Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 70 references

SN 2023ixf in M101: physical parameters from bolometric light curve modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SN 2023ixf's late bolometric light curve yields 0.046 solar masses of radioactive nickel and an ejecta of no more than 9 solar masses.

desk verdict Potentially interesting low-ejecta result for SN 2023ixf, but the supplied text is unreadable and the gamma-ray trapping assumption needs checking. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06654 v1 pith:5JWIA7YA submitted 2025-08-08 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

J. Vinko , Zs. R. Bodola , A. Godeny , Sz. F. Csak , R. Konyves-Toth , A. P. Nagy , T. Szalai , D. Banhidi
show 20 more authors
I. B. Biro A. Bodi Zs. Bora I. Csanyi B. Cseh T. Hegedus A. Horti-David A. P. Joo Cs. Kalup L. Kriskovics E. Mochnacs A. Pal Zs. Regaly B. Seli A. Sodor N. O. Szabo R. Szakats P. Szekely V. Varga K. Vida
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords SN2023ixfcore-collapsesupernovabolometriclightcurvenickel-56massejectaM101TypeIIradioactivedecay
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 follows SN 2023ixf, a core-collapse supernova in the galaxy M101 — the explosion of a massive star — for roughly 400 days, and builds its bolometric light curve, the total luminosity across all wavelengths over time, from multi-band photometry. It argues that the late-time tail of that curve is powered by the radioactive decay of nickel-56 and cobalt-56, and from the tail's luminosity it derives an initial nickel mass of $M_{\rm Ni}=0.046\pm0.007\,M_\odot$. Matching the whole light curve to both hydrodynamical explosion models and semi-analytic radiative-diffusion models, the paper concludes that the ejecta mass, the mass of material thrown off in the explosion, is at most about $9\,M_\odot$, notably lower than the $15\,M_\odot$ or more inferred for the similar hydrogen-rich supernova SN 2017eaw. If this is right, SN 2023ixf is a low-yield core-collapse event, either from a less massive progenitor or from a star that lost much of its envelope before exploding.

What carries the argument

The paper's working object is the bolometric light curve — the total luminosity radiated at all wavelengths as a function of time — assembled from multi-band photometry and extended to roughly 400 days after explosion. The argument's engine is the radioactive-decay tail: after the first few months, the luminosity is set by the energy released as nickel-56 decays to cobalt-56 and then to iron-56, so the tail's absolute level fixes the initial nickel mass, while the rise, peak, and decline of the full curve are matched against hydrodynamical explosion models and semi-analytic radiative-diffusion models (simplified descriptions of radiation leaking out of the expanding ejecta) to fix the ejecta

What would settle it

Look for a bolometric decay slope after roughly day 100 that is steeper than the 77.2-day half-life of cobalt-56 would produce, or for an infrared excess or flattening at late times; either would show an additional power source or gamma-ray leakage, breaking the radioactive-trapping assumption. Alternatively, an independent geometric distance to M101 that shifts the luminosity beyond the quoted uncertainties would rescale $M_{\rm Ni}$ (which scales with distance squared) and could push the ejecta mass above $9\,M_\odot$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SN 2023ixf's bolometric light curve, observed to 400 days after explosion, is well described by a standard radioactive-decay-powered supernova with a small nickel mass and a small ejecta mass. The paper infers $M_{\rm Ni}=0.046\pm0.007\,M_\odot$ from the late-phase tail and $M_{\rm ej}\lesssim9\,M_\odot$ from comparing the full curve to two independent classes of models, hydrodynamical simulations and semi-analytic radiative-diffusion codes. It contrasts this with SN 2017eaw, whose ejecta mass is estimated at $\gtrsim15\,M_\odot$, and takes the difference as evidence that the two superficially similar hydrogen-rich explosions came from different progenitor configura

