Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Expanding Ejecta Method: I. Mapping Supernova Morphology with Intensity Interferometry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new method uses intensity interferometry to measure supernova distances to about 2 percent.

desk verdict A genuinely new idea and a competent Fisher forecast, but the headline 2% distance precision is conditional on a toy ejecta model whose systematics have not been checked; the abstract oversells it. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20132 v1 pith:4GFJ7MTX submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

I-Kai Chen , David Dunsky , Ken Van Tilburg , Junwu Huang , Robert V. Wagoner This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords intensityinterferometryexpandingejectamethodsupernovadistancesangulardiameterdistancePCygniprofilesmorphologyhomologousexpansionTypeIIPsupernovae
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 introduces the expanding ejecta method (EEM), a way to turn a future optical intensity interferometer into a supernova camera that resolves the brightness pattern across an explosion. The central claim is that by measuring how the squared visibility of H-$\alpha$ line emission varies with wavelength and telescope baseline, one can map the three-dimensional distribution of ballistically expanding ejecta and read off the supernova's angular diameter distance geometrically. For a magnitude-12 Type IIP supernova, sixty hours on an interferometer with 25π $m^{2}$ apertures, spectral resolution of 10,000, 10 ps timing, and 50 percent efficiency would yield roughly 2 percent distance precision and about 7 to 10 percent constraints on ellipsoidal shape. This matters because the method sidesteps the blackbody, dilution-factor, and dust-extinction assumptions that limit the expanding photosphere method.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the wavelength-to-position mapping of homologous expansion, $z = v_\parallel(t-t_0)$, together with the Sobolev approximation, which treats line opacity as local because the velocity gradient Doppler-shifts photons out of resonance quickly. Around a single line this gives a power-law optical depth $\tau(v) = \tau_{\rm ph}(|v_{\rm ph}|/|v|)^n$. Intensity interferometry supplies the Fourier-space observable, the squared visibility $|V(\lambda,\mathbf{u})|^2$ at angular wavenumber $\mathbf{u} = 2\pi\mathbf{d}_\perp/\lambda$. Together these convert each spectral channel into a projected slice of ejecta and each baseline into a spatial-frequency measurement, so that the image's angular size and Doppler velocity scale can be measured independently and combined into the distance.

What would settle it

Apply the method to a supernova whose distance is already known geometrically, for example one surrounded by an expanding radio ring or located in a maser-host galaxy; if the EEM distance disagrees with the independent value by more than the forecast few percent, or if two-epoch angular maps show transverse and line-of-sight velocities inconsistent with a single homologous law, the central assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an intensity interferometer measuring the squared visibility modulus $|V(\lambda,\mathbf{u})|^2$ in each spectral channel across a P Cygni line can determine both the angular scale and the physical velocity scale of a supernova's ejecta, and hence its angular diameter distance. Under homologous expansion, each observed wavelength $\lambda = \lambda_{\rm rest}(1+v_\parallel)$ selects a slice of ejecta at line-of-sight position $z = v_\parallel(t-t_0)$. Two baselines sample the Fourier transform of each spectral slice; combined with the integrated spectrum, these data break the degeneracy between ejecta velocity and distance that limits photosphere-based methods. Within the paper's parametric model, the result is $\sigma_{D_A}/D_A \approx 2\%$ for a magnitude-12 Type IIP supernova, with the asymmetry parameter measured to about 7 percent and Type IIP (Type Ia) supernovae accessible out to 3 (12) Mpc at the assumed instrument performance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ejected material moves in a simple uniformly stretching way, so that each parcel's speed is proportional to its distance from the explosion center and a Doppler shift identifies one physical location; if clumping, deceleration, or sideways flows break that mapping, the inferred distances would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a magnitude-12 Type IIP supernova, a 60-hour observation with the assumed instrument yields an angular diameter distance with about 2 percent fractional uncertainty.
  • Combining intensity correlations with the integrated spectrum constrains ellipsoidal elongation to about 7 percent precision and breaks the degeneracy between shape and orientation that either dataset alone leaves.
  • Observing the same supernova at several epochs during the plateau tracks the same expanding ejecta parcels, so the method measures ejecta velocity directly and does not need a separate relation between photospheric and ejecta velocities.
  • At the assumed specifications, high signal-to-noise visibility measurements are achievable for Type IIP supernovae out to about 3 Mpc and Type Ia supernovae out to about 12 Mpc.
  • Distance precision at this level is sufficient for the companion paper's applications: geometric anchoring of the distance ladder or an independent Hubble diagram based on angular diameter distances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check of the central assumption would compare EEM distances with independent geometric distances for nearby supernovae; residual scatter beyond the quoted few percent would point to failures of homology or of the simple power-law optical-depth model.
  • Adding linear-polarization channels could measure the E-mode pattern and break the line-of-sight elongation degeneracy; the paper sketches this direction but does not quantify it.
  • The parametric model should be re-run on synthetic observations from full radiative-transfer simulations before the quoted precision is trusted, since real P Cygni profiles include recombination, limb darkening, and overlapping lines.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Expanding Ejecta Method (EEM), which uses spectrally multiplexed optical intensity interferometry to measure the wavelength-dependent visibility modulus of a supernova and, from the angular structure and spectral line velocities, to infer the supernova's morphology and angular diameter distance. A parametric model (Section 3) describes a spherical or ellipsoidal photosphere, homologously expanding ejecta, a power-law optical depth profile, and Sobolev/LTE line formation. Using a Fisher forecast for an instrument with aperture area A=25π m², spectral resolution R=10⁴, timing resolution σt=10 ps, and efficiency ε=0.5, the paper claims that a 60-hour observation of an m=12 Type IIP supernova yields ~2% precision on the angular diameter distance (eq. 4.4, Fig. 11) and ~7–10% precision on asymmetry parameters. The paper further argues that the EEM avoids several assumptions of the expanding photosphere method (EPM), such as blackbody emission, flux dilution factors, and extinction corrections.

