by the scenario we explore here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19598 by Anthony L. Piro, Samantha C. Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Model density profiles. The top panel shows models with Porb,i = 300 d, along with Porb,i = 400 d and Porb,i = 500 d for the MHe,i = 2.51 M⊙ model. The middle panel shows the models with Porb,i = 100 d, and the bottom panel shows models with Porb,i = 30 d. The colors of each profile indicate the mass of the CSM, as indicated in the color bar. Note the different color bar scaling for the Porb,i = 30 d model… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Model light curves for explosion parameters of ESN = 1051 erg, MNi = 0.05 M⊙ in the top row, and explosion parameters of ESN = 3 × 1050 erg, MNi = 0.01 M⊙ in the bottom row. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Color temperature evolution in the M2.75P300 model at ESN = 3×1050 erg, MNi = 0.01 M⊙. Helium recom￾bination during the shock cooling emission of the extended He envelope causes an opacity jump that sets the thermaliza￾tion depth at a constant color temperature. Once the helium has mostly recombined, the temperature declines. where tpl ∝ E −1/4 SN comes from the revised scaling in D. Kasen & S. E. Woosley … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy of the analytic scalings in Equations (9) and (10) compared with the SCE plateau in the numerical models. From top to bottom, we show the plateau duration, the bolometric plateau luminosity, and an estimate of the g-band absolute magnitude. The analytic predictions are evaluated using the expressions written in each panel. Colors represent Mcsm, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the M2.51P400 model with the inferred bolometric luminosity for SN 2019kbj, a Type Ibn SN (T. Ben-Ami et al. 2023). The model is shown for two choices of the explosion energy ESN and 56Ni mass MNi as listed in the legend, and the observed data is shown as black scatter points. 0 5 10 15 20 Time (d) 10 42 10 43 10 44 Bolometric Luminosity (erg/s) ESN =10 51 erg, MNi =0.05M ESN =1.5×10 51 erg, … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the M2.72P30 model with the inferred bolometric luminosity for iPTF14gqr, an ultra- -stripped SN (K. De et al. 2018). The model is shown for two choices of the explosion energy ESN and 56Ni mass MNi as listed in the legend, and the observed data is shown as black scatter points. ond bump in the observed light curve could potentially be imitated by He SCE as well. However, iPTF14gqr was classi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the absolute magnitude in different bands for a selection of models and observed H-poor SNe. Observed data are scatter points, with upper limits indicated by upside-down triangles and colors denoting each band as listed in the legend. The models are shown as lines with the same colors for each observed band as the scatter points. Top left: iPTF15ul (G. Hosseinzadeh et al. 2017) with model M2.… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Right: The peak r-band absolute magnitude versus the time above half-max in the r-band, shown for all models with varying explosion energy. Different explosion energies are denoted by distinct scatter point shapes: squares are models with ESN = 1050 erg, plus signs are ESN = 3 × 1050 erg, circles are ESN = 1051 erg, and crosses are ESN = 3 × 1051 erg. The orbital period of each model is also denoted by the… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the color temperature to the effective temperature in M2.75P100. Throughout the evolution out to ∼ 25 d, the color temperature as calculated with the methods of Section 2.3.1 ranges between 1.2–2 times larger than the effective temperature. Much of the difference occurs because the color temperature remains fairly constant during the He envelope shock cooling emission phase, due to the increa… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The relationship between the assumed blackbody color temperature and the inferred g − r color for the bolometric correction methods in SNEC. and declines more rapidly. The color temperature remains quite constant because the location of the thermalization depth is set by a jump in opacity due to He recombination, which takes place at ∼ 104 K – this sets the color temperature until the entire He envelope r… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Model light curves for MNi = 0.05 M⊙, with varying ESN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Model light curves for ESN = 1051 erg, with varying MNi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.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

76 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5638

    Aspegren, O., & Kasen, D. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5638

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5638 2026

  2. [2]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb432

    Ben-Ami, T., Arcavi, I., Newsome, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb432

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb432 2023

  4. [4]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 1132, doi: 10.1086/308588

    Iwamoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1132, doi: 10.1086/308588

    doi:10.1086/308588 2000

  5. [5]

    I., & Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., & Bartunov, O. S. 2011, STELLA: Multi-group Radiation Hydrodynamics Code,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.013 http://ascl.net/1108.013

    2011

  6. [6]

    I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V. A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454, doi: 10.1086/305375

    doi:10.1086/305375 1998

  7. [7]

    I., R¨ opke, F

    Blinnikov, S. I., R¨ opke, F. K., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054594

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054594 2006

  8. [8]

    2024, ApJL, 964, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, ApJL, 964, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e 2024

  9. [9]

    A., & Irwin, C

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

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

  10. [10]

    Chiba, R., & Moriya, T. J. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1382

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1382 2025

  11. [11]

    M., Ofek, E

    De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 201, doi: 10.1126/science.aas8693

    doi:10.1126/science.aas8693 2018

  12. [12]

    J., Livne, E., et al

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Livne, E., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18598.x

    arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    2022, A&A, 658, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142436

    Dessart, L., John Hillier, D., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2022, A&A, 658, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142436

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142436 2022

  14. [14]

    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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038763 2020

  15. [15]

    Dewi, J. D. M., & Pols, O. R. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 629, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06844.x

    arXiv 2003

  16. [16]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    Dong, Y., Tsuna, D., Valenti, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6 2024

  17. [17]

    M., & Woosley, S

    Ensman, L. M., & Woosley, S. E. 1988, ApJ, 333, 754, doi: 10.1086/166785

    doi:10.1086/166785 1988

  18. [18]

    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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453426 2025

  19. [19]

    A., et al

    Farias, D., Gall, C., Villar, V. A., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555954