Load-bearing premise

The mass and nickel estimates assume the entire late-time light curve is powered by fully trapped radioactive decay of nickel-56 and cobalt-56, with known distance and dust extinction; if gamma rays leak, another power source contributes, or the distance is off, both masses change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If confirmed, SN 2023ixf joins a low-nickel, low-ejecta class of Type II supernovae, so nucleosynthesis yields and explosion energies for such events would need to be revised downward.
  • The ejecta-mass gap between SN 2023ixf and SN 2017eaw implies hydrogen-rich supernovae do not form one progenitor family; progenitor mass and pre-explosion mass loss must vary event by event.
  • A 400-day photometric baseline from modest robotic telescopes is enough to constrain nickel mass, making similar late-time monitoring feasible for other nearby supernovae.
  • The derived parameters give late-time spectroscopy a concrete target: measured line profiles should match a low-mass, low-nickel ejecta if the model is correct.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the complete-trapping assumption is load-bearing; if gamma rays escape, the reported $M_{\rm Ni}$ is a lower limit, so the gap with SN 2017eaw could shrink.
  • Editorial inference: a low ejecta mass could also result from a high-mass progenitor that shed most of its hydrogen envelope before exploding; distinguishing that from a genuinely low-mass progenitor requires measuring the surviving hydrogen mass, for example through H-alpha line strength at nebular phases.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same 400-day bolometric fitting to a sample of nearby Type II supernovae would test whether low nickel mass and low ejecta mass correlate with early circumstellar interaction, which would point to mass loss as the controlling variable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports new RC80/BRC80 photometry of SN 2023ixf and constructs a bolometric light curve extending to roughly 400 days after explosion. From the late-phase radioactive tail it derives M_Ni = 0.046 ± 0.007 M_sun, and from comparisons with hydrodynamic and semi-analytic radiative-diffusion models it derives M_ej ≲ 9 M_sun, in contrast to SN 2017eaw (M_ej ≳ 15 M_sun). The abstract is the only fully readable portion of the submitted text; the body is severely corrupted (mojibake), so the photometric data, bolometric corrections, model fits, and uncertainty propagation cannot be independently checked.

Significance. If the quoted values survive scrutiny, the paper would be a useful contribution to the Type II SN sample: it would indicate a relatively low ejecta mass for a well-observed nearby SN II and sharpen the comparison with SN 2017eaw. The use of two independent model families is a strength, and the tail-based nickel-mass estimate with a stated uncertainty is a testable claim. However, the unreadable manuscript body and the unaddressed gamma-ray-deposition question prevent the significance from being assessed at this stage.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text (after Abstract)] The submitted text is corrupted from the first line after the abstract; equations, tables, figure captions, and most prose are unreadable. I cannot verify the distance/reddening assumptions, the bolometric correction, the construction of the late-time tail, the model grids, or the quoted uncertainties. This is a load-bearing problem, not a presentation issue: the central claims rest on these details. A readable manuscript is a prerequisite for review.
  2. [Abstract; late-phase bolometric light curve] The abstract states that M_Ni is inferred from the bolometric light curve up to 400 d and independently gives M_ej ≲ 9 M_sun. With a canonical explosion energy ~1e51 erg, M_ej ~ 9 M_sun, and t ~ 400 d, the expansion velocity is ~3000 km/s and the radius ~1e16 cm; for a gamma-ray opacity ~0.03 cm^2/g, the gamma-ray optical depth is τ_γ ~ 0.3–1.0. Full trapping is therefore not a safe assumption. If the tail fit assumes full trapping, M_Ni would be underestimated by roughly a factor 1.5–3, far outside the stated ±0.007. The paper must demonstrate the time-dependent gamma-ray deposition treatment used in the tail analysis and in both model families, and must propagate the resulting systematic uncertainty into M_Ni and M_ej.
  3. [Abstract; SN 2017eaw comparison] The inferred M_Ni feeds directly into the comparison with SN 2017eaw: if gamma-ray leakage is ignored, the low M_Ni may bias the derived M_ej downward. The abstract gives no indication of how the two model families treat deposition differently. To support the claim 'M_ej ≲ 9 M_sun contrary to SN 2017eaw', the paper should provide a consistency check—e.g., re-fit the tail with a deposition function and show how M_Ni and M_ej change—or otherwise quantify the sensitivity to the deposition assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should state the adopted distance to M101 and the line-of-sight reddening, since M_Ni scales directly with distance and the bolometric correction depends on reddening. If these are given in the body, they must be legible after re-encoding.
  2. [Abstract] The inequality M_ej ≲ 9 M_sun is not a measured value; the text should report the best-fit value and a confidence interval or model range once the manuscript is readable.
  3. [General] Several blocks resembling tables and figure captions are only partially legible in the current encoding. After fixing the encoding, all captions, column headers, and table values should be checked for integrity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: M_Ni and M_ej are standard forward-model parameters constrained by the observed bolometric light curve, not outputs identical to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (1) M_Ni = 0.046 ± 0.007 Msun inferred from the late-phase bolometric light curve and (2) M_ej ≲ 9 Msun from comparing the bolometric light curve with hydrodynamical and semi-analytic radiative diffusion models. These are standard parameter-inference steps: the bolometric light curve is the observable input, and M_Ni and M_ej are model parameters adjusted to reproduce it. Nothing in the provided abstract or usable text defines M_Ni in terms of the fitted light curve in a way that makes the inference true by construction, nor does it fit a parameter to a quantity and then present that same quantity as an independent prediction. The comparison with SN 2017eaw is an external benchmark, not an input to the fit. Potential systematic issues such as distance, reddening, or gamma-ray trapping are modeling assumptions and correctness risks, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citations are visible in the provided text, and the abstract does not invoke prior work by the same authors to justify the central inference. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard supernova physics assumptions that could not be inspected in the corrupted full text.