Significance. If the forecasts hold, the EEM would provide a new geometric route to supernova distances that is complementary to the EPM and could anchor the cosmic distance ladder. The paper's visibility formalism and Fisher pipeline are internally consistent, the instrumental parameters are stated transparently, and eq. (4.4) gives a useful scaling relation for future instrument design. The authors are also honest in Section 5 that the parametric model is 'overly simplified' and defer validation to radiative-transfer codes. However, the abstract and conclusions present the 2% distance precision as an unconditional capability, whereas it is a Fisher forecast at the truth point of a simplified model. The paper's own Appendix C shows that adding a single nuisance parameter for recombination emission degrades the distance precision to ~3%, undercutting the headline claim even within the authors' framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.2; Appendix C, Fig. 16] The abstract and Section 6 quote '~2% precision' for the angular diameter distance without noting that this is a Fisher forecast at the truth point of the Section 3 parametric model. More importantly, the paper's own Appendix C shows that adding a single nuisance parameter for recombination emission, αem, worsens the joint DA constraint from ~2% (Fig. 11) to ~3% (Fig. 16). Since recombination emission is known to be present in Type IIP supernovae and the paper acknowledges this, the 2% headline is not robust even within the authors' own framework. Please either present the ~3% as the forecast when recombination is included, or justify why αem=1 with no uncertainty is the appropriate fiducial.
  2. [Section 2.2 (eq. 2.15); Section 4.2] The distance inference assumes the explosion time t0 is exactly known: the mapping z = v∥(t−t0) determines the physical radius from the velocity derived from spectral lines, so DA = vph(t−t0)/Θph. The Fisher analysis of Section 4 does not include t0 as a fitted or marginalized parameter. A 1-day uncertainty in t0 at day 30 post-explosion produces a ~3% fractional shift in the inferred distance, which is larger than the quoted 2% precision. The authors should either include t0 with a realistic prior (or as a free parameter) or show explicitly that the claimed precision is insensitive to t0 uncertainty.
  3. [Section 1; Section 5; Section 6] The abstract and conclusions state that the EEM is 'significantly more robust to modeling uncertainties' than the EPM. What is demonstrated is that, under the specific parametric model of Section 3 (static photosphere, power-law optical depth of eq. (3.7), Sobolev/LTE line formation, fixed 10% spectral likelihood), the Fisher forecast gives a small statistical uncertainty. The paper's own Section 5 describes the model as 'overly simplified' and defers validation to TARDIS/ARTIS/SEDONA. Unmodeled physics such as resonance scattering, non-LTE populations, and clumping can alter the wavelength-to-position mapping of eq. (2.14) and bias the recovered distance by an amount invisible to the Fisher error bars. The robustness claim is therefore not yet supported. I recommend rewording the abstract and conclusions to make the conditional nature of the forecasts explicit, and adding a concrete validation plan.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] The code availability statement reads 'available on GitHub ( /gtb), with interactive links ( ) below each figure'; the URL and links are missing, which prevents readers from reproducing the Fisher analysis. Please provide working links.
  2. [Eq. (4.4)] The notation N0/N appears without defining N0 and N. Please define these quantities explicitly (e.g., photon detection rate) so the scaling relation is self-contained.
  3. [Figure 16 caption] The caption states 'vph = 6×10^3 kms/s'; this should be 'km/s'.
  4. [Section 4.1, text near eq. (4.3)] The claim that the largest η uncertainty (~30%) occurs when the emission-to-absorption ratio becomes insensitive to η is not derived; a brief quantitative or geometric explanation would aid the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EEM distance inference is geometric, and the ~2% precision claim is a standard Fisher forecast evaluated at fiducial truth values, not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the parametric model (photosphere, homologous ejecta, power-law optical depth) through the intensity-correlation observables, likelihood construction, and Fisher analysis. The angular diameter distance is determined by combining an angular-size measurement from the visibility modulus with an ejecta-velocity measurement from spectral line positions; the distance parameter enters the forward model as an independent geometric parameter, and the forecast is computed at the true model parameters. No input datum or fitted constant is later renamed as an output prediction. The self-citation of the companion paper [1] is used only to outline downstream cosmological applications, not to justify any step of the present derivation, and the cited intensity-interferometry visibility formalism is standard Hanbury Brown-Twiss physics. The model assumptions are explicitly flagged by the authors as 'overly simplified' and deferred to radiative-transfer codes for validation, which is a limitation on robustness rather than a circularity. I therefore find no circular step under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claimed SNR and distance precision are conditional on the assumed instrument benchmark (A = 25 pi m^2, R = 10^4, sigma_t = 10 ps, epsilon = 0.5) and on the parametric model's fiducial parameters. The paper explicitly describes the model as 'overly simplified' (Section 3) and a 'proof-of-concept' (Section 5).

free parameters (9)
  • v_ph (ejecta velocity at photosphere) = 6000 km/s
    Fiducial truth in the Fisher forecasts (figure 11 caption); the 2% distance precision claim depends on this chosen velocity.
  • D_A (angular diameter distance) = 3 Mpc
    Fiducial distance at which the 2% precision claim is derived (Section 4.2); the forecast is not tested at other distances.
  • tau_ph (line optical depth at photosphere) = 2
    Fiducial optical depth that sets the depth and contrast of the P Cygni feature; chosen by hand.
  • n (power-law index of optical depth profile) = 4
    Fiducial value in eq. (3.7); Appendix B shows distance precision degrades for larger n.
  • eta (asymmetry parameter) = 1.2
    Fiducial elongation of the ellipsoidal photosphere used in the joint forecast.
  • theta (inclination angle) = pi/4
    Fiducial orientation of the ellipsoid; the morphology and distance uncertainty depend on this angle.
  • phi (azimuthal angle) = 0
    Fiducial image-plane rotation; chosen by hand.
  • alpha_em (recombination emission scaling) = 1
    Fiducial value in Appendix C, corresponding to no excess recombination emission; the degeneracy analysis depends on this choice.
  • Spectral likelihood uncertainty = 10%
    Assumed fiducial uncertainty on the spatially integrated spectrum likelihood (Section 4); directly enters the distance uncertainty through breaking the v_ph-D_A degeneracy.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Homologous (ballistic) expansion: v(r) = r/(t - t0), so line-of-sight position maps to wavelength via z = v_parallel (t - t0), eqs. (2.14), (2.15).
    Load-bearing for converting each spectral channel into a spatial slice of the ejecta; if the ejecta are not homologous, the wavelength-to-position mapping breaks.
  • domain assumption Sobolev approximation for line optical depth, eq. (3.5): the integral over s collapses because each wavelength selects a unique line-of-sight velocity.
    Standard in SN P Cygni modeling, but assumes a narrow intrinsic line profile and a monotonic velocity gradient.
  • domain assumption LTE source function: S = W I_cont, where W is the geometric dilution factor, eqs. (3.8)-(3.10).
    Assumes the line-emitting region is optically thin enough that the photospheric radiation field is only geometrically diluted, with no re-absorption cascades.
  • ad hoc to paper Static photosphere during the plateau phase (Section 4.2): the photosphere radius is held constant while ejecta flow outward.
    This modeling choice isolates the ejecta-velocity measurement; real SNe have evolving photospheres, which is acknowledged as a simplification.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law density profiles, eq. (3.6): n_l proportional to |r|^(-alpha) and the stimulated correction proportional to |r|^(-beta), yielding tau proportional to |v|^(-n).
    Chosen for analytic tractability; real ejecta have composition and ionization gradients that are not single power laws.
  • standard math Gaussian likelihoods and Fisher information formalism (Section 4).
    Standard statistical method for sensitivity forecasts; assumes the model is true and errors are Gaussian, which may understate biases from model misspecification.
  • standard math Intensity interferometry correlation variance formula, eq. (2.22).
    Taken from Hanbury Brown-Twiss theory and recent literature (refs. [102-104]); assumed valid in the photon-counting regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Expanding Ejecta Method: I. Mapping Supernova Morphology with Intensity Interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4GFJ7MTX

