Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 105 references

SN 2010jl formed at least 0.2 solar masses of dust within 13 years, JWST data show.

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 07:23 UTC pith:NNNNPHID

load-bearing objection New JWST MIR data at 13 yr give a compelling case for >0.1 Msun of dust in SN 2010jl, but the favored optically thick model is not self-consistent and the 0.2 Msun headline needs a cooler component that the paper does not actually fit. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27468 v1 pith:NNNNPHID submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.HE

JWST Spectra Indicate a Large Mass of Postshock Dust Formed by SN 2010jl

Nathan Smith , Melissa Shahbandeh , Ori D. Fox , Thomas Moore , Jennifer E. Andrews , Thomas G. Brink , Eli Dwek , Michael Engesser
show 17 more authors
Alexei V. Filippenko Bryony Nickson Tea Temim Yi Yang WeiKang Zheng Chris Ashall Raphael Baer-Way Geoffrey C. Clayton Jacob E. Jencson Joel Johansson Zachary G. Lane Dan Milisavljevic Armin Rest Arkaprabha Sarangi Tamas Szalai Schuyler D. Van Dyk Brian J. Williams
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords Type IIn supernovaesupernova dust formationcircumstellar mediumpost-shock cold dense shellmid-infrared spectroscopyJWST MIRIblueshifted line profilesinterstellar dust budget
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 establishes that the superluminous Type IIn supernova SN 2010jl has produced a large mass of dust — at least 0.11 solar masses and probably 0.2 solar masses or more — by 13 years after explosion. The evidence combines JWST mid-infrared spectra, which show a strong warm-dust continuum with broad silicate features, with optical spectra taken 7–11 years after explosion that still show H-alpha emission with the redshifted side completely missing. That persistent blueshift places the dust in the cold dense shell formed between the forward and reverse shocks, not in the freely expanding ejecta or the pre-existing circumstellar medium. Because this dust is already behind the shocks, most of it should survive to reach the interstellar medium, making strongly interacting supernovae unusually efficient contributors to cosmic dust. If such events were more common in the early universe, they could help explain the dust seen in infant galaxies.

Core claim

The central result is a dust mass of about 0.2 solar masses, with a firm lower limit of 0.11 solar masses, at roughly 13 years post-explosion. The JWST mid-infrared spectrum is best described as a warm, optically thick ~318 K blackbody source (minimum radius 7×10^16 cm, requiring more than 0.1 solar masses of silicate dust) plus cooler (<230 K) absorbing silicate dust along the line of sight (adding more than 0.014 solar masses). The dust mass has grown by a factor of about 80 since day 868 and matches earlier projections based on SN 1987A. The paper argues this is newly formed post-shock dust in the cold dense shell, not an infrared echo, because the blueshifted intermediate-width line prof

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is dust condensation in the cold dense shell (CDS), the thin, radiatively cooled layer between the forward and reverse shocks in a strongly interacting supernova. The mass estimate rests on a blackbody-geometry identity: for optically thick emission at radius R_BB, the minimum dust mass is Md ≥ 4πR_BB²/κ, and for the absorbing silicate shell, Md ≈ 4πR_abs²τ/κ. The line-profile diagnostic — blueshifted intermediate-width emission with absent redshifted wings persisting to day 4137 — is what locates that dust in the CDS rather than in the ejecta or pre-shock circumstellar medium. The paper also invokes a bipolar circumstellar geometry to explain how cool absorbing dust ca

Load-bearing premise

The mass estimate assumes the warm 318 K dust is optically thick at all mid-infrared wavelengths and fills a sphere of radius 7×10^16 cm; if it is partially transparent, clumpy, or has a different covering fraction — or if the uncertain 20–25 µm continuum is not as bright as adopted — the derived dust mass changes substantially.

What would settle it

Mid-infrared imaging at 20–25 µm, which the paper notes was not obtained, would settle the cool-dust contribution: if that flux proves to be largely background or much fainter than the adopted extraction, the 0.11 solar-mass lower limit would need to fall. Alternatively, if the 9.7 µm silicate feature evolves from absorption into emission as the warm component fades over the next few years, the optically-thick-plus-absorbing-foreground model would be ruled out.

