Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

JWST Spectroscopy of SN Ia 2022aaiq and 2024gy: Evidence for Enhanced Central Stable Ni Abundance and a Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST medium-resolution spectra of two normal Type Ia supernovae show narrow cores of stable nickel, pointing to near-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarfs that exploded through delayed detonation.

desk verdict Solid new JWST observations of narrow [Ni II] cores in normal SNe Ia, but the near-M_Ch delayed-detonation conclusion is favored rather than established—the narrow core is put into the model by hand and sub-M_Ch alternatives are explicitly left open. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.09760 v3 pith:5TLFBL6O submitted 2025-10-10 astro-ph.HE

Lindsey A. Kwok , Chang Liu , Saurabh W. Jha , Stéphane Blondin , Conor Larison , Adam A. Miller , Mi Dai , Ryan J. Foley
show 43 more authors
Alexei V. Filippenko Jennifer E. Andrews Moira Andrews Katie Auchettl Carles Badenes K. Azalee Bostroem Thomas G. Brink Cristine Koelln Kyle W. Davis Andreas Flörs Lluís Galbany Or Graur D. Andrew Howell Sahana Kumar Réka Könyves-Tóth Natalie LeBaron Colin W. Macrie Keiichi Maeda Kate Maguire Curtis McCully Nicolas E. Meza-Retamal Estefania Padilla Gonzalez Rüdiger Pakmor Jeniveve Pearson Anthony L. Piro Abigail Polin Nabeel Rehemtulla César Rojas-Bravo David J. Sand Chita Sangkachan Michaela Schwab Huei Sears Mridweeka Singh Bhagya M. Subrayan Kirsty Taggart Tea Temim Jacco H. Terwel Samaporn Tinyanont József Vinkó Xiaofeng Wang J. Craig Wheeler Yi Yang WeiKang Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw
keywords TypeIasupernovaestablenickeldelayeddetonationdeflagration-to-detonationtransitionJWSTMIRspectroscopynebularspectralineprofileinversionprogenitormass
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 uses medium-resolution JWST infrared spectra of two normal Type Ia supernovae to argue that their ejecta contain a compact, centrally enhanced reservoir of stable nickel. The narrow [Ni II] cores seen near line center, sitting on broad bases, are read as a compositional feature of the innermost ejecta, not an ionization artifact. A broken-slope morphology in [Ni III] matches the two-zone structure predicted by delayed-detonation models, and the inferred stable-nickel masses (~0.1 solar masses for SN 2024gy versus ~0.01 solar masses for the subluminous SN 2022xkq) separate near-Chandrasekhar from sub-Chandrasekhar scenarios. If right, resolved mid-infrared line profiles become a direct diagnostic of explosion mechanism and progenitor mass for normal SNe Ia.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-part line morphology: a 'narrow-core' profile in [Ni II] 1.94 and 6.64 µm — a sharp component with v_FWHM < 1500 km/s above a broad base — read as a concentrated central stable-nickel reservoir, and a 'broken-slope' profile in [Ni III] 7.35 µm — shallow inner slope steepening beyond about 4000 km/s — read as the spatial separation of detonation and deflagration ashes predicted by delayed-detonation models. A line-profile inversion (emissivity from the derivative of the profile, under axial symmetry) turns these shapes into three distinct ejecta zones. Radiative-transfer experiments that add about 0.001 solar masses of 58Ni to the innermost 1000 km/s reproduce th