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555954 2026

  20. [20]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471, doi: 10.1038/nature13304

    doi:10.1038/nature13304 2014

  21. [21]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6187

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6187

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6187 2022

  22. [22]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab761 2018

  23. [23]

    Haynie, A., & Piro, A. L. 2021, ApJ, 910, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe938

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe938 2021

  24. [24]

    Haynie, A., & Piro, A. L. 2023, ApJ, 956, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf844

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf844 2023

  25. [25]

    C., Piro, A

    Haynie, A., Wu, S. C., Piro, A. L., & Fuller, J. 2025, ApJ, 987, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addc72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addc72 2025

  26. [26]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bcf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bcf 2020

  27. [27]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.08811. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08811

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc533 2023

  29. [29]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Arcavi, I., Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Margutti, R., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e66

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158 2017

  30. [30]

    Jin, H., Yoon, S.-C., & Blinnikov, S. 2023, ApJ, 950, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf0d 21 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (d) 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 Bolometric Luminosity (erg/s) ESN = 3 × 1051 erg M2.51P400 M2.51P500 M2.51P300 M2.55P300 M2.62P300 M2.65P300 M2.72P300 M2.75P300 10 3 10 2 10 1 Mcsm (M ) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (d) 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 ...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf0d 2023

  31. [31]

    Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2205, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2205

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/2205 2009

  32. [32]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2019, ApJ, 878, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f09

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f09 2019

  33. [33]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0 2024

  34. [34]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/3

    Khazov, D., Yaron, O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/3

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/3 2016

  35. [35]

    Kleiser, I. K. W., & Kasen, D. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2191

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2191 2014

  36. [36]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    1990

  37. [37]

    2020, A&A, 637, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300

    Farmer, R. 2020, A&A, 637, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937300 2020

  38. [38]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.00847

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.00847. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.00847

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    D., Bersier, D., James, P

    Lyman, J. D., Bersier, D., James, P. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2983

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2983 2016

  40. [40]

    C., & Stone, J

    MacLeod, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, 868, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae9eb 2018

  41. [41]

    Maeda, K., & Moriya, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672 2022

  42. [42]

    H., Abdallah, Jr., J., Clark, R

    Magee, N. H., Abdallah, Jr., J., Clark, R. E. H., et al. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 78, Astrophysical Applications of Powerful New Databases, ed. S. J. Adelman & W. L. Wiese, 51

    1995

  43. [43]

    Marchant, P., Pappas, K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039992

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039992 2021

  44. [44]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/63

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/63 2015

  45. [45]

    L., & Valenti, S

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., & Valenti, S. 2018, ApJ, 858, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a6 2018

  46. [46]

    Nakar, E., & Piro, A. L. 2014, ApJ, 788, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/193

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/193 2014

  47. [47]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13602.x

    Pastorello, A., Mattila, S., Zampieri, L., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13602.x

    arXiv 2008

  48. [48]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  49. [49]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  50. [50]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  51. [51]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  52. [52]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  53. [53]

    D., & Tomida, K

    Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., & Tomida, K. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1481

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1481 2016

  54. [55]

    A., Vink´ o, J., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 926, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63

  55. [56]

    A., Terreran, G., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Terreran, G., et al. 2022c, ApJ, 938, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff6

  56. [57]

    A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98 2020

  57. [58]

    L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y

    Piro, A. L., Haynie, A., & Yao, Y. 2021, ApJ, 909, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2b1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2b1 2021

  58. [59]

    Popov, D. V. 1993, ApJ, 414, 712, doi: 10.1086/173117

    doi:10.1086/173117 1993

  59. [60]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 3853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2289

    Rose, K., Horesh, A., Murphy, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2289

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2289 2024

  60. [61]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704 2024

  61. [62]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith, N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 403, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 38

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

  62. [63]

    C., Terreran, G., Coppejans, D

    Stroh, M. C., Terreran, G., Coppejans, D. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac375e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac375e 2021

  63. [64]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd032

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd032 2021

  64. [65]

    D., Bersten, M., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Bersten, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730844

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730844 2018

  65. [66]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60fe

    Takei, Y., Tsuna, D., Kuriyama, N., Ko, T., & Shigeyama, T. 2022, ApJ, 929, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60fe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac60fe 2022

  66. [67]

    M., Langer, N., Moriya, T

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 778, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/2/L23

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/2/l23 2013

  67. [68]

    M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv990

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv990 2015

  68. [69]

    Tsuna, D., Murase, K., & Moriya, T. J. 2023, ApJ, 952, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb71

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdb71 2023

  69. [70]

    C., Fuller, J., Dong, Y., & Piro, A

    Tsuna, D., Wu, S. C., Fuller, J., Dong, Y., & Piro, A. L. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 82, doi: 10.33232/001c.123897

    doi:10.33232/001c.123897 2024

  70. [71]

    2025, A&A, 700, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554768

    Wang, Z.-Y., Pastorello, A., Cai, Y.-Z., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554768

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554768 2025

  71. [72]

    C., & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. C., & Fuller, J. 2022, ApJL, 940, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b3d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b3d 2022

  72. [73]

    C., & Tsuna, D

    Wu, S. C., & Tsuna, D. 2025, ApJ, 994, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae113c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae113c 2025

  73. [74]

    2023, ApJL, 959, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0cc3

    Yan, S., Wang, X., Gao, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0cc3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0cc3 2023

  74. [75]

    M., et al

    Yao, Y., De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa3d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaa3d 2020

  75. [76]

    C., Woosley, S

    Yoon, S. C., Woosley, S. E., & Langer, N. 2010, ApJ, 725, 940, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/940

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/940 2010

  76. [77]

    E., Van Dyk, S

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7467

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7467 2017