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

If this is right

  • SN 2010jl's dust mass has grown roughly 80-fold since day 868 and is on track to reach about 1 solar mass within another decade, comparable to SN 1987A's final dust mass.
  • Because the observed dust lies in the post-shock cold dense shell, it is already behind the forward and reverse shocks and will mostly survive; by contrast, a large fraction of ejecta dust in normal supernovae is destroyed by the reverse shock.
  • Even though Type IIn supernovae are less than about 10 percent of core-collapse events, their combination of large mass and high survival makes their dust contribution competitive — comparable to normal supernovae if only about 20 percent of normal ejecta dust survives.
  • The three largest mid-infrared dust masses measured in extragalactic supernovae are all Type IIn events, suggesting that ongoing shock interaction both produces dust and keeps it warm enough to detect for decades.
  • If strongly interacting supernovae were more common in the low-metallicity early universe, they could be a significant source of the dust seen in infant galaxies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the warm emitting dust is clumpy rather than a smooth sphere, the true mass is likely larger than 0.2 solar masses — clumpiness lowers the surface area per unit mass, so the blackbody-radius estimate acts as a floor.
  • Inference: The model predicts that late-time JWST spectra of Type IIn supernovae viewed at high inclination should show similar 9.7 and 18–25 µm silicate absorption; a small survey could test how common this geometry is.
  • Inference: The survival argument implies a testable host-galaxy signature: galaxies with many Type IIn supernovae should show interstellar dust enriched in shock-swept refractory elements, possibly with grain size distributions skewed larger than the typical Milky Way mix.
  • Inference: If the dust continues growing toward about 1 solar mass, most of the new material should be cooler and emit in the far-infrared and submillimeter; observations in another decade could catch that shift, directly checking the growth trajectory.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST/MIRI MRS spectroscopy (4.9–27.9 µm) and new Keck/LRIS and MMT optical spectra of the lingering source at the position of SN 2010jl, a nearby superluminous Type IIn supernova, observed ~13 yr after explosion. The MIR spectrum rises from 5 to 17 µm and then levels off, with broad 10–15 µm features. The authors model the dust as either optically thin emission from carbon/silicate/alumina components or as an optically thick 318 K blackbody with foreground silicate absorption, and derive a minimum dust mass of >0.11 M⊙ and a favored value of ~0.2 M⊙ or more. They use the persistent blueshifted, red-wing-deficient Hα, [O i], and [Ca ii] profiles to argue that the obscuring dust resides in the post-shock cold dense shell, and they interpret the MIR absorption as cool dust in the inner ejecta or the bipolar CSM shell. The paper concludes that strongly interacting SNe can produce large, likely surviving dust masses with implications for high-redshift dust enrichment.