What would settle it

A decisive test: with JWST MRS, observe ten or more normal SNe Ia at +100 to +200 days and measure the velocity offsets of any narrow [Ni II] cores. If cores are frequently far from line center, a clump/torus geometry is at work; if they all lie near zero velocity, persist across epochs, and have no narrow Co counterpart, the central stable-nickel interpretation is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two normal Type Ia supernovae, 2022aaiq and 2024gy, exploded as near-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarfs undergoing a delayed detonation with mild off-center ignition. The evidence: [Ni II] lines at 1.94 and 6.64 µm show a narrow core (v_FWHM < 1500 km/s) on a broad base, indicating a central enhancement of stable nickel; [Ni III] 7.35 µm shows a 'broken-slope' profile with a slope break near 4000 km/s, matching predictions for separated deflagration and detonation ashes. Emissivity inversions reveal an inner stable-Ni-rich core, a middle zone, and an outer shell, with ~0.1 solar masses of stable Ni for 2024gy versus ~0.01 solar masses for subluminous 2022xkq.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the narrow [Ni II] core is a central enhancement of stable nickel rather than a face-on torus, a clump of ejecta, or ionization stratification; the paper argues against these alternatives, but all three SNe in the sample show cores near line center, and the small sample cannot fully rule out geometry, with the paper itself noting current 3D models do not naturally produce the required core.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these two normal SNe Ia are delayed detonations, line morphology becomes a direct discriminator of explosion mechanism for at least some normal events.
  • The inferred stable-nickel masses separate near-Chandrasekhar-mass events (SN 2024gy, ~0.1 solar masses) from sub-Chandrasekhar events (SN 2022xkq, ~0.01 solar masses), linking stable-nickel luminosity to progenitor mass.
  • Narrow stable-nickel cores should be searched systematically in other SNe Ia observed at +100 to +200 days; their presence or absence could classify explosions by geometry and central density.
  • Existing 3D delayed-detonation models need a mechanism to produce a central stable-nickel concentration, either by confining some deflagration ashes at the center or by recompressing the core before detonation.
  • Medium-resolution JWST mid-infrared spectroscopy is required to resolve the narrow cores; low-resolution modes blur out the diagnostic structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the narrow-core signature proves to be common, the delayed-detonation channel could turn out to produce many normal SNe Ia, not just a rare subset, because the first handful of resolved objects all show it.
  • A natural extension beyond the paper: the core's persistence across ~200 days with a constant width suggests a chemically distinct, kinematically decoupled inner zone; future abundance mapping could test whether other neutron-rich isotopes such as 60Ni are also concentrated there.
  • Because the paper's line-profile inversion assumes axial symmetry, an observable consequence is that for off-center delayed detonations viewed from different angles, the narrow core should remain near line center only for a subset of sightlines; larger samples can test this.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST NIRSpec+MIRI medium-resolution spectroscopy of two normal Type Ia supernovae, SN 2022aaiq (+125, +207 d) and SN 2024gy (+144, +337 d), together with reanalyzed archival MRS data of SN 2021aefx and SN 2022xkq. It reports narrow (v_FWHM < 1500 km/s) components in the [Ni II] 1.94 and 6.64 micron lines atop broad bases, a narrow [Ni I] 3.12 micron line, and a broken-slope morphology in [Ni III] 7.35 micron. Using line-profile inversions and comparisons with one realization each of DDT, DBLDET, GCD, and MERGER models, the authors infer spatially distinct ejecta zones and interpret the narrow-core Ni as an enhanced central stable-Ni reservoir produced at high density. From the total Ni luminosity they estimate M(58Ni) ~ 0.1 M_sun for SN 2024gy and ~ 0.01 M_sun for SN 2022xkq. The favored conclusion is a near-M_Ch delayed detonation (DDT) with mild off-center ignition for SN 2024gy and, more tentatively, for SN 2022aaiq and SN 2021aefx, while SN 2022xkq is viewed as inconclusive but possibly sub-M_Ch.

