Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Inferring Dense Confined Circumstellar Medium around Supernova Progenitors via Long-term Hydrodynamical Evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper shows that a dense confined circumstellar shell around a supernova progenitor changes the long-term evolution of the forward shock, producing extra deceleration followed by re-acceleration and distinctive radio rebrightening.

desk verdict A plausible new mechanism for late-time radio variability in Type II SNe from the long-term dynamical memory of confined CSM; radiative cooling is the main uncertainty but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14255 v2 pith:4LFRDAKJ submitted 2025-04-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Tomoki Matsuoka , Keiichi Maeda , Ke-Jung Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords supernovaecircumstellarmediumCSMinteractionforwardshockhydrodynamicsradiolightcurvesself-similarsolutionconfined
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

The paper argues that a supernova's early encounter with a dense, localized shell of circumstellar matter does not end when the shell is swept up; it changes how the forward shock moves for years afterward. Using one-dimensional hydrodynamics, the authors show that once the forward shock has consumed the confined shell (roughly 10 days after explosion), the shocked outer wind is pushed by the freely expanding confined material rather than by the supernova ejecta. During this phase the forward shock slows faster than the standard self-similar solution predicts, with velocity falling roughly as $t^{-0.28}$. When the reverse shock inside the confined material reaches the ejecta, the ejecta resumes driving and the shock re-accelerates by tens of percent. These two episodes appear in radio light curves as a rapid decline followed by rebrightening, so late-time radio observations can reveal the dense inner CSM and the early interaction history.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the transition in the driving source of the shocked shell. In the standard picture the forward shock is driven by the ram pressure of adiabatically expanding supernova ejecta; in these simulations, after sweep-up the confined CSM component expands homologously and its ram pressure drives the outer forward shock. That component's density profile flattens to roughly $n=5.5$, producing the fast $v_{\rm FS} \propto t^{-0.28}$ deceleration, and a reverse shock in the confined component marks its inner boundary. The timing of the subsequent recovery is set by when the reverse shock reaches the ejecta head, roughly when the forward shock has swept up as much tenuous wind mass as the confined CSM mass. The simulations follow this structure with one-dimensional Lagrangian hydrodynamics and compare the velocity histories to the self-similar $n=12$ and $n=5.5$ reference slopes.

What would settle it

Observe a well-sampled 5 GHz radio light curve of a Type II supernova with a known confined CSM: the model predicts that after the initial peak around 50 days the optically thin decline steepens to roughly $t^{-1.84}$ (from the $t^{-0.28}$ forward-shock slope) at 40 to 300 days and then shows a single rebrightening at a mass-dependent time around 270 to 2900 days. A light curve that declines monotonically without this break-and-rebrightening pattern would contradict the mechanism as modeled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the long-term evolution of a supernova's forward shock retains a memory of an early dense, confined circumstellar medium. After the forward shock sweeps up the confined CSM and plunges into the tenuous wind outside it, the shocked shell's expansion is driven by the ram pressure of the shocked confined component as that component relaxes into homologous expansion (velocity proportional to radius), not by the supernova ejecta. This driving produces a forward-shock deceleration steeper than the thin-shell self-similar prediction, approximately $v_{\rm FS} \propto t^{-0.28}$ (matching ejecta slope $n=5.5$ and CSM slope $s=2$), until the reverse shock propagating through the confined component reaches the head of the ejecta. At that point the system restores to the no-confined-CSM evolution, the forward shock velocity jumps by about 30 percent, and subsequent evolution converges to the standard case. The authors demonstrate that this peculiar velocity history translates into predicted radio light curves with a fast optically thin decline and a later rebrightening, with timings tied to the confined CSM mass.