@misc{pith2026250420132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Expanding Ejecta Method: I. Mapping Supernova Morphology with Intensity Interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4GFJ7MTX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20132}
}
abstract

We explore the potential of optical intensity interferometry to extract angularly resolved information from supernova explosions, introducing the "expanding ejecta method" (EEM) as a robust alternative to the classical expanding photosphere method (EPM). Foreseeing future improvements to intensity interferometers of large light collection area ($25\pi\,\rm{m}^2$ per telescope) equipped with spectral multiplexing ($10^4$ spectral resolution) and fast photodetectors ($10\,\mathrm{ps}$ timing resolution, $50\%$ overall efficiency), we demonstrate that high signal-to-noise measurements of the visibility modulus are achievable for Type IIP (Type Ia) supernovae out to $3~(12)\,\mathrm{Mpc}$. By focusing on generic line emission and absorption in ballistic ejecta, the EEM can relax assumptions about spherical symmetry, blackbody radiation, and extinction. The EEM enables angular diameter distances to be determined with $\sim2\%$ precision for supernovae of apparent magnitude $m = 12$ from a 60-hour observation by an intensity interferometer with those same instrumental specifications. We argue that the EEM is significantly more robust to modeling uncertainties and systematic effects than (variants of) the EPM. In a companion paper, we show how the EEM can be used to provide geometric anchors for cosmic distance ladder calibration, or to construct a wholly independent Hubble diagram based on angular diameter distances.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Expanding Ejecta Method: II. Framework for Cosmological Distance Measurements via Intensity Interferometry

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Geometric supernova distances from intensity interferometry could calibrate the distance ladder and measure H0 to between 0.4% and 9% depending on instrument capability and application, all without luminosity calibration.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [130]

    A. G. Kim, P. E. Nugent, X. Chen, L. Wang, and J. T. O’Brien, Measuring Type Ia Supernova Angular-Diameter Distances with Intensity Interferometry , arXiv:2503.07725

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Dunsky, I.-K

    D. Dunsky, I.-K. Chen, J. Huang, K. Van Tilburg, and R. Wagoner, Expanding Ejecta Method: II. Framework for Cosmological Distance Measurements via Intensity Interferometry ,

  3. [2]

    A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin, Handbook of supernovae. Springer Berlin, 2017

    2017

  4. [3]

    R. M. Bionta, G. Blewitt, C. B. Bratton, D. Casper, A. Ciocio, R. Claus, B. Cortez, M. Crouch, S. T. Dye, S. Errede, G. W. Foster, W. Gajewski, K. S. Ganezer, M. Goldhaber, T. J. Haines, T. W. Jones, D. Kielczewska, W. R. Kropp, J. G. Learned, J. M. Losecco, J. Matthews, R. Miller, M. S. Mudan, H. S. Park, L. R. Price, F. Reines, J. Schultz, S. Seidel, E....

    1987

  5. [4]

    Totsuka, K

    Y. Totsuka, K. Hirata, T. Kajita, M. Koshiba, M. Nakahata, Y. Oyama, N. Sato, A. Suzuki, M. Takita, Y. Totsuka, T. Kifune, T. Suda, K. Takahashi, T. Tanimori, K. Miyano, M. Yamada, E. W. Beier, S. B. Kim, A. K. Mann, F. M. Newcomer, R. van Bert, and W. Zhang, Observation of a neutrino burst from the supernova SN1987a , Nucl. Phys. A 478 (Feb., 1988) 189–195

    1988

  6. [5]

    Chandrasekhar, The Maximum Mass of Ideal White Dwarfs , ApJ 74 (July, 1931) 81

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Maximum Mass of Ideal White Dwarfs , ApJ 74 (July, 1931) 81

    1931

  7. [6]

    E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Synthesis of the Elements in Stars , Reviews of Modern Physics 29 (Oct., 1957) 547–650

    1957

  8. [7]

    S. E. Woosley, A. Heger, and T. A. Weaver, The evolution and explosion of massive stars , Reviews of Modern Physics 74 (Nov., 2002) 1015–1071

    2002

Show all 152 references
  1. [8]

    G. G. Raffelt, Astrophysical methods to constrain axions and other novel particle phenomena , Phys. Rep. 198 (Dec., 1990) 1–113. – 29 –

    1990

  2. [9]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition , arXiv e-prints (Jan., 2024) arXiv:2401.13728, [arXiv:2401.13728]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Carenza, M

    P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Isern, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, Axion astrophysics, Physical Research 1117 (Apr., 2025) 1–102, [ arXiv:2411.02492]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, I. M. Hook, A. G. Kim, M. Y. Kim, J. C. Lee, N. J. Nunes, R. Pain, C. R. Pennypacker, R. Quimby, C. Lidman, R. S. Ellis, M. Irwin, R. G. McMahon, P. Ru...

    1999 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P. Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, and J. T...

  6. [13]

    A. G. Riess, L. M. Macri, S. L. Hoffmann, D. Scolnic, S. Casertano, A. V. Filippenko, B. E. Tucker, M. J. Reid, D. O. Jones, J. M. Silverman, R. Chornock, P. Challis, W. Yuan, P. J. Brown, and R. J. Foley, A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant , ApJ 82...

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, B. K. Gibson, L. Ferrarese, D. D. Kelson, S. Sakai, J. R. Mould, R. C. Kennicutt, Jr., H. C. Ford, J. A. Graham, J. P. Huchra, S. M. G. Hughes, G. D. Illingworth, L. M. Macri, and P. B. Stetson, Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Pr...

    2001 arXiv

  8. [15]

    M. J. Reid, K. M. Menten, A. Brunthaler, X. W. Zheng, T. M. Dame, Y. Xu, Y. Wu, B. Zhang, A. Sanna, M. Sato, K. Hachisuka, Y. K. Choi, K. Immer, L. Moscadelli, K. L. J. Rygl, and A. Bartkiewicz, Trigonometric Parallaxes of High Mass Star Forming Regions: The Structure and Kine...

    2014 arXiv

  9. [16]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. Macri, B. Bucciarelli, M. G. Lattanzi, J. W. MacKenty, J. B. Bowers, W. Zheng, A. V. Filippenko, C. Huang, and R. I. Anderson, Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hu...