Significance. If the central interpretation holds, this paper demonstrates a powerful new observational diagnostic: medium-resolution JWST MIR spectroscopy resolves the velocity structure of stable Ni in SN Ia ejecta, providing direct constraints on progenitor mass and explosion mechanism. The data themselves are of high quality — two epochs per target, continuous 0.35–28 micron coverage, and clean detections of the narrow-core and broken-slope morphologies — and the paper is refreshingly honest about its limitations, explicitly stating in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 that current 3D DDT models do not reproduce the narrow core and that sub-M_Ch double detonations with 22Ne settling cannot be ruled out. The line-profile inversion and derivative analyses are well executed and reproducible (data DOI provided). The main weakness is that the interpretation as a DDT with enhanced central stable Ni rests on a single hand-tuned 1D model and one realization of each explosion channel; this limits the uniqueness of the conclusion but does not undermine the observational detections.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 11] The broken-slope [Ni III] morphology is identified as 'strikingly similar' to the DDT model, yet the paper itself notes that the observed slope-break velocity and line width are smaller than in the DDT model, and only one realization of each of the four explosion channels is shown. Given the central claim that the broken slope is a DDT signature, this comparison is underpowered. A quantitative test (e.g., measuring the derivative break velocity, inner/outer slope ratio, and line FWHM in the models and the data, or exploring a small grid of ignition configurations) is needed to establish that the morphology is more DDT-like than, say, a DBLDET or a merger with different parameters. As written, the conclusion 'most closely resemble those of the DDT model' goes beyond what one realization per channel can support.
  2. [§6, Fig. 13] The reproduction of the narrow [Ni II] core is achieved by artificially adding 10^-3 M_sun of 58Ni in the v<1000 km/s region of N100L_ddt and by artificially adjusting the Ni ionization balance. This is a hand-imposed abundance perturbation, not a self-consistent prediction from any explosion model. The experiment demonstrates consistency with an enhanced central 58Ni abundance, but it does not establish that such an enhancement is required or that alternatives (e.g., an asymmetric clump, an equatorial torus viewed face-on, or ionization stratification) are excluded. The arguments in §7.1 against torus/clump interpretations are circumstantial, and the paper's own statement in §7.2 that current 3D DDT simulations do not reproduce the narrow core weakens the DDT link. This is the load-bearing step connecting the observed profile to the progenitor-mass diagnostic, and it needs a more direct
  3. [§5.3, Fig. 12] The absolute stable Ni mass M(58Ni)~0.1 M_sun for SN 2024gy is derived from the Blondin et al. (2023) model luminosity relation, which the paper itself treats as an upper limit because the models are systematically overionized. The phase correction to 270 days relies on assumed decline rates (1.3 and 1.5 mag/100 d), and for SN 2022xkq the adopted 1.5 mag/100 d is explicitly a choice with ±0.3 uncertainty. The relative comparison between SN 2024gy and SN 2022xkq is robust, but the abstract's '~0.1 M_sun' would be better stated as an upper limit or a model-dependent estimate with a clear systematic error budget. As written, the mass estimate is presented without the caveat that the relation is from overlapping authors and is not independently calibrated at these phases.
  4. [§7.3 and §8] The paper states in §7.3 that sub-M_Ch double detonations with 22Ne settling cannot be ruled out, and in §8 that 'we cannot entirely rule out sub-M_Ch origins.' Given that the title and abstract assert 'Enhanced Central Stable Ni Abundance and a Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition' and 'favoring a near-M_Ch scenario,' the summary should more prominently carry this qualification. This is not a request to weaken the science, but to align the headline claim with the paper's own admission of degeneracy. The 'Evidence for' in the title is acceptable if the body consistently treats the DDT assignment as a favored hypothesis rather than a unique inference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 14 caption] The caption lists '[Ni II] 3.80 m' in several rows, but the line is [Ni III] 3.80 micron; the same appears in the NIRSpec panel labels in Fig. 4. Please correct the ion symbol.
  2. [§4.2, first paragraph] The phrase 'a super-Gaussian order parameter n controls flatness near the peak and steepness of the falloff' is clear, but the definition of the super-Gaussian lacks an amplitude parameter in the displayed equation; the amplitude is presumably absorbed in the scaling. A one-line clarification would help.
  3. [§6] The model names N100, N100L_ddt, and N100H_ddt are used before being defined. A sentence in §6 or in §5.2 introducing Seitenzahl et al. (2013) and the meaning of the L/H variants would improve readability.
  4. [§5.1.4] For the flat-topped [Ar III] profile, the procedure of dividing by the inner shell velocity below v_inner is described, but the exact value of the adopted inner shell velocity is not given in the text. Please report it explicitly.
  5. [§2.1] The exposition of the MRS reduction refers to a public notebook and an AstroBkgInterp routine; while adequate, a short description of the smoothing or binning applied before the derivative analysis in §5.1 would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the narrow [Ni II] core is 'explained' by hand-injecting exactly the stable-Ni enhancement that the paper then claims to infer; the DDT morphology comparison is separate and underdetermined.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 (Models), Fig. 13 caption; conclusion in Section 8]
    "In our modified N100L ddt model we artificially adjust the [NiII] and [NiIII] ion populations to match the observed [NiII]/[NiIII] line strength ratio, and increase the abundance of 58Ni in the innermost v <1000 km s−1 by 10−3 M⊙ to match the strength of the narrow feature in the [NiII] 1.94 and 6.64µm lines."