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume the dense shell expands adiabatically (without radiating away its heat) and keeps a smooth, wind-like density falloff after the shock passes; if radiative cooling compresses it into a thin shell, or if the confined material is a detached shell instead of a wind-like profile, the predicted extra slowdown, the reverse-shock timing, and the rebrightening would all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Late-time radio light curves of supernovae can carry a direct imprint of the earliest CSM interaction, so a fast decline and a single rebrightening years after explosion can be read as evidence for confined CSM.
  • Fitting a fast-declining radio light curve with the standard single-component model may misattribute the slope to a flatter ejecta profile or a steeper CSM profile; the confined-CSM interpretation is a competing solution that must be considered.
  • The delay before the fast deceleration phase scales roughly as $M_{\rm CSM}^{1/2}$, so more massive confined shells push the signature to later times, from about 40 days at $3\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ to about 300 days at $3\times10^{-2}\,M_\odot$.
  • The rebrightening occurs when the reverse shock reaches the ejecta head, nearly when the forward shock has swept up tenuous wind mass comparable to the confined CSM mass; after that, evolution converges to the no-confined-CSM model.
  • Early-phase CSM interaction should be included in self-consistent modeling of late-phase optical, X-ray, and radio emission, not only in the first days after explosion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If radiative cooling is included, the sharp rebrightening may smooth into a broader bump, but the two-phase signature of fast decline followed by recovery should persist, so searches should target smooth late-time radio variability rather than require a spike.
  • A testable extension: the timing of the radio decline break could be used to estimate the confined CSM mass from $M_{\rm CSM} \sim (t_{\rm break})^2$, giving a new independent probe of pre-explosion mass loss.
  • The same mechanism should operate in stripped-envelope supernovae if they have a dense inner CSM, so late-time radio and X-ray observations of Type Ib/Ic supernovae may show analogous breaks.
  • Multi-dimensional effects such as Rayleigh-Taylor mixing at the CSM interfaces would smear the hydrodynamic profiles but not erase the restoration of ejecta-driven expansion, implying observed rebrightenings should be smoother but still detectable.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses one-dimensional nonradiative hydrodynamics (the SNEC code) to simulate a Type II supernova explosion interacting with a dense confined CSM (mass-loss rates 1e-5 to 1e-3 Msun/yr within R_CSM = 1e15 cm) surrounded by a tenuous wind. The central claim is that after the forward shock sweeps up the confined CSM at about 10 days, the shocked shell is driven by the ram pressure of the homologously expanding, previously shocked confined CSM component rather than by the SN ejecta. This produces a faster-than-standard deceleration of the forward shock, v_FS ~ t^-0.28, interpreted with Eq. (1) as an effective ejecta slope n = 5.5 and CSM slope s = 2. The phase lasts until the reverse shock in the confined CSM reaches the head of the SN ejecta, after which the system relaxes to the no-confined-CSM evolution and the forward shock reaccelerates by tens of percent. The authors construct radio light curves from the simulated shock evolution and point to rapid decline and rebrightening as observational counterparts, comparing qualitatively with SN 2001ig and SN 2003bg.

Significance. If robust, the result is significant: it demonstrates that the early interaction with a confined CSM can leave detectable imprints on late-time radio evolution, so that late-phase observations can probe mass loss immediately before explosion even years afterward. The paper has clear strengths: it uses an established hydrodynamics code, compares the shocked structure against Chevalier self-similar solutions, and varies the confined CSM mass-loss rate over three orders of magnitude without tuning parameters to reproduce the target radio data. The predicted correlation between the confined CSM mass and the timing of the rapid-decline/rebrightening features (roughly M_CSM^1/2) is a falsifiable observational signature. The main weakness is that the mechanism depends on the adiabatic, pressure-driven homologous expansion of the shocked confined CSM, and the paper does not quantitatively establish that this phase survives radiative cooling in the densest models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 4 (Figs. 1, 4)] The nonradiative assumption is load-bearing for the central mechanism. For the densest model in Table 1, the post-shock density at R_CSM ~ 1e15 cm is of order 1e10 cm^-3 with a shock temperature near 1e9 K, giving a free-free cooling time of order days, comparable to or shorter than the roughly 10-day dynamical time; the inner parts of the confined CSM cool even faster. The statement in Section 4 that the change of the driving source is 'invariable regardless of the inclusion of radiative cooling' does not establish that the homologous expansion, the emergent n ≈ 5.5 density slope, and the t^-0.28 deceleration in Figure 4 survive cooling. Please add a quantitative cooling-time estimate for the shocked confined CSM in each of the three models, and either run a radiative-cooling test or give a physical argument showing that the pressure-driven homologous phase and the reverse-shock timing are unchanged when the shocked gas can radiate.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Eq. (1)] The identification of the fast-deceleration phase with n = 5.5 relies on reading that slope from the simulated density profile, but no independent derivation is given for why the homologously expanding confined CSM develops n ≈ 5.5. Because the initial confined CSM has a wind-like rho ~ r^-2 profile, it is not obvious that a different confined-CSM geometry (for example, a detached shell or a shallower density gradient) would yield the same effective n and therefore the same v_FS ~ t^-0.28 slope and the same reverse-shock timing. A brief analytic estimate or an additional simulation with a non-wind confined-CSM profile would materially strengthen the claim that the fast deceleration and rebrightening are generic signatures of a dense confined CSM rather than a property of the adopted wind profile.
  3. [Section 2 (numerical setup)] No resolution or convergence test is reported for the Lagrangian SNEC runs. The onset of homologous expansion in the confined CSM and the subsequent arrival of the reverse shock at the ejecta head (Figures 2 and 4) depend on the fine structure of the shocked shell and on numerical dissipation at contact discontinuities. A short convergence study (varying the number of zones by a factor of at least two) would show that the reported deceleration slope, the M_CSM^1/2 timing relation, and the reacceleration epoch are not numerical artifacts.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3, Figure 5] There is a typo in the text: 'Figrue 5' should be 'Figure 5'.
  2. [Figure 4 and Figure 5 captions] The x-axis of Figure 4 is 'time since energy injection' while Figure 5 uses 'time since shock breakout from the progenitor surface'; the text should state explicitly how these two time origins differ so that the reader can compare the figures directly.
  3. [Table 1] For the 'No confined CSM' model, the value M_CSM = (3e-5) is confusing: it should be stated explicitly that this is the wind mass enclosed within 1e15 cm in the reference model, not an additional confined component.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1)] The deceleration parameter should be defined consistently: if m is defined by R_FS ~ t^m, then m = (n-3)/(n-s) and V_FS ~ t^{m-1}; the current text introduces m after writing m - 1 = (s-3)/(n-s), which is algebraically equivalent but should be stated clearly to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 3.2] The statement that the deceleration timing is 'likely to be proportional to M_CSM^1/2 at most within a factor' is vague; please give the measured onset times for the three models and the implied scaling, including the uncertainty from the finite grid of models.
  6. [Section 2] The parameter 'bomb mass spread=0.3d0' is code-specific notation; it should be explained in physical terms (the mass coordinate to which the thermal energy is initially spread) so that the setup is reproducible by readers not familiar with SNEC.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the t^-0.28 deceleration and late radio rebrightening are emergent hydrodynamical outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The confined-CSM models are prescribed physical scenarios (Table 1) with no parameter fitted to the target results, and the simulations are run with the open code SNEC. The central result, the faster-than-self-similar forward shock deceleration with V_FS ~ t^-0.28, is not imposed: the density slope n ~ 5.5 is diagnosed from the simulated density profile of the confined CSM component ('It is also seen from Figure 3 that the confined CSM component has a density slope of n = 5.5'), and the t^-0.28 slope is then recognized as matching Chevalier's self-similar scaling through Eq. (1), m - 1 = (s - 3)/(n - s), with n = 5.5 and s = 2. Equation (1) is used only as an interpretive mapping, not as an input that generates the evolution. The later reacceleration and radio rebrightening are likewise consequences of the reverse shock reaching the head of the SN ejecta in the hydrodynamical simulation. The radio light curves use standard synchrotron emission prescriptions and are explicitly not tuned to the observed comparison objects: 'our models are not tuned to the observational data of SN 2001ig and SN 2003bg'. The self-citations present in the paper are contextual or corroborative rather than load-bearing: Matsuoka et al. (2019) is cited for the shock acceleration at a density drop and for qualitative consistency of early radio light curves, Matsuoka & Sawada (2024) for binary interaction as a possible mass-loss mechanism, and Maeda (2013) for cooling at shock breakout. None of these citations supplies a uniqueness theorem, an ansatz, or a fitted value on which the central claim depends. The radiative-cooling caveat in Section 4 is an acknowledged limitation: the adiabatic homologous expansion that sets n ~ 5.5 may be modified if cooling is important, but this is a physical uncertainty about whether the mechanism operates, not a circular step in which an output is defined as an input. No equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. A score of 1 reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations and the interpretive use of a prior numerical demonstration by the same authors; the central derivation remains independent and emergent.

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

The central result rests on the assumed CSM geometry and the neglect of radiative cooling, which are physical scenario choices rather than hidden fitting parameters. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The free parameters listed are the deliberately varied CSM properties and the standard explosion inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Confined CSM mass-loss rate (Mdot_conf) = 1e-3, 1e-4, 1e-5 Msun/yr
    Chosen by hand to represent high, intermediate, and low density confined CSM; sets M_CSM (3e-2, 3e-3, 3e-4 Msun) and controls the timing of homologous expansion and restoration.
  • Confined CSM outer radius R_CSM = 1e15 cm
    Chosen; determines when the forward shock plunges into the tenuous wind (roughly 10 days).
  • Background wind mass-loss rate = 1e-6 Msun/yr
    Assumed standard red supergiant wind; serves as the reference model without confined CSM.
  • Wind velocity = 10 km/s
    Assumed standard RSG wind velocity; applied to both the background wind and the confined CSM component.
  • Explosion energy = 1e51 erg
    Injected thermal energy in SNEC; standard supernova energy scale.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Nonradiative (adiabatic) hydrodynamics is sufficient for the central mechanism.
    Radiative cooling is neglected in Section 2 and discussed in Section 4; it could form a thin shell and alter density profiles and timing, although the authors argue the driving-source change is invariable.
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry and 1D Lagrangian hydrodynamics capture the essential evolution.
    The code SNEC is 1D; Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities at interfaces are not modeled, as acknowledged in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The confined CSM follows a wind-like density profile rho ~ r^-2 with the same velocity as the background wind.
    Section 2 multiplies the mass-loss rate within R_CSM while keeping v_w=10 km/s; the resulting post-shock density slope n~5.5 is emergent, but a different CSM profile could change it.
  • standard math Self-similar solutions (Chevalier 1982a) describe the shocked shell in each phase.
    Used in Section 3 to compare forward shock evolution (n=12 and n=5.5 with s=2); assumes power-law ejecta and wind density profiles.
  • domain assumption The MESA 15 Msun ZAMS progenitor with wind mass loss represents typical Type II SN progenitors.
    The progenitor reaches about 12 Msun at collapse; the results are claimed to generalize, but only one progenitor model is tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring Dense Confined Circumstellar Medium around Supernova Progenitors via Long-term Hydrodynamical Evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LFRDAKJ

@misc{pith2026250414255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring Dense Confined Circumstellar Medium around Supernova Progenitors via Long-term Hydrodynamical Evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LFRDAKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14255}
}
abstract

Circumstellar interaction of supernova (SN) ejecta is an essential process in its evolution and observations of SNe have found the signature of circumstellar interaction both in the early and late evolutionary phase of SNe. In this Letter, we show that if the SN forward shock plunges into tenuous stellar wind from dense circumstellar medium (CSM) in the vicinity of the progenitor (i.e., confined CSM), the subsequent time evolutions of the SN-CSM interaction system deviates from the prediction of self-similar solution. In this case, after all of the confined CSM is swept up by the SN forward shock (roughly $10$ days after the explosion), the propagation of the shocked shell will be driven by the freely expanding ram pressure of the confined CSM component, instead of the SN ejecta. Meanwhile, the forward shock decelerates faster than the prediction of thin-shell approximation once the confined CSM component reaches homologous expansion. This lasts until the reverse shock in the confined CSM component reaches the head of the SN ejecta, leading to the restoration of the system into the evolutionary model without confined CSM, where the SN ejecta drives the expansion of the system. We also show that this peculiar evolution will be reflected in observational signatures originating from SN-CSM interaction, taking rapid decline and rebrightening of radio emission as examples. Our results shed light on the importance of taking into account the effect of initial SN-CSM interaction even when we focus on observational properties of SNe a few years after the explosion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14255 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of velocity (upper left), density (upper right), ram pressure (lower left), and temperature (lower right) profiles in the SN-CSM interaction model possessing confined CSM with the mass-loss rate of M˙ = 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 . The SN ages are noted alongside each profile in the unit of day. Blue, red, and black lines indicate that the gas component is the SN ejecta, confined CSM, and tenuous wind CSM, respecti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of the density structure in the model with M˙ = 10−4 M⊙yr−1 , but the x-axis is plotted by the mass coordinates (m) with the zero point set to the con￾tact discontinuity between the SN ejecta and the confined CSM. The color usage is the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Time evolution of the density structure with the radius in the abscissa normalized by the forward shock radius at given times. The color usage is the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the forward shock velocity in our models. The dashed black lines denote the time depen￾dence of ∝ t −0.1 (corresponding to n = 12) and ∝ t −0.28 (n = 5.5) for the reference. deceleration of the forward shock is associated with the temporal variation o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Systematic Investigation into Radio Supernovae with Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis: Implications for Massive Stars' Mass Loss and Shock Acceleration Physics

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

    A unified MCMC fit of 32 radio supernovae shows higher mass-loss for stripped-envelope progenitors and attributes apparent shock-acceleration anomalies to a dense inner circumstellar medium.

  2. Red Supergiant Mass Loss and Mass-Loss Rates

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A synthesis review concluding that red supergiant mass loss is gravity-driven, metallicity-independent in rate, and bimodal, with low-mass stars keeping their mantles to core collapse and massive stars shedding them t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., & Meakin, C

    Arnett, W. D., & Meakin, C. 2011, ApJ, 733, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/78

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/78 2011

  2. [2]

    C., Orellana, M., Folatelli, G., et al

    Bersten, M. C., Orellana, M., Folatelli, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348183

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348183 2024

  3. [3]

    F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9 2021

  4. [4]

    A., Pearson, J., Shrestha, M., et al

    Bostroem, K. A., Pearson, J., Shrestha, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf9a4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf9a4 2023

  5. [5]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982a, ApJ, 258, 790, doi: 10.1086/160126 —. 1982b, ApJ, 259, 302, doi: 10.1086/160167 —. 2012, ApJL, 752, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    doi:10.1086/160126 2012

  6. [6]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 1994, ApJ, 420, 268, doi: 10.1086/173557 —. 2006, ApJ, 651, 381, doi: 10.1086/507606 —. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 875, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 34

    doi:10.1086/173557 1994

  7. [7]

    A., Fransson, C., & Nymark, T

    Chevalier, R. A., Fransson, C., & Nymark, T. K. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1029, doi: 10.1086/500528 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259

    doi:10.1086/500528 2006

  8. [8]

    Dessart, L., Audit, E., & Hillier, D. J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv609

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv609 2015

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    2024a, A&A, 685, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347646 —

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024a, A&A, 685, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347646 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09893, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09893

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    Fransson, C., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 461, 993, doi: 10.1086/177119

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1314

    Fuller, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1314

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

    Hiramatsu, D., Tsuna, D., Berger, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a62 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W

    Iwata, Y., Akimoto, M., Matsuoka, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a62 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf2ec Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Davis, K. W., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2024,...

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Coulter, D

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a4c

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, ApJ, 762, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/14

    Maeda, K. 2013, ApJ, 762, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/14

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, ApJL, 945, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb25e

    Maeda, K., Michiyama, T., Chandra, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb25e

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Matsuoka, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    Margutti, R., Kamble, A., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/140

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Matthews, D

    Margutti, R., Bright, J. S., Matthews, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf1fd

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, A&A, 683, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348142

    Ertini, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348142

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Anderson, J

    Martinez, L., Bersten, M. C., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142076

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4421

    Matsuoka, T., Maeda, K., Lee, S.-H., & Yasuda, H. 2019, ApJ, 885, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4421

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1829

    Matsuoka, T., & Sawada, R. 2024, ApJ, 963, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1829

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    D., & McKee, C

    Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJ, 510, 379, doi: 10.1086/306571

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., et al

    Moriya, T. J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1520, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1392

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Yoon, S.-C., Gr¨ afener, G., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Yoon, S.-C., Gr¨ afener, G., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2017, MNRAS, 469, L108, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx056

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

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

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae170

    Murai, Y., Tanaka, M., Kawabata, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae170

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al

    Nayana, A. J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 51, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02647

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    K., Fransson, C., & Kozma, C

    Nymark, T. K., Fransson, C., & Kozma, C. 2006, A&A, 449, 171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054169

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

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

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

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

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

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

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

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

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

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    Quataert, E., & Shiode, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    2012

  29. [37]

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

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

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Sadler, E

    Ryder, S. D., Sadler, E. M., Subrahmanyan, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1093, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07589.x

    2004

  31. [39]

    K., Anupama, G

    Sahu, D. K., Anupama, G. C., Srividya, S., & Muneer, S. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1315, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10937.x

    2006

  32. [40]

    H., & Quataert, E

    Shiode, J. H., & Quataert, E. 2014, ApJ, 780, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/96

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Sand, D

    Shrestha, M., Bostroem, K. A., Sand, D. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 972, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6907

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Moriya, T

    Singh, A., Teja, R. S., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7955 Inferring Confined CSM Through Long-term SN Evolution 11

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Smith, N., & Arnett, W. D. 2014, ApJ, 785, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/82

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Frail, D. A. 2006, ApJ, 651, 1005, doi: 10.1086/507571

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Wiston, E., et al

    Soria, R., Russell, T. D., Wiston, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01740, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01740

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    K., & McKee, C

    Truelove, J. K., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJS, 120, 299, doi: 10.1086/313176

    1999 doi

  39. [47]

    E., Fesen, R

    Weil, K. E., Fesen, R. A., Patnaude, D. J., & Milisavljevic, D. 2020, ApJ, 900, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b1

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Yaron, O., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510, doi: 10.1038/nphys4025

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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