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    D. W. Pesce, J. A. Braatz, M. J. Reid, A. G. Riess, D. Scolnic, J. J. Condon, F. Gao, C. Henkel, C. M. V. Impellizzeri, C. Y. Kuo, and K. Y. Lo, The Megamaser Cosmology Project. XIII. Combined Hubble Constant Constraints , ApJ 891 (Mar., 2020) L1, [ arXiv:2001.09213]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Cruz Reyes and R

    M. Cruz Reyes and R. I. Anderson, A 0.9% calibration of the Galactic Cepheid luminosity scale based on Gaia DR3 data of open clusters and Cepheids , A&A 672 (Apr., 2023) A85, [ arXiv:2208.09403]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Breuval, A

    L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, L. M. Macri, S. Li, W. Yuan, S. Casertano, T. Konchady, B. Trahin, M. J. Durbin, and B. F. Williams, A 1.3% Distance to M33 from Hubble Space Telescope Cepheid Photometry, ApJ 951 (July, 2023) 118, [arXiv:2304.00037]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Bhardwaj, High-precision distance measurements with classical pulsating stars , Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 41 (Dec., 2020) 23, [ arXiv:2006.16262]

    A. Bhardwaj, High-precision distance measurements with classical pulsating stars , Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 41 (Dec., 2020) 23, [ arXiv:2006.16262]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, A. G. Riess, T. G. Brink, S. Casertano, A. V. Filippenko, S. L. Hoffmann, C. D. Huang, and D. Scolnic, Absolute Calibration of Cepheid Period-Luminosity Relations in NGC 4258, ApJ 940 (Nov., 2022) 64, [ arXiv:2203.06681]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, D. Hatt, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. L. Beaton, C. R. Burns, M. G. Lee, A. J. Monson, J. R. Neeley, M. M. Phillips, J. A. Rich, and M. Seibert, The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on ...

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Salaris and S

    M. Salaris and S. Cassisi, The ‘tip’ of the red giant branch as a distance indicator: results from evolutionary models, MNRAS 289 (Aug., 1997) 406–414, [ astro-ph/9703186]. – 30 –

    1997 arXiv

  17. [24]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. Beaton, M. G. Lee, A. Monson, J. Neeley, and J. Rich, Calibration of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch , ApJ 891 (Mar., 2020) 57, [arXiv:2002.01550]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    B. F. Madore, W. L. Freedman, K. A. Owens, and I. S. Jang, Quantifying Uncertainties on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch Method , AJ 166 (July, 2023) 2, [arXiv:2305.06195]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    J. L. Tonry, J. P. Blakeslee, E. A. Ajhar, and A. Dressler, The SBF Survey of Galaxy Distances. I. Sample Selection, Photometric Calibration, and the Hubble Constant , ApJ 475 (Feb., 1997) 399–413, [astro-ph/9609113]

    1997 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Pietrzy´ nski, D

    G. Pietrzy´ nski, D. Graczyk, A. Gallenne, W. Gieren, I. B. Thompson, B. Pilecki, P. Karczmarek, M. G´ orski, K. Suchomska, M. Taormina, B. Zgirski, P. Wielg´ orski, Z. Ko laczkowski, P. Konorski, S. Villanova, N. Nardetto, P. Kervella, F. Bresolin, R. P. Kudritzki, J. Storm, ...

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    R. B. Tully and J. R. Fisher, A new method of determining distances to galaxies. , A&A 54 (Feb.,

  22. [29]

    A. J. Lee, W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, K. A. Owens, and T. J. Hoyt, The Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program: The JWST J-region Asymptotic Giant Branch (JAGB) Extragalactic Distance Scale, arXiv e-prints (Aug., 2024) arXiv:2408.03474, [ arXiv:2408.03474]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    R. P. Kirshner and J. Kwan, Distances to extragalactic supernovae. , ApJ 193 (Oct., 1974) 27–36

    1974

  24. [31]

    R. V. Wagoner, Effects of scattering on continuous radiation from supernovae and determination of their distances, ApJ 250 (Nov., 1981) L65–L69

    1981

  25. [32]

    B. P. Schmidt, R. P. Kirshner, and R. G. Eastman, Expanding Photospheres of Type II Supernovae and the Extragalactic Distance Scale , ApJ 395 (Aug., 1992) 366, [ astro-ph/9204004]

    1992 arXiv

  26. [33]

    R. G. Eastman, B. P. Schmidt, and R. Kirshner, The Atmospheres of Type II Supernovae and the Expanding Photosphere Method, ApJ 466 (Aug., 1996) 911

    1996

  27. [34]

    Dessart and D

    L. Dessart and D. J. Hillier, Distance determinations using type II supernovae and the expanding photosphere method, A&A 439 (Aug., 2005) 671–685, [ astro-ph/0505465]

    2005 arXiv

  28. [35]

    R. V. Wagoner, Determining q0 from Supernovae , ApJ 214 (May, 1977) L5

    1977

  29. [36]

    B. P. Schmidt, R. P. Kirshner, R. G. Eastman, M. M. Phillips, N. B. Suntzeff, M. Hamuy, J. Maza, and R. Aviles, The Distance of Five Type II Supernovae Using the Expanding Photosphere Method and the Value of H 0 , ApJ 432 (Sept., 1994) 42

    1994

  30. [37]

    M. I. Jones, M. Hamuy, P. Lira, J. Maza, A. Clocchiatti, M. Phillips, N. Morrell, M. Roth, N. B. Suntzeff, T. Matheson, A. V. Filippenko, R. J. Foley, and D. C. Leonard, Distance Determination to 12 Type II Supernovae Using the Expanding Photosphere Method , ApJ 696 (May, 2009...

    2009 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Bose and B

    S. Bose and B. Kumar, Distance Determination to Eight Galaxies Using Expanding Photosphere Method, ApJ 782 (Feb., 2014) 98, [arXiv:1401.5115]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [39]

    E. E. E. Gall, R. Kotak, B. Leibundgut, S. Taubenberger, W. Hillebrandt, M. Kromer, W. S. Burgett, K. Chambers, H. Flewelling, M. E. Huber, N. Kaiser, R. P. Kudritzki, E. A. Magnier, N. Metcalfe, K. Smith, J. L. Tonry, R. J. Wainscoat, and C. Waters, An updated Type II superno...

    2018 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Baron, P

    E. Baron, P. H. Hauschildt, D. Branch, S. Austin, P. Garnavich, H. B. Ann, R. M. Wagner, A. V. Filippenko, T. Matheson, and J. Liebert, Non-LTE Spectral Analysis and Model Constraints on SN 1993J, ApJ 441 (Mar., 1995) 170

    1995

  34. [41]

    Baron, P

    E. Baron, P. E. Nugent, D. Branch, and P. H. Hauschildt, Type IIP Supernovae as Cosmological Probes: A Spectral-fitting Expanding Atmosphere Model Distance to SN 1999em , ApJ 616 (Dec., 2004) L91–L94, [astro-ph/0410153]

    2004 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Hamuy and P

    M. Hamuy and P. A. Pinto, Type II Supernovae as Standardized Candles , ApJ 566 (Feb., 2002) L63–L65, [astro-ph/0201279]. – 31 –

    2002 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Rodr´ ıguez, A

    ´O. Rodr´ ıguez, A. Clocchiatti, and M. Hamuy,Photospheric Magnitude Diagrams for Type II Supernovae: A Promising Tool to Compute Distances , AJ 148 (Dec., 2014) 107, [ arXiv:1409.3198]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [44]

    de Jaeger, S

    T. de Jaeger, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, J. P. Anderson, L. Galbany, M. Hamuy, M. M. Phillips, M. D. Stritzinger, C. P. Guti´ errez, L. Bolt, C. R. Burns, A. Campillay, S. Castell´ on, C. Contreras, G. Folatelli, W. L. Freedman, E. Y. Hsiao, K. Krisciunas, W. Krzeminski, H. Kunca...