Significance. If the mass estimate holds, this is among the largest SN-produced dust masses yet measured from mid-IR data alone, comparable to recent JWST results for other SNe IIn, and it strengthens the case that post-shock dust formation in strongly interacting SNe is an efficient and survivable dust-production channel. The new late-time optical spectra provide a rare, long-baseline confirmation that the blueshifted line asymmetry persists after the optical continuum has faded, which is strong evidence for dust in the post-shock region. The paper is also methodologically transparent: it compares multiple background-subtraction strategies for the MRS data, presents several compositional models, and explicitly states where the data or model assumptions are weak (e.g., the uncertain 20–25 µm continuum and the deferred detailed modeling in Dwek et al., in prep.). These strengths make the paper a valuable data contribution even where the quantitative mass estimate requires further scrutiny.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.2, Fig. 8] The favored optically thick model is not self-consistent as presented. The observed spectrum rises in Fν from 5 to 17 µm and then levels off, whereas a single 318 K blackbody in Fν falls by roughly an order of magnitude between 5 and 17 µm (in Fλ it peaks near 9.1 µm and declines thereafter). Foreground silicate absorption can only reduce the flux further. Because the inferred R_BB = 7×10^16 cm and the warm-component minimum mass Md > 0.1 M⊙ are derived from the luminosity of this 318 K blackbody, the numerical estimate is not anchored to the observed SED unless an additional cool emitting component is included and fitted. Please present a self-consistent multi-temperature optically thick fit to the full spectrum, or explicitly state that the 318 K component is only a warm subset and justify how its radius and mass are constrained.
  2. [§3.3.1, §3.4] The statement that 'regardless of the specific interpretation... a total dust mass of roughly 0.2 M⊙ or more is required' overreaches relative to the models shown. The optically thin models in Fig. 7 give 0.14 M⊙ for the single carbon component and up to 0.29 M⊙ for the two-carbon model, and the authors themselves describe these fits as not reproducing the detailed spectral features. The 0.2 M⊙ 'more likely' value therefore rests almost entirely on the optically thick scenario, whose self-consistency is questioned above. The robust conclusion at present is a model-dependent lower limit of order 0.1–0.15 M⊙; the 0.2 M⊙ value should be presented as a plausible but not yet demonstrated consequence of the optically thick interpretation.
  3. [§2.1, Fig. 3] The 20–25 µm flux anchors the cool dust component and contributes strongly to the derived masses in all models, yet it is the least reliable part of the spectrum. The three background-subtraction methods differ substantially at 20–25 µm, and the paper adopts the lowest ('pixel method') as a robust lower limit. The sensitivity of the reported masses — especially Md > 0.014 M⊙ for the cool absorbing silicate component and the 0.14–0.29 M⊙ cool optically thin components — to this choice is not quantified. A propagation of the background-subtraction uncertainty into the mass estimates should be added, even if only as a table of values for the three reductions.
  4. [§4.2] The silicate-absorption interpretation requires an ad hoc bipolar geometry with a high inclination (i ≳ 50°) and a cool absorbing component located either in the inner ejecta or in a detached CSM shell. The paper correctly notes that a large pre-existing CSM column would conflict with the low early-time visual extinction, but it does not demonstrate quantitatively that the proposed geometry simultaneously reproduces the 9.7 µm optical depth (τ ≈ 0.4), the 18–25 µm absorption, the dilution by unabsorbed near-side emission, and the absence of strong early-time reddening. Since the favored mass estimate depends on this geometry, a simple consistency check (covering factor, column density, and early-time extinction) is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] Typo: 'SN 20210jl' should be 'SN 2010jl'.
  2. [§4.3] Typo: 'teh trajectory' should be 'the trajectory'.
  3. [Fig. 8] The caption should clarify whether the red curve is the absorbing-dust opacity, the foreground silicate transmission, or the final absorbed model. If a final model is shown, it should be overplotted on the data explicitly.
  4. [§3.3] The cross-references to 'Section 3.2.1' and 'Section 3.2.2' in the introduction of §3.3 appear to be mis-numbered; the subsections are 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
  5. [§3.3.2] The derivation of the absorbing mass uses approximate numerical factors (Md ≥ 0.004 (R_abs/R_BB)^2 M⊙ and R_abs/R_BB > 1.9). Please define the assumed shell geometry and the exact opacity values so the reader can reproduce the 0.014 M⊙ figure.
  6. [§1] The phrase 'Saganian wisdom aside' in §3.1 is informal for a journal article; consider replacing it with a neutral sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dust-mass estimate is a forward calculation from observed flux, an assumed distance, and literature opacities; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central result — a minimum dust mass of >0.11 Msun and a likely value of 0.2 Msun — is derived from the observed JWST/MIRI SED through standard formulae: a 318 K blackbody fit gives R_BB = 7e16 cm, and the mass follows from Md >= 4*pi*R_BB^2/kappa, with kappa taken from external opacity references (Sarangi 2022; Draine & Li 2007; Zubko et al. 2004). Similarly, the cooler absorbing component uses the measured 9.7 micron optical depth tau ~ 0.4 and Md ~ 4*pi*R_abs^2*tau/kappa. No parameter fitted to the data is reused to define the target result; the conversion from flux and optical depth to mass is a forward model-dependent estimate. The optically thin fits do include dust mass as a free parameter, but the paper explicitly labels those as fits and uses them only as internal consistency checks or lower limits, not as independent predictions. The location claim that the dust is in the post-shock CDS rests on new late-time blueshifted H-alpha data and is supported by the independent radiative-transfer modeling of Dessart et al. (2015), so it does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The paper acknowledges real limitations — e.g., the 20-25 micron background subtraction uncertainty in Section 2.1 and the geometric difficulty of the emission+absorption model in Section 3.3.2 — but those affect model robustness and correctness risk, not circularity. No step in the derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The mass estimate rests on a small number of fitted dust temperatures/masses plus adopted opacities and geometry. No fundamentally new physical entities are proposed; the bipolar CSM shell and inner-ejecta absorbing dust are geometrical interpretations of known components rather than new particles or forces.

free parameters (5)
  • Dust component temperatures in optically thin fits = 191 K, 166 K, 358 K (carbon); 192 K (silicate); 209-246 K (alumina)
    Temperatures are free parameters fitted to the MIR SED (Fig. 7) and control the derived dust masses.
  • Dust mass per component in optically thin fits = 0.0012-0.29 M_sun depending on model
    Mass is the fitted normalization of each model component; the reported 0.2 M_sun is a synthesis across models rather than a single best fit.
  • Warm blackbody temperature in optically thick model = 318 K
    Chosen to reproduce the 5-17 um continuum; the emitting radius R_BB then follows from the assumed blackbody luminosity.
  • Cool foreground silicate temperature and optical depth at 9.7 um = <=230 K; tau ~ 0.4
    Adopted to produce the observed silicate absorption features; the absorbing mass scales as (R_abs/R_BB)^2, introducing geometric freedom.
  • Grain size of absorbing silicates = a ~ 0.1 um
    Assumed in the Fig. 8 absorption model; the opacity kappa depends on grain size, so this choice directly affects the derived mass.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The MIR flux is dominated by thermal dust emission.
    Stated at the start of Section 3.3; no non-thermal or synchrotron contribution is considered.
  • domain assumption Adopted dust opacities (Draine & Li 2007; Zubko et al. 2004; Sarangi 2022) represent SN/CSM dust.
    The mass estimates scale inversely with kappa; if SN-condensed grains have different optical properties, the masses change.
  • domain assumption Distance to SN 2010jl is ~49 Mpc and foreground reddening is E(B-V)=0.027 mag.
    Taken from Smith et al. (2011b) and used for flux-to-luminosity conversion and extinction correction.
  • ad hoc to paper The warm emitting dust is optically thick at all MIR wavelengths in the favored scenario.
    Needed to justify Md >= 4*pi*R_BB^2/kappa; if tau < 1 at 7-8 um, the blackbody-radius argument fails, though optically thin fits also give ~0.15-0.3 M_sun.
  • ad hoc to paper A bipolar CSM geometry with an equatorial waist and high inclination (i ~ 50 deg) is required for the absorption scenario.
    Introduced to reconcile cool silicate absorption along the line of sight with low early-time reddening; the paper itself notes the main difficulty is making the geometry work.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 33058 in / 11509 out tokens · 112187 ms · 2026-08-01T07:23:48.019000+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present new JWST mid-IR spectra and ground-based optical spectra of the lingering source at the position of SN 2010jl, which was a relatively nearby superluminous Type IIn supernova having strong interaction with circumstellar material (CSM). Early-time data showed evidence of dust, interpreted as either pre-existing CSM dust, or as newly formed dust in the SN ejecta and post-shock region. At 13 yr post explosion, JWST reveals a strong MIR excess from warm dust, with broad features at 10-15 $\mu$m. Our analysis reveals a minimum dust mass of $>$0.11 $M_{\odot}$, and a more likely value of 0.2 $M_{\odot}$ or more because the dust is optically thick. This is among the largest masses of SN-produced dust yet measured without far-IR/submm data, and greatly exceeds SN 2010jl's dust mass inferred around 2-3 yr post-explosion. Ground-based optical spectra confirm the presence of a young massive cluster at the SN position, and confirm that blueshifted line profiles persisting until the latest epochs arise from dust formed in the post-shock region. The warmest dust emitting in the MIR is likely to be the same post-shock dust causing the blueshift. The JWST spectrum also reveals silicate absorption, which may arise from cool SN ejecta dust along the line of sight to the receding shock. The large mass of post-shock dust in SN 2010jl suggests that strong CSM interaction promotes efficient dust production, where the new post-shock dust will survive. If strongly interacting SNe are common in the early Universe, this may contribute significantly to dust seen in infant galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27468 by Alexei V. Filippenko, Arkaprabha Sarangi, Armin Rest, Brian J. Williams, Bryony Nickson, Chris Ashall, Dan Milisavljevic, Eli Dwek, Geoffrey C. Clayton, Jacob E. Jencson, Jennifer E. Andrews, Joel Johansson, Melissa Shahbandeh, Michael Engesser, Nathan Smith, Ori D. Fox, Raphael Baer-Way, Schuyler D. Van Dyk, Tamas Szalai, Tea Temim, Thomas G. Brink, Thomas Moore, Weikang Zheng, Yi Yang, Zachary G. Lane.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Images of the field around SN 2010jl. The left panel shows a composite color HST/WFC3 UVIS image (blue = F336W, green = F336W+F814W, red = F814W) for reference. The right panel displays the same field in a color image made from the JWST/MIRI MRS data cube (blue = 5.8–10 µm, green = 10–15 µm, red = 15–25.6 µm). Examples of images made from the MIRI cube (program GO-1860; PI O. Fox) are also shown below in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Input data, fitted background model, and background subtracted data from AstroBkgInterp for four wavelength elements of the SN 2010jl MRS cube. The color bar corresponds to the flux in Jy of the background-subtracted panels. For these observations, it is necessary to subtract both the global thermal background and local galaxy back￾ground. The global thermal background is roughly 10– 40 times larger than t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panel: Examples of different reductions of the MIRI spectrum of SN 2010jl using three different background￾subtraction methods (see text). All three agree well at wavelengths shorter than 20 µm, but differences in method cause variations in the source flux in the range 20–25 µm. Our favored method of background subtraction (black spectrum) yields a lower 20–25 µm flux, and is used in the analysis below… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Late-time (day 4137) Keck/LRIS spectrum of the source at the position of SN 2010jl. The top panel shows the original flux-calibrated spectrum on a log flux scale. Several emission lines (mostly unresolved narrow emission from a coincident H ii region) are identified in green. For comparison, the red spectrum is the same Starburst99 (S99) model (Leitherer et al. 1999) for a 6 Myr cluster that was matched to… 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: Line profiles for shock-broadened emission in the optical spectra. The top panel shows [O i] and [Ca ii] in the day 4137 Keck spectrum in blue and orange, respectively, and the [O i] profile in the day 2607 MMT spectrum in black. Note that both [O i] and [Ca ii] are doublets; in both cases we set v = 0 to be the shorter-wavelength line in each doublet. The gray shaded regions show Gaussians with FWHM = 260… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The MIR spectrum of SN 2010jl obtained with JWST/MIRI (light-gray) is the same as the black spectrum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An alternative way to interpret the features in the observed JWST spectrum (gray), where a 318 K blackbody source (black) experiences absorption along the line of sight arising from cooler silicate dust (red), shown here with a maximum temperature of roughly 230 K and a grain size of 0.1 µm. continuum source produces a warm ∼318 K blackbody spectrum (black curve), and then the cooler (≲230 K in this exampl… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The dust mass in SN 2010jl as a function of the epoch of MIR observations compared to other SNe with estimated dust masses in the literature. Most of these come from MIR observations with Spitzer and WISE, or with JWST (outlined by gold hexagonal segments). A few were estimated from blueshifted line profiles (LP), or in the special case of SN 1987A, from a variety of observations including far-IR/submm dat… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A sketch showing a side view of a possible CSM interaction geometry at early times during the main light￾curve peak (top panel a), and at a late epoch appropriate to the JWST observations reported here (bottom panel b). The blue feature is a pre-exiting bipolar CSM shell, the thick red arcs are the main CSM interaction shock in the equatorial region, and the red long-dash curves represent the forward shoc… 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

105 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    E., Gallagher, J

    Andrews, J. E., Gallagher, J. S., Clayton, G. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 541, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/541

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/1/541 2010

  2. [2]

    E., Clayton, G

    Andrews, J. E., Clayton, G. C., Wesson, R., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/45

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/2/45 2011

  3. [3]

    R., et al

    Argyriou, I., Glasse, A., Law, D. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346489

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346489 2023

  4. [4]

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

    Arnett, D. 1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter from the Big Bang to the Present (Princeton U. Press) Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 1...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  5. [5]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

    Baer-Way, R., Chandra, P., Modjaz, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc00a 2025

  6. [6]

    R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa255

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255 2020

  7. [7]

    R., & Smith, N

    Beasor, E. R., & Smith, N. 2022, ApJ, 933, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dcf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dcf 2022

  8. [8]

    L., Cox, P., et al

    Bertoldi, F., Carilli, C. L., Cox, P., et al. 2003, A&A, 406, L55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030710

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030710 2003

  9. [9]

    J., et al

    Bevan, A., Wesson, R., Barlow, M. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz679

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz679 2019

  10. [10]

    M., Krafton, K., Wesson, R., et al

    Bevan, A. M., Krafton, K., Wesson, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86a2 JWST Observations of Dust in SN 2010jl 23

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab86a2 2020

  11. [11]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 973, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11829.x

    Bianchi, S., & Schneider, R. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 973, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11829.x

    arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    Multi-Epoch Spectropolarimetry for a Sample of Type IIn Supernovae: Persistent Asymmetry in Dusty Circumstellar Material

    Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Williams, G. G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.13034, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.13034

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.13034 2023

  13. [13]

    2016, A&A, 589, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527769

    Biscaro, C., & Cherchneff, I. 2016, A&A, 589, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527769

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527769 2016

  14. [14]

    2016, A&A, 587, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527432

    Bocchio, M., Marassi, S., Schneider, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527432

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527432 2016

  15. [15]

    J., Huang, C., Chevalier, R

    Borish, H. J., Huang, C., Chevalier, R. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/7

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/7 2015

  16. [16]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7229890

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7229890

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7229890 2022

  17. [17]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.14.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10870758

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.14.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10870758

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.10870758 2024

  18. [18]

    2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 318, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 2024

  19. [19]

    Chugai, N. N. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1448, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2001.04717.x —. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2386

    arXiv 2001

  20. [20]

    N., Blinnikov, S

    Chugai, N. N., Blinnikov, S. I., Cumming, R. J., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1213, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08011.x

    arXiv 2004

  21. [21]

    C., Wesson, R., Fox, O

    Clayton, G. C., Wesson, R., Fox, O. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc72

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfc72 2025

  22. [22]

    Colgan, S. W. J., Haas, M. R., Erickson, E. F., Lord, S. D., & Hollenbach, D. J. 1994, ApJ, 427, 874, doi: 10.1086/174193

    work page doi:10.1086/174193 1994

  23. [23]

    J., Gouiffes, C., Bouchet, P., & Lucy, L

    Danziger, I. J., Gouiffes, C., Bouchet, P., & Lucy, L. B. 1989, IAUC, 4746, 1

    1989

  24. [24]

    Dessart, L., Audit, E., & Hillier, D. J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv609 Di Carlo, E., Corsi, C., Arkharov, A. A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 471, doi: 10.1086/590051

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv609 2015

  25. [25]

    E., et al

    Dickinson, D., Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3631

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3631 2024

  26. [26]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, \apj, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    doi:10.1086/511055 2007

  27. [27]

    2003a, Nature, 424, 285, doi: 10.1038/nature01792

    Dunne, L., Eales, S., Ivison, R., Morgan, H., & Edmunds, M. 2003a, Nature, 424, 285, doi: 10.1038/nature01792

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01792

  28. [28]

    A., & Edmunds, M

    Dunne, L., Eales, S. A., & Edmunds, M. G. 2003b, MNRAS, 341, 589, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06440.x

    arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

    Dwek, E., Sarangi, A., & Arendt, R. G. 2019, ApJL, 871, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf9a8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf9a8 2019

  30. [30]

    G., et al

    Dwek, E., Sarangi, A., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ea

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ea 2021

  31. [31]

    G., Fox, O

    Dwek, E., Arendt, R. G., Fox, O. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8665

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8665 2017

  32. [32]

    D., Benetti, S., et al

    Elias-Rosa, N., Van Dyk, S. D., Benetti, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac510

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac510 2018

  33. [33]

    J., & Sugerman, B

    Ercolano, B., Barlow, M. J., & Sugerman, B. E. K. 2007, Monthly Notices RAS, 375, 753, doi: 10.1111/mnr.2007.375.issue-3

    work page doi:10.1111/mnr.2007.375.issue-3 2007

  34. [34]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1982, PASP, 94, 715, doi: 10.1086/131052

    doi:10.1086/131052 1982

  35. [35]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Dwek, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1768, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1768

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1768 2010

  36. [36]

    D., Filippenko, A

    Fox, O. D., Filippenko, A. V., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/2

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/2 2013

  37. [37]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/7

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/7 2011

  38. [38]

    D., Van Dyk, S

    Fox, O. D., Van Dyk, S. D., Dwek, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/222

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/222 2017

  39. [39]

    D., Fransson, C., Smith, N., et al

    Fox, O. D., Fransson, C., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2324

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2324 2020

  40. [40]

    J., et al

    Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/118 2014

  41. [41]

    2014, Nature, 511, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature13558

    Gall, C., Hjorth, J., Watson, D., et al. 2014, Nature, 511, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature13558

    doi:10.1038/nature13558 2014

  42. [42]

    D., & Ney, E

    Gehrz, R. D., & Ney, E. P. 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 84, 6961, doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.20.6961 —. 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 87, 4354, doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.11.4354

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.84.20.6961 1987

  43. [43]

    L., Fesen, R

    Gerardy, C. L., Fesen, R. A., Nomoto, K., et al. 2002, ApJ, 575, 1007, doi: 10.1086/341430

    doi:10.1086/341430 2002

  44. [44]

    A., Gehrz, R

    Hackwell, J. A., Gehrz, R. D., & Grasdalen, G. L. 1979, ApJ, 234, 133, doi: 10.1086/157479

    doi:10.1086/157479 1979

  45. [45]

    2008, ApJL, 674, L85, doi: 10.1086/529373

    Immler, S., Modjaz, M., Landsman, W., et al. 2008, ApJL, 674, L85, doi: 10.1086/529373

    doi:10.1086/529373 2008

  46. [46]

    2014, ApJL, 782, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/L2

    Indebetouw, R., Matsuura, M., Dwek, E., et al. 2014, ApJL, 782, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/L2

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/l2 2014

  47. [47]

    E., Prieto, J

    Jencson, J. E., Prieto, J. L., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2795

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2795 2016

  48. [48]

    S., De Looze, I., et al

    Kirchschlager, F., Sartorio, N. S., De Looze, I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae365

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae365 2024

  49. [49]

    Krafton, K., & Clayton, G. C. 2017, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 88, 416

    2017

  50. [50]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14671, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14671

    Langeroodi, D., Hjorth, J., Ferrara, A., & Gall, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14671, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14671

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14671 2024

  51. [51]

    S., Boone, F., et al

    Laporte, N., Ellis, R. S., Boone, F., et al. 2017, ApJL, 837, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa62aa

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa62aa 2017

  52. [52]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233 24 Smith et al

    doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  53. [53]

    B., Danziger, I

    Lucy, L. B., Danziger, I. J., Gouiffes, C., & Bouchet, P. 1989, in IAU Colloq. 120: Structure and Dynamics of the Interstellar Medium, ed. G. Tenorio-Tagle, M. Moles, & J. Melnick, Vol. 350 (Springer-Verlag), 164, doi: 10.1007/BFb0114861

    doi:10.1007/bfb0114861 1989

  54. [54]

    K., et al

    Maeda, K., Nozawa, T., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/5

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/5 2013

  55. [55]

    2011, Science, 333, 1258, doi: 10.1126/science.1205983

    Matsuura, M., Dwek, E., Meixner, M., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1258, doi: 10.1126/science.1205983

    doi:10.1126/science.1205983 2011

  56. [56]

    J., et al

    Matsuura, M., Dwek, E., Barlow, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/50

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/50 2015

  57. [57]

    2012, MNRAS, 424, 2659, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21325.x

    Mauerhan, J., & Smith, N. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2659, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21325.x

    arXiv 2012

  58. [58]

    R., Dwek, E., & Slavin, J

    Micelotta, E. R., Dwek, E., & Slavin, J. D. 2016, A&A, 590, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527350

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527350 2016

  59. [59]

    D., Tuthill, P

    Monnier, J. D., Tuthill, P. G., & Danchi, W. C. 2002, ApJL, 567, L137, doi: 10.1086/340005

    work page doi:10.1086/340005 2002

  60. [60]

    J., Galbany, L., Jiménez-Palau, C., et al

    Moriya, T. J., Galbany, L., Jiménez-Palau, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346703

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346703 2023

  61. [61]

    2025, brynickson/AstroBkgInterp: V 1.0.0 - First Light, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.17410169

    Nickson, B., & mengesser. 2025, brynickson/AstroBkgInterp: V 1.0.0 - First Light, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.17410169

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17410169 2025

  62. [62]

    J., Bevan, A., et al

    Niculescu-Duvaz, M., Barlow, M. J., Bevan, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1626 2022

  63. [63]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3f8f

    Niu, Z., Sun, N.-C., & Liu, J. 2024, ApJL, 966, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3f8f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3f8f 2024

  64. [64]

    O., Zoglauer, A., Boggs, S

    Ofek, E. O., Zoglauer, A., Boggs, S. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/42

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/42 2014

  65. [65]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562

    doi:10.1086/133562 1995

  66. [66]

    2011, A&A, 527, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016217

    Harutyunyan, A. 2011, A&A, 527, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016217

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016217 2011

  67. [67]

    J., et al

    Pearson, J., Subrayan, B., Sand, D. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00125, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00125

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.00125 2025

  68. [68]

    Perley, D. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 084503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d 2019

  69. [69]

    D., Prieto, J

    Pessi, T., Desai, D. D., Prieto, J. L., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556799

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556799 2025

  70. [70]

    2022, åp, 668, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244391

    Sarangi, A. 2022, åp, 668, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244391

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244391 2022

  71. [71]

    2013, \apj, 776, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/107

    Sarangi, A., & Cherchneff, I. 2013, \apj, 776, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/107

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/2/107 2013

  72. [72]

    Sarangi, A., Dwek, E., & Arendt, R. G. 2018, ApJ, 859, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc3 2018

  73. [73]

    Sarangi, A., & Slavin, J. D. 2022, ApJ, 933, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac713d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac713d 2022

  74. [74]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0645

    Sarangi, A., Zsíros, S., Szalai, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0645

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0645 2025

  75. [75]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.00053, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.00053

    Schneider, R., & Maiolino, R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.00053, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.00053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.00053 2023

  76. [76]

    2023, \mnras, 523, 6048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1681

    Shahbandeh, M., Sarangi, A., Temim, T., et al. 2023, \mnras, 523, 6048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1681

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1681 2023

  77. [77]

    2024, JWST NIRSpec+MIRI Observations of the nearby Type IIP supernova 2022acko, arXiv

    Shahbandeh, M., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al. 2024, JWST NIRSpec+MIRI Observations of the nearby Type IIP supernova 2022acko, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14474

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    D., Temim, T., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Fox, O. D., Temim, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce77

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adce77 2025

  79. [79]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 145, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15901.x —

    Smith, N. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 145, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15901.x —. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer International Publishing), 403, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_38

    arXiv 2010

  80. [80]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol

    Smith, N. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol. 2, 508–532, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00147-4

    doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00147-4 2026

Showing first 80 references.