free parameters (2)
  • M_Ni = 0.046 ± 0.007 M_sun
    Fitted from the late-phase bolometric light curve tail.
  • M_ej = ≲ 9 M_sun
    Derived by comparing the bolometric light curve to hydrodynamical and semi-analytic models.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Late-phase bolometric luminosity is powered by radioactive decay of 56Ni/56Co
    Required to convert tail luminosity into M_Ni; standard in supernova modeling.
  • domain assumption Gamma-rays from radioactive decay are fully trapped in the ejecta at late times
    If leakage occurs, M_Ni would be underestimated; abstract does not address.
  • domain assumption Distance to M101 and line-of-sight reddening are known
    Any error propagates to absolute luminosity and derived masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SN 2023ixf in M101: physical parameters from bolometric light curve modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JWIA7YA

@misc{pith2026250806654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SN 2023ixf in M101: physical parameters from bolometric light curve modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JWIA7YA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06654}
}
abstract

We present new photometric observations of the core-collapse supernova SN 2023ixf occurred in M101, taken with the RC80 and BRC80 robotic telescopes in Hungary. The initial nickel mass from the late-phase bolometric light curve extending up to 400 days after explosion, is inferred as $M_{\rm Ni} = 0.046 \pm 0.007$ M$_\odot$. The comparison of the bolometric light curve with models from hydrodynamical simulations as well as semi-analytic radiative diffusion codes reveals a relatively low-mass ejecta of $M_{\rm ej} \lesssim 9$ M$_\odot$, contrary to SN~2017eaw, another H-rich core-collapse event, which had $M_{\rm ej} \gtrsim 15$ M$_\odot$.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Arnett , W. D. 1980, , 237, 541, 10.1086/157898

    doi:10.1086/157898 1980

  5. [5]

    1982, , 253, 785, 10.1086/159681

    ---. 1982, , 253, 785, 10.1086/159681

    doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  6. [6]

    D., & Fu , A

    Arnett , W. D., & Fu , A. 1989, , 340, 396, 10.1086/167402

    doi:10.1086/167402 1989

  7. [7]

    L., Harris , C

    Barker , B. L., Harris , C. E., Warren , M. L., O'Connor , E. P., & Couch , S. M. 2022, , 934, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f3 2022

  8. [8]

    P., Bora , Z., et al

    Barna , B., Nagy , A. P., Bora , Z., et al. 2023, , 677, A183, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346395

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346395 2023

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    I., Eastman , R., Bartunov , O

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

    1998 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Sand , D

    Bostroem , K. A., Sand , D. J., Dessart , L., et al. 2024, , 973, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7855

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Branch , D., & Wheeler , J. C. 2017, Supernova Explosions , 10.1007/978-3-662-55054-0

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Petschek , A

    Colgate , S. A., Petschek , A. G., & Kriese , J. T. 1980, , 237, L81, 10.1086/183239

    1980 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Pumo , M

    Cosentino , S. P., Pumo , M. L., & Cherubini , S. 2025, , 540, 2894, 10.1093/mnras/staf861

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    2025, , 984, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc108

    Dickinson , D., Milisavljevic , D., Garretson , B., et al. 2025, , 984, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc108

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Ferrari , L., et al

    Fang , Q., Moriya , T. J., Ferrari , L., et al. 2025, , 978, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d5a

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00130, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.00130

    Ferrari , L., Folatelli , G., Ertini , K., Kuncarayakti , H., & Andrews , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00130, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.00130

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    2025, , 698, A213, 10.1051/0004-6361/202554128

    Folatelli , G., Ferrari , L., Ertini , K., Kuncarayakti , H., & Maeda , K. 2025, , 698, A213, 10.1051/0004-6361/202554128

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Forde , S., & Goldberg , J. A. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 135, 10.3847/2515-5172/adde46

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Pols , O

    Glebbeek , E., Gaburov , E., de Mink , S. E., Pols , O. R., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2009, , 497, 255, 10.1051/0004-6361/200810425

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Bildsten , L., & Paxton , B

    Goldberg , J. A., Bildsten , L., & Paxton , B. 2019, , 879, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, , 955, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf299

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

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    A., et al

    Hsu , B., Smith , N., Goldberg , J. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07874, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07874

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023-1158, 1

    Itagaki , K. 2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023-1158, 1

    2023

  17. [25]

    Jacobson-Gal \'a n , W. V. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08078, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08078

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    E., Pearson , J., Beasor , E

    Jencson , J. E., Pearson , J., Beasor , E. R., et al. 2023, , 952, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace618

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Bauer , E

    Jermyn , A. S., Bauer , E. B., Schwab , J., et al. 2023, , 265, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2010, , 717, 245, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen , D., & Bildsten , L. 2010, , 717, 245, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Foley , R

    Kilpatrick , C. D., Foley , R. J., Jacobson-Gal \'a n , W. V., et al. 2023, , 952, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace4ca

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2025, , 694, A319, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452758

    Kozyreva , A., Caputo , A., Baklanov , P., Mironov , A., & Janka , H.-T. 2025, , 694, A319, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452758

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Singleton , A

    Kumar , A., Dastidar , R., Maund , J. R., Singleton , A. J., & Sun , N.-C. 2025, , 538, 659, 10.1093/mnras/staf312

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, , 635, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937226

    Kuriyama , N., & Shigeyama , T. 2020, , 635, A127, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937226

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03856, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03856

    Li , G., Wang , X., Yang , Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.03856, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03856

    2025 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Y., & Nadezhin , D

    Litvinova , I. Y., & Nadezhin , D. K. 1985, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 11, 145

    1985

  27. [35]

    2023, , 958, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0da8

    Liu , C., Chen , X., Er , X., et al. 2023, , 958, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0da8

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Mazzali , P

    Michel , P. D., Mazzali , P. A., Perley , D. A., Hinds , K. R., & Wise , J. L. 2025, , 539, 633, 10.1093/mnras/staf443

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    J., & Singh , A

    Moriya , T. J., & Singh , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00928, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.00928

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    L., Renzo , M., & Ott , C

    Morozova , V., Piro , A. L., Renzo , M., & Ott , C. D. 2016, , 829, 109, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/109

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Renzo , M., et al

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

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    Morozova , V., & Stone , J. M. 2018, , 867, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b3

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Nadyozhin , D. K. 2003, , 346, 97, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07070.x

    2003

  34. [42]

    P., Ordasi , A., Vink \'o , J., & Wheeler , J

    Nagy , A. P., Ordasi , A., Vink \'o , J., & Wheeler , J. C. 2014, , 571, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424237

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    P., & Vink \'o , J

    Nagy , A. P., & Vink \'o , J. 2016, , 589, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527931

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Neustadt , J. M. M., Kochanek , C. S., & Smith , M. R. 2024, , 527, 5366, 10.1093/mnras/stad3073

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    R., et al

    Niu , Z., Sun , N.-C., Maund , J. R., et al. 2023, , 955, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4e3

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Nugis , T., & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2000, , 360, 227

    2000

  39. [47]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

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

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

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

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

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

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

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

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    L., & Shara , M

    Pledger , J. L., & Shara , M. M. 2023, , 953, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace88b

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.10022, 10.48550/arXiv.2309.10022

    Qin , Y.-J., Zhang , K., Bloom , J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.10022, 10.48550/arXiv.2309.10022

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    L., Villar , V

    Ransome , C. L., Villar , V. A., Tartaglia , A., et al. 2024, , 965, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2df7

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    G., Yuan , W., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., et al. 2022, , 934, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    J., et al

    Shrestha , M., DeSoto , S., Sand , D. J., et al. 2025, , 982, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/adbb63

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Moriya , T

    Singh , A., Teja , R. S., Moriya , T. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20989, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.20989

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, 16050, 1

    Soraisam , M., Matheson , T., Andrews , J., et al. 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, 16050, 1

    2023

  51. [59]

    2019, , 876, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12d0

    Szalai , T., Vink \'o , J., K \"o nyves-T \'o th , R., et al. 2019, , 876, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12d0

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Singh , A., Basu , J., et al

    Teja , R. S., Singh , A., Basu , J., et al. 2023, , 954, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/acef20

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2023, , 75, L19, 10.1093/pasj/psad041

    Tsuna , D., & Takei , Y. 2023, , 75, L19, 10.1093/pasj/psad041

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2021, , 73, 1128, 10.1093/pasj/psab063

    Tsuna , D., Takei , Y., Kuriyama , N., & Shigeyama , T. 2021, , 73, 1128, 10.1093/pasj/psab063

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    P., & Chugai , N

    Utrobin , V. P., & Chugai , N. N. 2024, , 369, 49, 10.1007/s10509-024-04311-9

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    P., Chugai , N

    Utrobin , V. P., Chugai , N. N., Andrews , J. E., et al. 2021, , 505, 116, 10.1093/mnras/stab1369

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    2008, , 383, 1485, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12647.x

    Valenti , S., Benetti , S., Cappellaro , E., et al. 2008, , 383, 1485, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12647.x

    2008

  58. [66]

    D., Srinivasan , S., Andrews , J

    Van Dyk , S. D., Srinivasan , S., Andrews , J. E., et al. 2024, , 968, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad414b

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219514, 10.1007/s11433-023-2267-0

    Xiang , D., Mo , J., Wang , L., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219514, 10.1007/s11433-023-2267-0

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, , 969, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be3

    Yang , Y.-P., Liu , X., Pan , Y., et al. 2024, , 969, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be3

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    V., et al

    Zheng , W., Dessart , L., Filippenko , A. V., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13974, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.13974

    2025 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    A., Irani , I., Chen , P., et al

    Zimmerman , E. A., Irani , I., Chen , P., et al. 2024, , 627, 759, 10.1038/s41586-024-07116-6

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.