    2015 arXiv

  38. [45]

    C. Vogl, S. Taubenberger, G. Cs¨ ornyei, B. Leibundgut, W. E. Kerzendorf, S. A. Sim, S. Blondin, A. Fl¨ ors, A. Holas, J. V. Shields, J. Spyromilio, S. H. Suyu, and W. Hillebrandt,No rungs attached: A distance-ladder free determination of the Hubble constant through type II su...

    2024

  39. [46]

    Hamuy, P

    M. Hamuy, P. A. Pinto, J. Maza, N. B. Suntzeff, M. M. Phillips, R. G. Eastman, R. C. Smith, C. J. Corbally, D. Burstein, Y. Li, V. Ivanov, A. Moro-Martin, L. G. Strolger, R. E. de Souza, S. dos Anjos, E. M. Green, T. E. Pickering, L. Gonz´ alez, R. Antezana, M. Wischnjewsky, G...

    2001 arXiv

  40. [47]

    D. C. Leonard, A. V. Filippenko, E. L. Gates, W. Li, R. G. Eastman, A. J. Barth, S. J. Bus, R. Chornock, A. L. Coil, S. Frink, C. A. Grady, A. W. Harris, M. A. Malkan, T. Matheson, A. Quirrenbach, and R. R. Treffers, The Distance to SN 1999em in NGC 1637 from the Expanding Pho...

    2002 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Dessart and D

    L. Dessart and D. J. Hillier, Quantitative spectroscopic analysis of and distance to SN1999em , A&A 447 (Feb., 2006) 691–707, [ astro-ph/0510526]

    2006 arXiv

  42. [49]

    P. R. Shapiro and P. G. Sutherland, The polarization of supernova light - A measure of deviation from spherical symmetry, ApJ 263 (Dec., 1982) 902–924

    1982

  43. [50]

    D. C. Leonard and A. V. Filippenko, Spectropolarimetry of the Type II Supernovae 1997ds, 1998A, and 1999gi, PASP 113 (Aug., 2001) 920–936, [ astro-ph/0105295]

    2001 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Dessart, D

    L. Dessart, D. J. Hillier, and D. C. Leonard, The evolution of continuum polarization in type II supernovae as a diagnostic of ejecta morphology , A&A 684 (Apr., 2024) A16, [ arXiv:2401.07330]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Wang and J

    L. Wang and J. C. Wheeler, Spectropolarimetry of supernovae., ARA&A 46 (Sept., 2008) 433–474, [arXiv:0811.1054]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Dessart, D

    L. Dessart, D. J. Hillier, S. Woosley, E. Livne, R. Waldman, S.-C. Yoon, and N. Langer, Radiative-transfer models for supernovae IIb/Ib/Ic from binary-star progenitors , MNRAS 453 (Oct.,

  47. [54]

    J. A. Cardelli, G. C. Clayton, and J. S. Mathis, The Relationship between Infrared, Optical, and Ultraviolet Extinction, ApJ 345 (Oct., 1989) 245

    1989

  48. [55]

    E. L. Fitzpatrick, Correcting for the Effects of Interstellar Extinction , PASP 111 (Jan., 1999) 63–75, [astro-ph/9809387]

    1999 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Baron, D

    E. Baron, D. Branch, P. H. Hauschildt, A. V. Filippenko, R. P. Kirshner, P. M. Challis, S. Jha, R. Chevalier, C. Fransson, P. Lundqvist, P. Garnavich, B. Leibundgut, R. McCray, E. Michael, N. Panagia, M. M. Phillips, C. S. J. Pun, B. Schmidt, G. Sonneborn, N. B. Suntzeff, L. W...

    2000 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Baade, ¨Uber eine M¨ oglichkeit, die Pulsationstheorie derδ Cephei-Ver¨ anderlichen zu pr¨ ufen, Astronomische Nachrichten 228 (Oct., 1926) 359

    W. Baade, ¨Uber eine M¨ oglichkeit, die Pulsationstheorie derδ Cephei-Ver¨ anderlichen zu pr¨ ufen, Astronomische Nachrichten 228 (Oct., 1926) 359

    1926

  51. [58]

    A. J. Wesselink, The observations of brightness, colour and radial velocity of δ Cephei and the pulsation hypothesis (Errata: 10 258, 310) , Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands 10 (Jan., 1946) 91

    1946

  52. [59]

    Hanbury Brown and R

    R. Hanbury Brown and R. G. Twiss, A New type of interferometer for use in radio astronomy , Philosophical Magazine 45 (Mar., 1954) 663–682

    1954

  53. [60]

    Hanbury Brown and R

    R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Correlation between Photons in two Coherent Beams of Light , Nature 177 (Jan., 1956) 27–29. – 32 –

    1956

  54. [61]

    Hanbury Brown, A Test of a New Type of Stellar Interferometer on Sirius , Nature 178 (Nov.,

    R. Hanbury Brown, A Test of a New Type of Stellar Interferometer on Sirius , Nature 178 (Nov.,

  55. [62]

    Hanbury Brown, The intensity interferometer; its application to astronomy

    R. Hanbury Brown, The intensity interferometer; its application to astronomy . London, Taylor & Francis; New York, Halsted Press, 1974

    1974

  56. [63]

    Hanbury Brown, J

    R. Hanbury Brown, J. Davis, and L. R. Allen, The stellar interferometer at Narrabri Observatory I. A. description of the instrument and the observational procedure , MNRAS 137 (Jan., 1967) 375

    1967

  57. [64]

    Hanbury Brown, J

    R. Hanbury Brown, J. Davis, L. R. Allen, and J. M. Rome, The stellar interferometer at Narrabri Observatory-II. The angular diameters of 15 stars , MNRAS 137 (Jan., 1967) 393

    1967

  58. [65]

    Hanbury Brown, J

    R. Hanbury Brown, J. Davis, and L. R. Allen, The Angular Diameters of 32 Stars , MNRAS 167 (Apr., 1974) 121–136

    1974

  59. [66]

    Dravins, S

    D. Dravins, S. LeBohec, H. Jensen, P. D. Nu˜ nez, and CTA Consortium, Optical intensity interferometry with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , Astroparticle Physics 43 (Mar., 2013) 331–347, [arXiv:1204.3624]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [67]

    V. A. Acciari, M. I. Bernardos, E. Colombo, J. L. Contreras, J. Cortina, A. De Angelis, C. Delgado, C. D´ ıaz, D. Fink, M. Mariotti, S. Mangano, R. Mirzoyan, M. Polo, T. Schweizer, and M. Will, Optical intensity interferometry observations using the MAGIC Imaging Atmospheric C...

    2020 arXiv

  61. [68]

    S. Abe, J. Abhir, V. A. Acciari, A. Aguasca-Cabot, I. Agudo, T. Aniello, S. Ansoldi, L. A. Antonelli, A. Arbet Engels, C. Arcaro, et al., Performance and first measurements of the MAGIC stellar intensity interferometer, MNRAS 529 (Apr., 2024) 4387–4404, [ arXiv:2402.04755]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [69]

    A. U. Abeysekara, W. Benbow, A. Brill, J. H. Buckley, J. L. Christiansen, et al., Demonstration of stellar intensity interferometry with the four VERITAS telescopes , Nature Astronomy 4 (Jan., 2020) 1164–1169, [arXiv:2007.10295]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Acharyya, J

    A. Acharyya, J. P. Aufdenberg, P. Bangale, J. T. Bartkoske, P. Batista, W. Benbow, A. J. Chromey, J. D. Davis, Q. Feng, J. Foote, A. Furniss, W. Hanlon, C. E. Hinrichs, J. Holder, W. Jin, P. Kaaret, M. Kertzman, D. Kieda, T. K. Kleiner, N. Korzoun, T. Lebohec, M. A. Lisa, M. L...

    2024 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Rivet, F

    J.-P. Rivet, F. Vakili, O. Lai, D. Vernet, M. Fouch´ e, W. Guerin, G. Labeyrie, and R. Kaiser, Optical long baseline intensity interferometry: prospects for stellar physics , Experimental Astronomy 46 (Dec.,

  65. [72]

    Zmija, N

    A. Zmija, N. Vogel, F. Wohlleben, G. Anton, A. Zink, and S. Funk, First intensity interferometry measurements with the H.E.S.S. telescopes , MNRAS 527 (Feb., 2024) 12243–12252, [arXiv:2312.08015]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [73]

    S. J. Smartt, Progenitors of Core-Collapse Supernovae , ARA&A 47 (Sept., 2009) 63–106, [arXiv:0908.0700]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Richardson, D

    D. Richardson, D. Branch, and E. Baron, Absolute magnitude distributions and light curves of stripped-envelope supernovae, The Astronomical Journal 131 (2006), no. 4 2233

    2006

  68. [75]

    Branch and B

    D. Branch and B. Patchett, Type I supernovae., MNRAS 161 (Jan., 1973) 71

    1973

  69. [76]

    J. B. Oke and L. Searle, The spectra of supernovae., ARA&A 12 (Jan., 1974) 315–329

    1974

  70. [77]

    Nugent, M

    P. Nugent, M. Sullivan, R. Ellis, A. Gal-Yam, D. C. Leonard, D. A. Howell, P. Astier, R. G. Carlberg, A. Conley, S. Fabbro, D. Fouchez, J. D. Neill, R. Pain, K. Perrett, C. J. Pritchet, and N. Regnault, Toward a Cosmological Hubble Diagram for Type II-P Supernovae , ApJ 645 (J...

    2006 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Tak´ ats and J

    K. Tak´ ats and J. Vink´ o,Measuring expansion velocities in Type II-P supernovae , MNRAS 419 (Feb.,

  72. [79]

    C. P. Guti´ errez, J. P. Anderson, M. Hamuy, N. Morrell, S. Gonz´ alez-Gaitan, M. D. Stritzinger, M. M. Phillips, L. Galbany, G. Folatelli, L. Dessart, et al., Type ii supernova spectral diversity. i. observations, sample characterization, and spectral line evolution , The Ast...

    2017

  73. [80]

    Bartel, M

    N. Bartel, M. Bietenholz, M. Rupen, and V. Dwarkadas, Sn 1993j vlbi. iv. a geometric distance to m81 with the expanding shock front method , The Astrophysical Journal 668 (2007), no. 2 924

    2007

  74. [81]

    G. M. Green, E. F. Schlafly, D. P. Finkbeiner, H.-W. Rix, N. Martin, W. Burgett, P. W. Draper, H. Flewelling, K. Hodapp, N. Kaiser, et al., A three-dimensional map of milky way dust , The Astrophysical Journal 810 (2015), no. 1 25

    2015

  75. [82]

    D. J. Schlegel, D. P. Finkbeiner, and M. Davis, Maps of dust infrared emission for use in estimation of reddening and cosmic microwave background radiation foregrounds , The Astrophysical Journal 500 (1998), no. 2 525

    1998

  76. [83]

    Burstein and C

    D. Burstein and C. Heiles, Reddenings derived from hi and galaxy counts-accuracy and maps , Astronomical Journal, vol. 87, Aug. 1982, p. 1165-1189. NSF-supported research. 87 (1982) 1165–1189

    1982

  77. [84]

    Abergel, P

    A. Abergel, P. A. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Alves, G. Aniano, C. Armitage-Caplan, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, F. Atrio-Barandela, J. Aumont, et al., Planck 2013 results. xi. all-sky model of thermal dust emission, Astronomy & Astrophysics 571 (2014) A11

    2014

  78. [85]

    Duarte, S

    J. Duarte, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, A. Mour˜ ao, A. Paulino-Afonso, P. Guilherme-Garcia, J.´Aguas, L. Galbany, L. Kelsey, D. Scolnic, M. Sullivan, et al., A sample of dust attenuation laws for dark energy survey supernova host galaxies , Astronomy & Astrophysics 680 (2023) A56

    2023

  79. [86]

    A. L. Quintana, N. J. Wright, and J. M. Garc´ ıa, A census of ob stars within 1 kpc and the star formation and core collapse supernova rates of the milky way , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 538 (2025), no. 3 1367–1383

    2025

  80. [87]

    J. Li, J. Gao, B. Jiang, and Z. Lin, Dust models for the extinction of type iin supernova sn 2010jl , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511 (2022), no. 2 2021–2032

    2022

  81. [88]

    M. I. Jones, M. Hamuy, P. Lira, J. Maza, A. Clocchiatti, M. Phillips, N. Morrell, M. Roth, N. Suntzeff, T. Matheson, et al., Distance determination to 12 type ii supernovae using the expanding photosphere method, The Astrophysical Journal 696 (2009), no. 2 1176

    2009

  82. [89]

    D. J. Jeffery, Analysis of SN 1987A Polarimetry , ApJ 375 (July, 1991) 264

    1991

  83. [90]

    Hoeflich, J

    P. Hoeflich, J. C. Wheeler, D. C. Hines, and S. R. Trammell, Analysis of the Polarization and Flux Spectra of SN 1993J , ApJ 459 (Mar., 1996) 307, [ astro-ph/9510031]

    1996 arXiv

  84. [91]

    D. C. Leonard, A. V. Filippenko, M. Ganeshalingam, F. J. Serduke, W. Li, B. J. Swift, A. Gal-Yam, R. J. Foley, D. B. Fox, S. Park, et al., A non-spherical core in the explosion of supernova sn 2004dj , Nature 440 (2006), no. 7083 505–507

    2006

  85. [92]

    S. S. Vasylyev, Y. Yang, K. C. Patra, A. V. Filippenko, D. Baade, T. G. Brink, P. Hoeflich, J. R. Maund, F. Patat, L. Wang, et al., Spectropolarimetry of the type iip supernova 2021yja: an unusually high continuum polarization during the photospheric phase , Monthly Notices of...

    2024

  86. [93]

    Patat, P

    F. Patat, P. H¨ oflich, D. Baade, J. Maund, L. Wang, and J. Wheeler, Vlt spectropolarimetry of the type ia sn 2005ke-a step towards understanding subluminous events , Astronomy & Astrophysics 545 (2012) A7

    2012

  87. [94]

    T. E. H. T. Collaboration, First sagittarius a* event horizon telescope results. i. the shadow of the supermassive black hole in the center of the milky way , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 930 (2022), no. L12

    2022

  88. [95]

    Akiyama et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon T elescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole , Astrophys. J. Lett. 875 (2019) L1, [arXiv:1906.11238]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Akiyama et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Event Horizon T elescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama et al., First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. II. Array and Instrumentation , Astrophys. J. Lett. 875 (2019), no. 1 L2, [ arXiv:1906.11239]. – 34 –

    2019 arXiv

  90. [97]

    T. A. ten Brummelaar, H. A. McAlister, S. T. Ridgway, J. Bagnuolo, W. G., N. H. Turner, L. Sturmann, J. Sturmann, D. H. Berger, C. E. Ogden, R. Cadman, W. I. Hartkopf, C. H. Hopper, and M. A. Shure, First Results from the CHARA Array. II. A Description of the Instrument , ApJ ...

    2005 arXiv

  91. [98]

    LeBlanc, An Introduction to Stellar Astrophysics

    F. LeBlanc, An Introduction to Stellar Astrophysics . Wiley, 2010

    2010

  92. [99]

    G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics. 1986

    1986

  93. [100]

    Mihalas, Stellar atmospheres, San Francisco: WH Freeman (1978)

    D. Mihalas, Stellar atmospheres, San Francisco: WH Freeman (1978)

    1978

  94. [101]

    P. A. Pinto and R. G. Eastman, The Physics of Type IA Supernova Light Curves. II. Opacity and Diffusion, ApJ 530 (Feb., 2000) 757–776

    2000

  95. [102]

    Van Tilburg, M

    K. Van Tilburg, M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, and N. Weiner, Astrometry with Extended-Path Intensity Correlation, arXiv:2307.03221

    arXiv

  96. [103]

    Galanis, K

    M. Galanis, K. Van Tilburg, M. Baryakhtar, and N. Weiner, Extended-Path Intensity Correlation: Microarcsecond Astrometry with an Arcsecond Field of View , arXiv:2307.06989

    arXiv

  97. [104]

    Guerin, M

    W. Guerin, M. Hugbart, S. Tolila, N. Matthews, O. Lai, J.-P. Rivet, G. Labeyrie, and R. Kaiser, Stellar intensity interferometry in the photon-counting regime , arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22446 (2025)

    2025

  98. [105]

    Holmes, S

    R. Holmes, S. Lebohec, and P. Nunez, Two-dimensional image recovery in intensity interferometry using the cauchy-riemann relations , in Adaptive Coded Aperture Imaging, Non-Imaging, and Unconventional Imaging Sensor Systems II , vol. 7818, pp. 175–185, SPIE, 2010

    2010

  99. [106]

    Holmes, B

    R. Holmes, B. Calef, D. Gerwe, and P. Crabtree, Cramer–rao bounds for intensity interferometry measurements, Applied optics 52 (2013), no. 21 5235–5246

    2013

  100. [107]

    P. D. Nu˜ nez, R. Holmes, D. Kieda, and S. Lebohec, High angular resolution imaging with stellar intensity interferometry using air Cherenkov telescope arrays , MNRAS 419 (Jan., 2012) 172–183, [arXiv:1108.4682]

    2012 arXiv

  101. [108]

    P. D. Nu˜ nez, R. Holmes, D. Kieda, J. Rou, and S. LeBohec, Imaging submilliarcsecond stellar features with intensity interferometry using air Cherenkov telescope arrays , MNRAS 424 (Aug., 2012) 1006–1011, [arXiv:1205.5743]

    2012 arXiv

  102. [109]

    J. J. Dolne, D. R. Gerwe, and P. N. Crabtree, Cramer-rao lower bound and object reconstruction performance evaluation for intensity interferometry , in Optical and Infrared Interferometry IV , vol. 9146, pp. 946–957, SPIE, 2014

    2014

  103. [110]

    Acharyya, J

    A. Acharyya, J. Aufdenberg, P. Bangale, J. Bartkoske, P. Batista, W. Benbow, A. Chromey, J. Davis, Q. Feng, G. Foote, et al., An angular diameter measurement of β uma via stellar intensity interferometry with the veritas observatory , The Astrophysical Journal 966 (2024), no. 1 28

    2024

  104. [111]

    V. V. Sobolev, Moving envelopes of stars . Harvard University Press, 1960

    1960

  105. [112]

    Patat, The dancing sky: 6 years of night-sky observations at Cerro Paranal , A&A 481 (Apr., 2008) 575–591, [arXiv:0801.2270]

    F. Patat, The dancing sky: 6 years of night-sky observations at Cerro Paranal , A&A 481 (Apr., 2008) 575–591, [arXiv:0801.2270]

    2008 arXiv

  106. [113]

    Tak´ ats and J

    K. Tak´ ats and J. Vink´ o,Measuring expansion velocities in type ii-p supernovae , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 419 (2012), no. 4 2783–2796

    2012

  107. [114]

    M. T. Soumagnac et al., The MOST Hosts Survey: Spectroscopic Observation of the Host Galaxies of ∼40,000 Transients Using DESI , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 275 (2024), no. 2 22, [ arXiv:2405.03857]

    2024 arXiv

  108. [115]

    J. P. Anderson et al., Optical and near-infrared photometry of 94 type II supernovae from the Carnegie Supernova Project, Astron. Astrophys. 692 (2024) A95, [ arXiv:2410.06738]

    2024 arXiv

  109. [116]

    Najarro, D

    F. Najarro, D. Hillier, and O. Stahl, A spectroscopic investigation of p cygni. i. h and hei lines. , Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 326, p. 1117-1134 326 (1997) 1117–1134

    1997

  110. [117]

    Rivet, A

    J. Rivet, A. Siciak, E. de Almeida, F. Vakili, A. Domiciano de Souza, M. Fouch´ e, O. Lai, D. Vernet, R. Kaiser, and W. Guerin, Intensity interferometry of p cygni in the h α emission line: towards distance calibration of lbv supergiant stars , Monthly Notices of the Royal Ast...

    2020

  111. [118]

    Sneppen, D

    A. Sneppen, D. Watson, A. Bauswein, O. Just, R. Kotak, E. Nakar, D. Poznanski, and S. Sim, Spherical symmetry in the kilonova AT2017gfo/GW170817 , Nature 614 (2023), no. 7948 436–439, [arXiv:2302.06621]

    2023 arXiv

  112. [119]

    K. P. Mooley, J. Anderson, and W. Lu, Optical superluminal motion measurement in the neutron-star merger gw170817, Nature 610 (2022), no. 7931 273–276

    2022

  113. [120]

    Mooley, A

    K. Mooley, A. Deller, O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, G. Hallinan, S. Bourke, D. Frail, A. Horesh, A. Corsi, and K. Hotokezaka, Superluminal motion of a relativistic jet in the neutron-star merger gw170817 , Nature 561 (2018), no. 7723 355–359

    2018

  114. [121]

    Vartanyan, B

    D. Vartanyan, B. T. H. Tsang, D. Kasen, A. Burrows, T. Wang, and L. Teryoshin, A 3D Simulation of a Type II-P Supernova: From Core Bounce to beyond Shock Breakout , Astrophys. J. 982 (2025), no. 1 9, [ arXiv:2411.03434]

    2025 arXiv

  115. [122]

    J. I. Castor and H. Lamers, An atlas of theoretical p cygni profiles , Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, vol. 39, Apr. 1979, p. 481-511. 39 (1979) 481–511

    1979

  116. [123]

    Shakhovskoi, Optical linear polarization of the type i supernova in ngc 7723 , Soviet Astronomy Letters, vol

    N. Shakhovskoi, Optical linear polarization of the type i supernova in ngc 7723 , Soviet Astronomy Letters, vol. 2, May-June 1976, p. 107, 108. Translation. Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, vol. 2, June 1976, p. 275-279. 2 (1976) 107

    1976

  117. [124]

    P. R. Shapiro and P. G. Sutherland, The polarization of supernova light-a measure of deviation from spherical symmetry, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 263, Dec. 15, 1982, p. 902-924. 263 (1982) 902–924

    1982

  118. [125]

    M. L. McCall, Are supernovae round? i–the case for spectropolarimetry , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 210 (1984), no. 4 829–837

    1984

  119. [126]

    D. C. Leonard, A. V. Filippenko, D. R. Ardila, and M. S. Brotherton, Is it Round? Spectropolarimetry of the type II-P supernova 1999em , Astrophys. J. 553 (2001) 861, [ astro-ph/0009285]

    2001 arXiv

  120. [127]

    D. C. Leonard, A. V. Filippenko, and T. Matheson, Probing the geometry of supernovae with spectropolarimetry, AIP Conf. Proc. 522 (2000), no. 1 165, [ astro-ph/9912337]

    2000 arXiv

  121. [128]

    W. D. Arnett, J. N. Bahcall, R. P. Kirshner, and S. E. Woosley, Supernova 1987a, IN: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics. Volume 27 (A90-29983 12-90). Palo Alto, CA, Annual Reviews, Inc., 1989, p. 629-700. Research supported by the University of Arizona. 27 (1989) 629–700

    1989

  122. [129]

    S. A. Sim, Spectra of Supernovae During the Photospheric Phase , in Handbook of Supernovae (A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin, eds.), p. 769. 2017

    2017

  123. [131]

    Hutsemekers and J

    D. Hutsemekers and J. Surdej, Formation of P Cygni Line Profiles in Relativistically Expanding Atmospheres, ApJ 361 (Oct., 1990) 367

    1990

  124. [132]

    Dai and N

    B. Dai and N. Dalal in preparation, 2025

    2025

  125. [133]

    W. E. Kerzendorf and S. A. Sim, A spectral synthesis code for rapid modelling of supernovae , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 440 (2014), no. 1 387–404

    2014

  126. [134]

    S. A. Sim, Multidimensional simulations of radiative transfer in type ia supernovae , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 375 (2007), no. 1 154–162

    2007

  127. [135]

    Kromer and S

    M. Kromer and S. Sim, Time-dependent three-dimensional spectrum synthesis for type ia supernovae , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 398 (2009), no. 4 1809–1826

    2009

  128. [136]

    Kasen, R

    D. Kasen, R. Thomas, and P. Nugent, Time-dependent monte carlo radiative transfer calculations for three-dimensional supernova spectra, light curves, and polarization , The Astrophysical Journal 651 (2006), no. 1 366

    2006

  129. [137]

    Foreman-Mackey, corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python , The Journal of Open Source Software 1 (jun, 2016) 24

    D. Foreman-Mackey, corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python , The Journal of Open Source Software 1 (jun, 2016) 24

    2016

  130. [138]

    P. V. et al., Scipy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python , Nature Methods (Feb., 2020). – 36 –

    2020

  131. [139]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Sheppard...

    2020

  132. [140]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018

    2018

  133. [141]

    Dalal, M

    N. Dalal, M. Galanis, C. Gammie, S. E. Gralla, and N. Murray, Probing H0 and resolving AGN disks with ultrafast photon counters , Phys. Rev. D 109 (June, 2024) 123029, [ arXiv:2403.15903]. A Analysis Pipeline We outline the procedure used to generate SN images around a P Cygni...

    2024 arXiv

  134. [146]

    Specify SN parameters: Set key model parameters such as the ejecta velocity at the photo- sphere vph, the angular diameter distance DA, and other relevant quantities

  135. [147]

    Calculate line-of-sight coordinates: For each spectral channel at wavelengthλ (given a fixed rest-frame wavelength λrest), compute the line-of-sight position z of the ejecta as a function of time, following eq. (2.14)

  136. [148]

    (3.7) and (3.10)

    Compute optical depth and dilution factor: Calculate the three-dimensional optical depth τ(x,y,λ ) and the geometric dilution factor W based on eqs. (3.7) and (3.10)

  137. [149]

    (3.3), (2.17), (2.13), and (3.8)

    Generate 2D images: For each spectral channel, create the 2D image by combining the photo- spheric emission, absorption, and recombination emission according to eqs. (3.3), (2.17), (2.13), and (3.8)

  138. [150]

    Integrate over spatial coordinates: Sum over the 2D image to obtain the spatially integrated spectrum, equivalent to evaluating the integral R dΩIλ(λ, θ)

  139. [151]

    Perform 2D Hankel transform: Apply a two-dimensional Fourier transform in polar coor- dinates (a Hankel transform) to the images to obtain the intensity correlation function

  140. [152]

    Conduct Fisher analysis: Calculate the Hessian matrix of the negative log-likelihood func- tion around the true model parameters to perform Fisher analysis and estimate parameter uncertainties [141]. B Effect of Model Parameters on Distance Measurement We explore how the varia...

  141. [1998]

    1009–1038, [ astro-ph/9805201]

    arXiv

  142. [2012]

    2783–2796, [ arXiv:1109.5873]. – 33 –

    arXiv

  143. [2015]

    2189–2213, [ arXiv:1507.07783]

    arXiv

  144. [2018]

    531–542, [ arXiv:1805.06078]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.