    The narrow [NiII] core is generated by manually adding 10^-3 Msun of 58Ni into v<1000 km/s, i.e. the feature is put in by hand. The paper then uses the resulting match as support for the conclusion that 'narrow [NiII] cores trace enhanced stable Ni in the innermost ejecta' (Section 8). Thus the claimed inference is the model input, not an independent prediction. The paper is transparent about the hand-tuning, but the model agreement is still being cited as evidence for the very abundance enhancement inserted into the model.

full rationale

Most of the observational analysis is self-contained: the JWST detections, line fits, and derivative/emissivity inversions are standard and do not reduce to model outputs. The broken-slope [NiIII] comparison to DDT/DBLDET/GCD/MERGER models is a genuine data-model morphology comparison, not a fitted prediction, although it is underdetermined (one realization per channel, acknowledged in Sections 5.2 and 7.2). The stable-Ni mass–luminosity relation from Blondin et al. (2023) involves overlapping authors, but it is an external model calibration rather than a self-citation chain carrying the central result. However, the central 'enhanced central stable Ni' step is partially circular: the only model that reproduces the narrow [NiII] core does so because 10^-3 Msun of 58Ni was inserted into the innermost ejecta to match that feature. The paper candidly calls this 'artificial' and 'by hand' and notes current 3D DDT simulations do not produce the narrow core, which is a limitation; but the reasoning from 'hand-added Ni reproduces the narrow core' to 'narrow core traces enhanced stable Ni' is fitted-input-as-evidence. This is partial circularity, not a fully forced derivation: the observed narrow cores, their absence in Co, and the failed density-enhancement test provide independent empirical anchoring, and the paper explicitly does not claim a unique near-M_Ch DDT result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central observational claims are data-driven, but the quantitative mass estimate and DDT interpretation rely on model relations from overlapping-author references and a hand-tuned Ni enhancement. The main free parameter is the injected 10^-3 Msun stable Ni, with additional assumptions on decline rates and ionization adjustment.

free parameters (3)
  • Added 58Ni mass in innermost ejecta (v < 1000 km/s) = 10^-3 Msun
    Introduced in Section 6 to reproduce the narrow [Ni II] cores in the N100L ddt model; a factor of ~10 above the baseline. This is a hand-imposed adjustment, not a prediction.
  • Phase-correction decline rate for SN 2022xkq = 1.5 ± 0.3 mag/100 days
    Adopted in Section 5.3 to extrapolate the Ni luminosity to 270 days; chosen from the SN 2021qvv decline rate to avoid overestimating the luminosity of SN 2022xkq.
  • Ionization adjustment for [Ni II]/[Ni III] in models = Not quantified
    Follows Blondin et al. (2022) to artificially adjust Ni ionization states in the modified model (Section 6, Figure 13) to match observed line strengths.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Nebular-phase ejecta are optically thin, so line profiles directly trace emissivity along the line of sight.
    Basis for the derivative inversion (Section 5), following Fransson & Chevalier (1989).
  • domain assumption Axisymmetry (or spherical symmetry) for deprojection of line profiles.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 5 for the emissivity inversion; the paper discusses limitations from asymmetry in Section 7.5.
  • domain assumption CMFGEN non-LTE radiative-transfer models provide reliable line ratios and mass-luminosity calibration.
    Used for line identifications, model comparisons, and the stable Ni mass estimate (Blondin et al. 2023; Section 5.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The hand-imposed 10^-3 Msun Ni enhancement in the model is a valid representation of possible central abundance structure.
    Section 6: added to reproduce the observed narrow cores; not derived from an explosion model, thus a potential circular element.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST Spectroscopy of SN Ia 2022aaiq and 2024gy: Evidence for Enhanced Central Stable Ni Abundance and a Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TLFBL6O

@misc{pith2026251009760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST Spectroscopy of SN Ia 2022aaiq and 2024gy: Evidence for Enhanced Central Stable Ni Abundance and a Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TLFBL6O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.09760}
}
abstract

We present optical + near-infrared (NIR) + mid-infrared (MIR) observations of the normal Type Ia supernovae (SN Ia) 2022aaiq and 2024gy in the nebular phase, continuously spanning 0.35-28 microns. Medium-resolution JWST spectroscopy reveals novel narrow ($v_{\mathrm{FWHM}}<1500$ km s$^{-1}$) [Ni II] 1.94 and 6.64 micron cores in both events. The MIR [Ni II] 6.64 micron line exhibits a distinct narrow core atop a broader base, indicating a central enhancement of stable Ni. This structure points to high central densities consistent with a near-Chandrasekhar-mass ($M_{\text{Ch}}$) progenitor or a high-metallicity sub-$M_{\text{Ch}}$ progenitor. From detailed line-profile inversions of SN 2024gy, we derive emissivity profiles for stable iron-group elements (IGEs), radioactive material, and intermediate-mass elements (IMEs), revealing spatially distinct ejecta zones. The [Ni III] 7.35 micron line shows a shallow-to-steep slope transition - a "broken-slope" morphology - that matches predictions for delayed detonation explosions with separated deflagration and detonation ashes. We also reanalyze and compare to archival JWST spectra of SN 2021aefx and the subluminous SN 2022xkq. From the stable Ni luminosities, we infer that SN 2024gy produced ~5-10 times more stable Ni mass than SN 2022xkq, favoring a near-$M_{\text{Ch}}$ scenario for SN 2024gy and sub-$M_{\text{Ch}}$ scenario for SN 2022xkq. These results demonstrate that resolved line profiles, now accessible with JWST, provide powerful diagnostics of explosion geometry, central density, and progenitor mass in SN Ia.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.09760 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HST WFC3/IR NIR images of SN 2022aaiq (left) in its elliptical host galaxy, NGC 5631, and SN 2024gy (right) in its spiral host galaxy, NGC 4216. The RGB channels are mapped from F160W, F140W, and F105W images, respectively. The images are 40′′×40′′ and 120′′×120′′, respectively, with a scale bar for reference. The orientation is marked by the compass rose with the longer and shorter arms representing north and east,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panchromatic optical + NIR + MIR spectra of the normal SN Ia 2024gy (orange), at +144 d and +337 d post￾maximum, and SN 2022aaiq (blue) at +125 d and +207 d post-maximum. The spectra are scaled and offset, and the ordinate is given in νFν = λFλ using an arcsinh scaling, for display purposes. For comparison, we also include in our analysis MIRI/MRS data of the normal SN Ia 2021aefx and the subluminous (photometricall… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison and identifications of prominent lines for JWST/MIRI MRS spectra of normal SN Ia 2022aaiq (blue), 2024gy (orange), 2021aefx (red), and 1991bg-like SN 2022xkq (green). A narrow component of [Ni II] 6.64 µm is detected in SN 2024gy. Low opacities show the unbinned data. Owing to differences in phase and distance, we scale the spectra and offset for display purposes. A linear (not arcsinh) flux scaling is us… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison and identifications of prominent lines for the JWST/NIRSpec G235M+G395M spectra of normal SN Ia 2022aaiq (blue), and 2024gy (orange). Narrow features from [Ni II] 1.94 µm are detected in both epochs for SN 2022aaiq and SN 2024gy. A narrow [Ni I] 3.12 µm spik…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Line profile fits for [Ar II] 6.98 µm and [Ar III] 8.99 µm in SN 2024gy (orange) at +144 and +337 days, SN 2022aaiq (blue) at +125 and +207 days, SN 2022xkq (green) at +114 days, and SN 2021aefx (red) at +418 days. The contribution from Ar is shown in dashed black, and…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Line profile fits for [Ni II] 1.94 and 6.64 µm (left) and [Ni III] 3.80 and 7.35 µm (right) in SN 2024gy (orange) at +144 and +337 days, and SN 2022aaiq (blue) at +125 and +207 days. The contribution from Ni is shown in dashed black, and contributions from other nearby…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Line profile fit for [Ni I] 3.12 µm in SN 2024gy (orange) at +337 days. The contribution from Ni is shown in dashed black, and contributions from other nearby lines are in dashed gray. The composite fit is displayed in solid gray. The [Ni I] line is well-fit by only a …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Line profile fits for [Ni II] 6.64 µm and [Ni III] 7.35 µm in SN 2021aefx (red) at +418 days and SN 2022xkq (green) at +114 days. The contribution from Ni is shown in dashed black, and contributions from other nearby lines are in dashed gray. The composite fit is dis￾p…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Line profile fit for [Ni II] 0.7378 µm in SN 2024gy (orange) at +163 days (left) and SN 2022xkq at +128 days (right). The contribution from Ni is shown in dashed black, and contributions from other nearby lines are in dashed gray. The composite fit is displayed in soli…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Line profile, emissivity, and two-dimensional (2D) projected emissivity of [Ni II] 6.64 µm (upper left), [Ni III] 7.35 µm (upper right), [Ar III] 8.99 µm (lower left), and [Co III] 11.88 µm (lower right) for SN 2024gy at +144 days. For each ion, the upper-left panel d…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Line profiles (upper panels) and their derivatives (lower panels) for [Ni III] 7.35 µm, [Ar III] 8.99 µm, and [Co III] 11.88 µm for SN 2024gy at +144 days (orange), and the DDT (cyan), DBLDET (green), GCD (pink), and MERGER (yellow) models from Blondin et al. (2023). …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Total Ni luminosity vs. stable Ni mass for the delayed detonation (DDT; cyan circles), double deto￾nation (DBLDET; dark green diamonds), gravitationally￾confined detonation (GCD; pink triangles), and violent merger (MERGER; yellow square) models from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: SN 2024gy at +144 days (∼165 days post-explosion; orange) compared to our radiative-transfer N100L ddt model (dotted gray) and our modified N100L ddt model (solid indigo) at 165 days post explosion. In our modified N100L ddt model we artificially adjust the [Ni II] an…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: All prominent Ni lines in the JWST data of the normal SN 2024gy at +144 days (orange) and +337 days (light orange), SN 2022aaiq at +125 days (blue) and +207 days (light blue), and SN 2021aefx at +418 days (red), and the subluminous SN 2022xkq at +114 days (green). For…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: JWST NIRSpec/G235M grating and MIRI/MRS data of SN 2024gy (orange), SN 2022aaiq (blue), SN 2021aefx (red), SN 2022xkq (green) resampled onto the low-resolution wavelength grids of NIRSpec/PRISM and MIRI/LRS (black). The low-resolution modes cannot capture fine details…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Line profiles (upper panels) and their derivatives (lower panels) for [Ni III] 7.35 µm, [Ar III] 8.99 µm, and [Co III] 11.88 µm for SN 2022aaiq at +125 days (blue), SN 2021aefx at +418 days (red), SN 2022xkq at +114 days (green) and the DDT (cyan), DBLDET (green), GCD…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Left: LCO (from the GSP collaboration) and ZTF photometry for SN 2022aaiq. The BayeSN light-curve fit is overplotted and the filters are offset for clarity. Right: Light-curve fit for SN 2024gy (with only LCO data). The data are in the rest-frame phase of the respecti…

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. JWST Observations of Calcium-Strong Transients: I. Complex Nebular He Emission in SN 2024uj

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    JWST/NIRSpec data on SN 2024uj reveal complex He I emission overlapping central Ca and O, plus CO and dust, favoring a thermonuclear origin from low-mass white dwarfs.

  2. An analysis of the Type Ia SN 2024gy and a comparison of different host extinction estimation techniques

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    SN 2024gy observations yield host extinction estimates ranging from 0.12 to 0.24 magnitudes across methods, with explosion modeling giving mixed results on detonation scenarios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., et al

    Ashall, C., Baron, E., Hoeflich, P. A., et al. 2021, MIR Spectroscopy of Type Ia Supernovae: The Key to Unlocking their Explosions and Element Production, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #2114

    2021

  2. [2]

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

    Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., Baron, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, P...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608 2024

  3. [3]

    Bildsten, L., & Hall, D. M. 2001, ApJL, 549, L219, doi: 10.1086/319169

    work page doi:10.1086/319169 2001

  4. [4]

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

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

    doi:10.1117/12.2629545 2022

  5. [5]

    S., Fesen, R

    Black, C. S., Fesen, R. A., & Parrent, J. T. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1680

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1680 2016

  6. [6]

    Hillier, D. J. 2022, A&A, 660, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142323

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142323 2022

  7. [7]

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3058

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3058 2018

  8. [8]

    J., & Khokhlov, A

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Khokhlov, A. M. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts484 —. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2492

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts484 2013

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    J., Ramsbottom, C

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Ramsbottom, C. A., & Storey, P. J. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.07116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.07116

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2014, A&A, 564, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322311

    Boselli, A., Cortese, L., & Boquien, M. 2014, A&A, 564, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322311

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Bowers, E. J. C., Meikle, W. P. S., Geballe, T. R., et al. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/290.4.663

    1997 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Parrent, J., et al

    Branch, D., Jeffery, D. J., Parrent, J., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 135, doi: 10.1086/527572

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

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

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    Buchner, J. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, JohannesBuchner/UltraNest: v3.5.0, v3.5.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7053560

    Susemiehl, N. 2022, JohannesBuchner/UltraNest: v3.5.0, v3.5.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7053560

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.7.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7038885

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.7.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7038885

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18174.x

    Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., Krajnovi´ c, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18174.x

    2011

  10. [18]

    S., Hill, G

    Chonis, T. S., Hill, G. J., Lee, H., Tuttle, S. E., & Vattiat, B. L. 2014, in Ground-Based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, Vol. 9147 (International Society for Optics and Photonics), 91470A, doi: 10.1117/12.2056005

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Jones, D

    Coulter, D. A., Jones, D. O., McGill, P., et al. 2022, YSE-PZ: An Open-source Target and Observation Management System, v0.3.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7278430 —. 2023, PASP, 135, 064501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd662

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Still, M., Schellart, P., et al

    Crawford, S. M., Still, M., Schellart, P., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7737, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 25, doi: 10.1117/12.857000

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 4414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad841

    Deckers, M., Graur, O., Maguire, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad841

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

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

    DerKacy, J. M., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb8a8 —. 2024, ApJ, 961, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7b

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, A&A, 619, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833274

    Dhawan, S., Fl¨ ors, A., Leibundgut, B., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833274

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Hoeflich, P., Hsiao, E

    Diamond, T. R., Hoeflich, P., Hsiao, E. Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac434

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    V., Richmond, M

    Filippenko, A. V., Richmond, M. W., Branch, D., et al. 1992, AJ, 104, 1543, doi: 10.1086/116339 Fl¨ ors, A., Spyromilio, J., Maguire, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A200, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833512 Fl¨ ors, A., Spyromilio, J., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2902,...

    1992 doi

  18. [26]

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

    1989 doi

  19. [27]

    P., et al

    Friesen, B., Baron, E., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/120 Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., Althaus, L. G., C´ orsico, A. H., & Isern, J. 2008, ApJ, 677, 473, doi: 10.1086/527536

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Meikle, W

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

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, karllark/dust extinction: NIRSpectralExtinctionAdded, v1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6397654

    Gordon, K., Larson, K., McBride, A., et al. 2022, karllark/dust extinction: NIRSpectralExtinctionAdded, v1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6397654

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    S., et al

    Grayling, M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1202 JWSTStable Nickel29

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    T., et al

    Gronow, S., Collins, C., Ohlmann, S. T., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936494

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Sim, S

    Gronow, S., Collins, C. E., Sim, S. A., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2021, A&A, 649, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039954

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066930

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066930

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    J., & Dessart, L

    Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 252, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21192.x

    2012

  27. [35]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac250d H¨ oflich, P., Gerardy, C

    Hoeflich, P., Ashall, C., Bose, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac250d H¨ oflich, P., Gerardy, C. L., Nomoto, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1258, doi: 10.1086/425571

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

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

    1960 doi

  29. [37]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-39, 1

    Itagaki, K. 2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-39, 1

    2024

  31. [39]

    2000, ApJ, 534, 660, doi: 10.1086/308761

    Iwamoto, K., Nakamura, T., Nomoto, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 534, 660, doi: 10.1086/308761

    2000 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 JDADF Developers, Averbukh, J., Bradley, L., et al

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 JDADF Developers, Averbukh, J., Bradley, L., et al. 2022, Jdaviz, 3.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7255461

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Jerkstrand, A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Cham: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20794-0 29-1

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Badenes, C., Camacho-Neves, Y., et al

    Jha, S. W., Badenes, C., Camacho-Neves, Y., et al. 2021, See Through Supernovae: Nebular Spectroscopy of Exploding White Dwarfs, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #2072 —. 2023, See Through Supernovae: Nebular Spectroscopy of Exploding White Dwarfs, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #4516

    2021

  35. [43]

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

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

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

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

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

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    Y., Ashall, C., et al

    Kumar, S., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17134

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Jha, S

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

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Siebert, M

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

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Singh, M., