Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 83 references

JWST Spectroscopy of Type Ia Supernova 2025rbs from Maximum Light to the Nebular Phase

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first maximum-light mid-infrared spectrum of a normal Type Ia supernova shows its ejecta were still strongly layered by day 84, with stable nickel deepest, radioactive cobalt above it, and argon forming an outer shell.

desk verdict Genuinely new JWST MIR data (first maximum-light spectrum of a normal SN Ia) and a careful, cross-checked analysis—but the central claim of a Co-free inner core is undercut by a collisional de-excitation alternative the paper does not rule out. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10451 v1 pith:5NP6DRM5 submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.HE

Lindsey A. Kwok , Stéphane Blondin , Adam A. Miller , Saurabh W. Jha , Willem B. Hoogendam , Cameron M. Pfeffer , Eyouel Z. Abate , Jennifer E. Andrews
show 48 more authors
Moira Andrews Chris Ashall Katie Auchettl K. Azalee Bostroem Thomas G. Brink Fionntan P. Callan Collin T. Christy Joseph R. Farah Alexei V. Filippenko Andreas Flörs Ryan J. Foley Eli Gendreau-Distler Or Graur Jason T. Hinkle D. Andrew Howell David O. Jones Rinon Kageyama Miho Kawabata Cristine Koelln Conor Larison Chang Liu Keiichi Maeda Kate Maguire Curtis McCully Kyle Medler Nicolas E. Meza-Retamal Ann Mina Rüdiger Pakmor Riley Patlak Jeniveve Pearson Aravind P. Ravi Nabeel Rehemtulla Armin Rest David J. Sand Huei Sears Benjamin J. Shappee Manisha Shrestha Mridweeka Singh Tamás Szalai Kenta Taguchi Tea Temim Jacco H. Terwel Stefano Valenti József Vinkó J. Craig Wheeler Kathryn Wynn Yi Yang WeiKang Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords TypeIasupernovaemid-infraredspectroscopyJWSTobservationsSN2025rbsejectastratificationnucleosynthesisnebularspectraclumpy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents the first maximum-light mid-infrared spectrum and the earliest mid-infrared spectroscopic sequence of a normal Type Ia supernova, using JWST observations of SN 2025rbs at +1, +23, and +84 days past B-band maximum. It claims that these spectra trace the MIR ejecta from a continuum-plus-lines photospheric phase into a fully nebular phase, and that the +84 day forbidden lines directly map a strongly stratified interior: stable nickel sits at the lowest velocities, radioactive cobalt lies above it but is absent inside about 2000 km/s, and argon forms an outer shell. The paper also reports small ripples in the calcium line [Ca IV] 3.21 μm with a characteristic scale near 800 km/s, repeated at two epochs, which it reads as clumping or patchy ionization in the calcium-emitting regions. The claim matters because MIR spectroscopy near maximum opens a simultaneous view of the freshly emerging inner ejecta and the fading outer burning products, giving explosion models a new set of layers to reproduce.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the one-dimensional line-inversion identity $j(v)\propto (1/v)\,dF_\nu/dv$, which turns a Doppler-broadened line profile into a radial emissivity for each ion; the paper applies it to the +84 day [Ni III], [Co III], and [Ar III] lines and then volume-weights the results, $p(v)\propto j(v) v^2$, to define half-flux velocities and overlap coefficients. For the calcium substructure, the machinery is an autocorrelation function of the high-pass-filtered residuals, calibrated by Monte Carlo forward models of a clump-filled spherical shell to recover an intrinsic clump FWHM and a filling factor. The radiative-transfer comparisons are made with the CMFGEN non-local-thermodynamic-equilibrium code, used differentially (subtracting a single ion from the calculation) to identify which transitions dominate each observed feature.

What would settle it

Observe SN 2025rbs again in the MIR at, say, +150 days or later. If the [Co III] 11.88 μm line fills in at its center or narrows as the density drops, then the flat-topped profile at +84 days was an opacity effect rather than a real absence of cobalt inside about 2000 km/s, and the stratified model would need revision. The clump interpretation would be falsified if higher-resolution [Ca IV] and [Ca V] spectra taken at a third epoch no longer show the same residuals at the same velocities, or if the residuals track a continuum or instrumental artifact rather than a fixed clump population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At +84 days, the MIR spectrum of SN 2025rbs is fully nebular, and its isolated forbidden lines yield, through a line-inversion formula $j(v)\propto (1/v)\,dF/dv$, velocity-resolved emissivities for different elements. Half of the [Ni III] 11.00 μm flux comes from below $5.0\times10^3$ km/s, half of [Co III] 11.88 μm from below $7.0\times10^3$ km/s, and half of [Ar III] 8.99 μm from below $11.6\times10^3$ km/s; pairwise overlaps fall from 0.56 (Ni–Co) to 0.28 (Co–Ar) to 0.08 (Ni–Ar). The flat-topped Co profile requires the radioactive cobalt to be missing inside roughly 2000 km/s, implying the center is dominated by stable iron-group material. On a smaller scale, the [Ca IV] 3.21 μm profile shows 3–4% fluctuations with correlation lengths 530 and 590 km/s at +23 and +84 days, a strong correlation ($r=0.92$) between epochs, and an inferred intrinsic clump scale of 780 km/s; the fainter [Ca V] 4.16 μm line shows a correlated residual ($r=0.66$), supporting a physical origin. Independently, the paper identifies MIR features at 4.6, 9.6, and 13.0 μm as Mg II transitions and shows that radiative-transfer models reproduce the NIR Mg II 1.0927 μm line while underpredicting these MIR lines by a large factor, pointing to transition-dependent excitation rather than a simple abundance deficit.

Load-bearing premise

The stratification and clump measurements assume the +84 day mid-infrared lines are optically thin emitters viewed in a spherically symmetric outflow, so that a line profile can be inverted directly into a radial emissivity; significant residual opacity or an asymmetric geometry would shift the inferred velocity shells and clump sizes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the MIR, SN 2025rbs is fully nebular by +84 days even though its optical and near-infrared spectra are still transitional, so MIR observations can certify the onset of the nebular phase earlier than shorter-wavelength data.
  • The separation of Ni, Co, and Ar into distinct radial layers, with essentially no Ar inside the Ni 90%-flux velocity and no radioactive Co inside about 2000 km/s, implies limited macroscopic mixing in this explosion.
  • If the Ca substructure is physical, it places roughly 5100 clumps of characteristic size 780 km/s filling about 10% of the adopted emitting shell, and the persistent two-epoch pattern means the clumps remain fixed in velocity during expansion.
  • The Mg II discrepancy identifies a specific model failure: the MIR recombination-cascade transitions and the NIR photoexcited 1.0927 μm line require different ionization and excitation treatments, so a successful model must reproduce both simultaneously.
  • Observations beginning at maximum light are necessary to catch the transient MIR Mg II features and the early emergence of forbidden [Ni III] and [Ar III], which vanish or become blended within weeks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This reader infers that the OVL(Ni, Co) overlap coefficient could be measured across a sample of normal Type Ia supernovae; if it varies systematically with decline rate or peak luminosity, it would give an empirical axis for separating delayed-detonation from sub-Chandrasekhar double-detonation models.
  • This reader infers that the ~800 km/s calcium clump scale may be a fossil of the deflagration plume scale, and because homologous expansion preserves velocity, future high-signal-to-noise [Ca IV] spectra of many events can test whether this scale is universal or depends on explosion properties.
  • This reader infers that the paper's Mg II comparison suggests a sharper test: a model with the correct Mg ionization balance should reproduce the ratio of MIR to NIR Mg II flux without rescaling, and observing the same four lines in another fast-declining supernova would show whether the underprediction is event-specific or a property of the model grids.
  • This reader infers that confirming the [Ca V]/[Ca IV] correlation with better signal to noise would help distinguish patchy ionization from abundance clumping, because [Ca V] requires a higher ionization energy and would sample different spatial regions if ionization varies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. SN 2025rbs is a normal but fast-declining Type Ia supernova in NGC 7331 observed with JWST NIRSpec/MIRI at +1, +23, and +84 days after B-band maximum, together with contemporaneous ground-based optical and NIR spectroscopy. The paper presents the first maximum-light MIR spectrum and the earliest MIR spectroscopic sequence of a normal SN Ia. It identifies the emerging permitted and forbidden lines, tracks the photospheric-to-nebular transition in the MIR, and uses line inversion at +84 days to infer strongly stratified ejecta: stable Ni concentrated at the lowest velocities, radioactive Co at intermediate velocities with an apparent deficit inside ~2000 km/s, and Ar in an outer shell. The paper also reports reproducible small-scale substructure in [Ca IV] 3.21 µm (inter-epoch correlation r=0.92, characteristic clump scale ~800 km/s) and finds that CMFGEN models underpredict the candidate MIR Mg II features despite approximately reproducing the NIR Mg II 1.0927 µm line.

Significance. The dataset is genuinely novel and will be a reference point for early-time MIR spectroscopy of SN Ia. The paper is careful in several respects: bootstrap error propagation, Monte Carlo and block-bootstrap checks of the [Ca IV] substructure, cross-checks between [Ca IV] and [Ca V], and explicit caveats about model dependence. The stratification and clumping results, if established, would provide genuinely new constraints on explosion models and on mixing in thermonuclear supernovae. The main caveat is that the 'Co absent inside ~2000 km/s' conclusion rests on interpreting the flat-topped [Co III] profile as a compositional hole rather than a line-formation effect; a quantitative test is required before this central claim can be considered secure.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1 and §4.1] The flat-topped [Co III] 11.88 µm profile is interpreted in §4.1 as the absence of Co emission for v ≲ 2000 km/s, and this inference drives v50(Co), the 19% Co-flux-interior-to-Ni quantile, and the Ni–Co OVL. However, §3.1 invokes the ~5–6× lower critical density of [Co III] relative to [Ni III] to explain the weakness of Co lines at +1 day. The same mechanism can produce a flat-topped profile at +84 days if the innermost ejecta remain near or above the [Co III] critical density: the line would turn on preferentially in lower-density outer layers, and the observed profile would show a central plateau even where Co is abundant. The paper rules out an opacity origin (no continuum, fully nebular [Ar III], peaked Ni lines), but it does not rule out this collisional line-formation effect. Please estimate the electron density profile in the inner ejecta at +84 days relative to n_crit([Co III]), or show quantitatively from the +23 and +84 day profiles that the flat-top inner edge is stationary in velocity (as expected for a compositional hole) rather than shrinking inward as density declines (as expected for a critical-density threshold). Without such a test, the 'Co absent within ~2000 km/s' statement is not uniquely established.
  2. [§4.1 and Table 2] The bootstrap uncertainties reported in Table 2 propagate spectral noise under the assumption that the flat-topped [Co III] plateau corresponds to exactly zero emissivity. They do not include the systematic uncertainty in that zero-emissivity assumption: Eq. (1) assigns j(v)=0 wherever dF/dv=0, so any residual plateau flux from fitting uncertainty, weak blending, or a line-formation effect is mapped to a complete central hole. Please quantify how v50(Co), the 19% flux fraction, and Ni–Co OVL change if the emissivity inside v_inner is allowed to be a small finite fraction (e.g., 3–10%) of the peak emissivity, or if the flat top is instead modeled as a density-dependent suppression. This robustness check is important because the stratification claim depends precisely on the zero-emissivity mapping of the plateau.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3] The text refers to the 'Phillip relations'; this should be the 'Phillips relations.'
  2. [§4.2] The term 'root-mean-square (RSM)' is a typo; it should be 'root-mean-square (RMS).'
  3. [§4.2] The phrase 'χ2/dof = 0.30 for two degrees of freedom' is ambiguous; please state the χ² value and the number of degrees of freedom separately.
  4. [§3.1] The critical-density comparison between [Co III] and [Ni III] would benefit from citing the atomic data source and stating the adopted collision strengths or references, since this argument is now central to the interpretation in §4.1.
  5. [§4.1 and Figure 4] The text calls the [Co III] 11.88 µm line 'essentially isolated,' but Figure 4 marks contamination from [Co II], [S IV], and [Ni II] in parts of the profile; please clarify which wavelength ranges were used for the fit and inversion.
  6. [Figure 6] The caption mentions 'ACF and PSD scales,' but the text only defines the autocorrelation function; please either describe the power spectral density analysis or remove the PSD reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stratification and clump-scale inferences are direct spectral inversions under stated assumptions, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the derivation chain. The central stratification results are obtained by applying Eq. (1), j(v) proportional to (1/v) dF/dv, directly to observed +84 day line profiles under explicitly stated assumptions of optical thinness and spherical symmetry; this is a standard Abel-type inversion, not a definition of the physical conclusion. The volume-weighted quantiles (v50, OVL) are then computed from those inverted emissivities with bootstrap uncertainties, and the [Ca IV] clump scale is calibrated through a forward Monte Carlo model with known input sizes, cross-checked against ACF measurements at two epochs. The radiative-transfer models are explicitly not optimized: the paper states 'no model parameters are optimized to reproduce the observed line strengths, widths, or ionization state,' so the Mg II underprediction is a genuine model-data discrepancy rather than a fitted quantity presented as a prediction. The self-citations to Kwok et al. (2025a, 2026) concern LRS wavelength calibration, fitting procedures, and comparison objects; they are procedural or comparative, not load-bearing for the derivation, and the inversion formula is independently attributed to Fransson & Chevalier (1989) and Jerkstrand (2017). The skeptical alternative that collisional de-excitation, rather than a central Co deficit, produces the [Co III] flat top is a competing physical interpretation; it challenges the uniqueness of the stratification claim but does not reduce the paper's output to its input by construction. Thus the paper is self-contained against its own equations and assumptions, with no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central stratification and clump-scale numbers come from fitting line profiles and a forward clump model to the data; these are the measurements, not ad hoc inputs. The main hand-chosen inputs are the Ca-shell boundaries and the assumed thick-shell geometry, which affect the filling factor and clump number but only weakly the characteristic scale. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'clumps' are an interpretation of observed emissivity fluctuations with direct data support.

free parameters (8)
  • BayeSN distance modulus mu = 30.73 +/- 0.12 mag (adopted Cepheid: 14.5 Mpc)
    Fitted to LCO BVgri photometry; used for absolute flux calibration. The Cepheid distance is adopted for the paper.
  • BayeSN host extinction A_V = 0.35 +/- 0.07 mag (R_V = 2.39 +/- 0.45)
    Fitted to light curve; affects flux calibration and continuum shape, not line-profile shapes.
  • Rise time t_rise = 16.6 +/- 0.3 days
    Fitted to early LCO g/r light curves with ZTF nondetections; used to assign model epochs (18 day rise).
  • Power-law rise indices alpha_g, alpha_r = 3.08 +/- 0.14, 2.41 +/- 0.15
    Fitted in rise-time analysis; not central to the claims.
  • [Ca IV] clump scale ell = 780 +/- 100 km/s
    Fitted jointly to ACF measurements at +23 and +84 days; central to the clump claim.
  • Volume filling factor f = 0.10 +/- 0.01
    Derived from fractional RMS amplitude and adopted thick-shell geometry; depends on assumed clump profile and shell boundaries.
  • Ca-shell boundaries v_in, v_out = 7000 and 15000 km/s
    Adopted by hand from the [Ca IV] profile extent; affect f and N_c but only weakly ell.
  • Line-profile parameters (FWHM, v_off, v_inner) = [NiIII] FWHM ~7200, v_off ~ -500; [CoIII] FWHM ~12000, v_inner ~2000; [ArIII] FWHM ~20000, v_off ~ -400, v_inner ~8000…
    Fitted to the +84 day nebular lines; used for stratification quantiles.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MIR lines at +84 days are optically thin
    Section 4, opening paragraph. Supported by sharp [Ar III] edges, absence of continuum, and forbidden-line dominance; if false, line profiles would not map directly to emissivity.
  • domain assumption Symmetry about the line of sight in the line inversion
    Section 4, Eq 1 discussion. The paper uses line-of-sight velocity as a proxy for 3D velocity; asymmetry would distort the derived 1D emissivity and stratification metrics.
  • domain assumption CMFGEN model line lists (DDT N100, MERGER 1109) and atomic data (NIST, Atomic Line List) are adequate for line identification
    Sections 3.1 and 5. The Mg II identification is tentative and the models are not optimized; misidentification would weaken the Mg II underprediction claim.
  • domain assumption The [Ca IV] substructure is astrophysical and not instrumental
    Section 4.2. Evidence: patterns correlate across epochs (r=0.92) and with [Ca V] (r=0.66), and differ across other SNe observed with the same configuration.
  • standard math Bootstrap, ACF, and Monte Carlo methods are valid for uncertainty estimation
    Standard statistical tools; no special assumptions beyond the resampling schemes described in Section 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST Spectroscopy of Type Ia Supernova 2025rbs from Maximum Light to the Nebular Phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NP6DRM5

@misc{pith2026260810451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST Spectroscopy of Type Ia Supernova 2025rbs from Maximum Light to the Nebular Phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NP6DRM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10451}
}
abstract

We present JWST observations of the Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) 2025rbs ($D=$14.5 Mpc) at +1, +23, and +84 days after B-band maximum, spanning peak light through a wavelength-dependent transition toward the nebular phase. Combined with ground-based optical and near-infrared (NIR) data, our panchromatic spectra (0.4-14 $\mu$m) include the first maximum-light mid-infrared (MIR) spectrum and the earliest MIR spectroscopic sequence of an SN Ia to date. At peak light, the MIR spectrum exhibits a continuum with permitted and forbidden features, including Si II, Ni II, and early-emerging [Ni III-IV] and [Ar II-III]. By +23 days the MIR is dominated by forbidden lines with a weak continuum, and by +84 days it is fully nebular, whereas the optical/NIR spectra remain transitional. The nebular spectrum reveals strongly stratified ejecta, with stable Ni concentrated at the lowest velocities, radioactive Co at intermediate velocities but absent within ~2000 km s$^{-1}$, and Ar occupying an outer shell. We detect small-scale substructure in [Ca IV] 3.21 $\mu$m with fractional amplitudes of a few percent and a characteristic velocity scale of ~800 km s$^{-1}$, which may reflect compositional structure, ionization variations, or both. Radiative-transfer calculations substantially underpredict these MIR Mg II features despite approximately reproducing the NIR Mg II 1.0927 $\mu$m line, suggesting that the relative strengths of these transitions are sensitive to the treatment of Mg ionization and excitation. These observations demonstrate that MIR spectroscopy beginning near maximum light simultaneously probes the emerging inner ejecta and rapidly fading outer burning products, providing new constraints for explosion and radiative-transfer models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panchromatic spectra of SN 2025rbs at +1, +23, and +84 days post-B max. Flux density is shown in an arcsinh scaling for display purposes, and the epochs are offset for clarity, with the zero-point marked by the dashed lines. Each spectrum is a combination of JWST NIR and MIR spectra with ground-based optical and NIR spectra at similar phases. 1000), and the MIRI/LRS slit with the P750L dis￾perser (R ≈ 100), spanning… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curve of SN 2025rbs from Las Cumbres Observatory (circles; BV gri) and KAIT/Nickel (squares; BV RI), offset for clarity. Rest-frame phase is with respect to B-band maximum (MJD 60884.0). The BayeSN fit to the LCO data between −10 and +40 days is shown in black. The JWST observation epochs are marked by vertical gray lines. the ZTF DR2 SN Ia sample, for which the correspond￾ing mean values are αg = 2.29 and αr … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Line identifications from 2.9–14 µm for SN 2025rbs at +1 (green), +23 (teal), and +84 days (indigo). Permitted transitions are marked by yellow dashed lines, and forbidden transitions are marked by gray dotted lines. Only the most dominant contributors to each feature are labeled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of relatively isolated MIR forbidden lines in SN 2025rbs, together with the candidate permitted-like Mg II 9.71 µm feature, at +1 (green), +23 (teal), and +84 days (indigo). Lower-opacity portions of each profile indicate wave￾length regions contaminated by n…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top left: [Ni III] 11.00 µm (red), [Co III] 11.88 µm (green), and [Ar III] 8.99 µm (blue) line profiles of SN 2025rbs at +84 days. The dashed gray lines at ±1750 km s−1 represent the inner edge of the Co flat-top and the dash-dotted gray lines at ±8200 km s−1 represent…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: [Ca IV] 3.21 µm line profiles at +23 and +84 days. The plateau region analyzed for substructure is highlighted in teal (+23 days) and indigo (+84 days). Center: Plateau residuals detrended by a high-pass filter. ACF and PSD scales are overlaid for comparison; bar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustrative ion decomposition of the DDT N100 model, used to guide line identifications. No model parameters have been optimized to reproduce the observed line strengths, widths, or ionization state. Model spectra at 18.73, 40.15, and 104.1 days post-explosion, scaled…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Illustrative ion decomposition of the MERGER 1109 model at ∼20 days post-explosion, scaled to 14.5 Mpc. We use the comparison to investigate possible Mg II identifications rather than to propose a violent merger origin for SN 2025rbs. The model produces stronger M…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-2699, 1

    Andrews, M., Farah, J., Wynn, K., et al. 2025, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2025-2699, 1

    2025

  2. [2]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., Baron, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608 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., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, P...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608 2024

  3. [3]

    M., Giardino, G., Sirianni, M., et al

    Birkmann, S. M., Giardino, G., Sirianni, M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 121802P, doi: 10.1117/12.2629545

    doi:10.1117/12.2629545 2022

  4. [4]

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv188

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv188 2015

  5. [5]

    J., Ramsbottom, C

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Ramsbottom, C. A., & Storey, P. J. 2023, A&A, 678, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347147

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347147 2023

  6. [6]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031, doi: 10.1086/673168

    doi:10.1086/673168 2013

  7. [7]

    Chugai, N. N. 1994, ApJL, 428, L17, doi: 10.1086/187382

    work page doi:10.1086/187382 1994

  8. [8]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907

    doi:10.1086/382907 2004

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    M., Baron, E., Branch, D., et al

    DerKacy, J. M., Baron, E., Branch, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae67

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al

    DerKacy, J. M., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb8a8

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al

    DerKacy, J. M., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7b

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Blondin, S., & Khokhlov, A

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Blondin, S., & Khokhlov, A. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu789

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al

    Dimitriadis, G., Maguire, K., Karambelkar, V. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad536

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, A&A, 580, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424592

    Ergon, M., Jerkstrand, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424592

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    Fabricant, D., Fata, R., Epps, H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Firth, R. E., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2314

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Kromer, M., Howie Marion, G., et al

    Foley, R. J., Kromer, M., Howie Marion, G., et al. 2012, ApJL, 753, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/753/1/L5

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Challis, P

    Foley, R. J., Challis, P. J., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/57

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Pan, Y.-C., Brown, P., et al

    Foley, R. J., Pan, Y.-C., Brown, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1308, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1440

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Fransson, C., & Chevalier, R. A. 1989, ApJ, 343, 323, doi: 10.1086/167707

    1989 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47, doi: 10.1086/320638

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    P., et al

    Friesen, B., Baron, E., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/120

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    T., et al

    Friesen, B., Baron, E., Parrent, J. T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx241

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Meikle, W

    Gerardy, C. L., Meikle, W. P. S., Kotak, R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, 995, doi: 10.1086/516728

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    S., et al

    Grayling, M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1202

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Sullivan, M., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts492 22

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Spyromilio, J., Stathakis, R., et al

    Hanuschik, R. W., Spyromilio, J., Stathakis, R., et al. 1993, MNRAS, 261, 909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/261.4.909

    1993 doi

  21. [29]

    T., Garnavich, P

    Hayden, B. T., Garnavich, P. M., Kessler, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 350, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/350

    2010 doi

  22. [31]

    B., Jones, D

    Hoogendam, W. B., Jones, D. O., Ashall, C., et al. 2025a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 120, doi: 10.33232/001c.143462

    doi

  23. [32]

    B., Ashall, C., Jones, D

    Hoogendam, W. B., Ashall, C., Jones, D. O., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 988, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade787

    doi

  24. [33]

    M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J

    Hook, I. M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 425, doi: 10.1086/383624

    2004 doi

  25. [34]

    Hoyle, F., & Fowler, W. A. 1960, ApJ, 132, 565, doi: 10.1086/146963

    1960 doi

  26. [35]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    2022 doi

  27. [36]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Jerkstrand, A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 795, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 29

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    2015, PASP, 127, 623, doi: 10.1086/682255

    Kendrew, S., Scheithauer, S., Bouchet, P., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 623, doi: 10.1086/682255

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kendrew, S., Scheithauer, S., Bouchet, P., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9904, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. H. A. MacEwen, G. G. Fazio, M. Lystrup, N. ...

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    and Ralchenko, Yu

    Kramida, A. and Ralchenko, Yu. and Reader, J. and NIST ASD Team. 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database, doi: 10.18434/T4W30F

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    2013, ApJL, 778, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L18

    Kromer, M., Pakmor, R., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2013, ApJL, 778, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L18

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Jha, S

    Kwok, L. A., Jha, S. W., Temim, T., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb4ec

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    A., Siebert, M

    Kwok, L. A., Siebert, M. R., Johansson, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c0d

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    A., Singh, M., Jha, S

    Kwok, L. A., Singh, M., Jha, S. W., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 989, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf062

    doi

  35. [44]

    A., Liu, C., Jha, S

    Kwok, L. A., Liu, C., Jha, S. W., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1005, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6867

    2026 doi

  36. [45]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044

    Labrie, K., Simpson, C., Cardenes, R., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    Landolt, A. U. 1992, AJ, 104, 340, doi: 10.1086/116242

    1992 doi

  38. [47]

    V., Chornock, R., et al

    Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 453, doi: 10.1086/374200

    2003 doi

  39. [48]

    Liu, C., & Miller, A. A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.00075, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.00075

    2026 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    A., Sarin, N., et al

    Liu, C., Miller, A. A., Sarin, N., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.00081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.00081

    2026 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    W., Larison, C., Sears, H., et al

    Macrie, C. W., Larison, C., Sears, H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.09777. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09777

    2026 arXiv

  42. [51]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3496

    Avelino, A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3496

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    H., H¨ oflich, P., Gerardy, C

    Marion, G. H., H¨ oflich, P., Gerardy, C. L., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 727, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/3/727

    2009 doi

  44. [53]

    H., H¨ oflich, P., Vacca, W

    Marion, G. H., H¨ oflich, P., Vacca, W. D., & Wheeler, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 591, 316, doi: 10.1086/375290

    2003 doi

  45. [54]

    Leonard, D. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 1499, doi: 10.1086/301519

    2000 doi

  46. [55]

    H., Harbeck, D.-R., et al

    McCully, C., Volgenau, N. H., Harbeck, D.-R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V, ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ibsen, 107070K, doi: 10.1117/12.2314340

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.18507, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.18507

    Medler, K., Ashall, C., Shahbandeh, M., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.18507, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.18507

    doi arXiv

  48. [57]

    2025b, ApJ, 993, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0736

    Medler, K., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 993, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0736

    doi

  49. [58]

    A., Yao, Y., Bulla, M., et al

    Miller, A. A., Yao, Y., Bulla, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb13b

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    S., & Stone, R

    Miller, J. S., & Stone, R. P. S. 1993, LOTRM O’Neill, D., Ackley, K., Dyer, M., et al. 2025, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2025-2688, 1

    1993

  51. [60]

    2012, ApJL, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10

    2012 doi

  52. [61]

    J., Bhat, A., et al

    Pakmor, R., Shen, K. J., Bhat, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A239, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557670

    2026 doi

  53. [62]

    A., & Eastman, R

    Pinto, P. A., & Eastman, R. G. 2000, ApJ, 530, 744, doi: 10.1086/308376

    2000 doi

  54. [63]

    M., Sim, S

    Pollin, J. M., Sim, S. A., Shingles, L. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05000

    2025 doi arXiv

  55. [64]

    M., Pakmor, R., Shingles, L

    Pollin, J. M., Pakmor, R., Shingles, L. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.29038, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.29038

    2026 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.06505. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06505 23

    2005 arXiv

  57. [66]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020b, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    doi

  58. [67]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  59. [68]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 362, doi: 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  60. [69]

    2025, A&A, 694, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450388

    Rigault, M., Smith, M., Goobar, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450388

    2025 doi

  61. [70]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05632

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05632. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05632

    2022 arXiv

  62. [71]

    N., Mazzali, P

    Sauer, D. N., Mazzali, P. A., Blondin, S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1605, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14018.x

    2008

  63. [72]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts402

    2013 doi

  64. [73]

    J., Fl¨ ors, A., Sim, S

    Shingles, L. J., Fl¨ ors, A., Sim, S. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 6150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac902

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    R., Foley, R

    Siebert, M. R., Foley, R. J., Jones, D. O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1209

    2019 doi

  66. [75]

    R., Foley, R

    Siebert, M. R., Foley, R. J., Zenati, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad037f

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    R., Kwok, L

    Siebert, M. R., Kwok, L. A., Johansson, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0975

    2024 doi

  68. [77]

    M., Foley, R

    Silverman, J. M., Foley, R. J., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1789, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21270.x

    2012

  69. [78]

    2026, DRAGONS, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20752356

    Simpson, C., Labrie, K., Hirst, P., et al. 2026, DRAGONS, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20752356

    2026 doi

  70. [79]

    1994, MNRAS, 266, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnras/266.1.L61

    Spyromilio, J. 1994, MNRAS, 266, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnras/266.1.L61

    1994 doi

  71. [80]

    M., H¨ oflich, P., Li, D., et al

    Telesco, C. M., H¨ oflich, P., Li, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/93

    2015 doi

  72. [81]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/99

    2012 doi

  73. [82]

    D., Cushing, M

    Vacca, W. D., Cushing, M. C., & Rayner, J. T. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 389–409, doi: 10.1086/346193 van Hoof, P. A. M. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 63, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6020063

    2003 doi

  74. [83]

    M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K

    Ward, S. M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bb

    2023 doi

  75. [84]

    C., H¨ oflich, P., Harkness, R

    Wheeler, J. C., H¨ oflich, P., Harkness, R. P., & Spyromilio, J. 1998, ApJ, 496, 908, doi: 10.1086/305427

    1998 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.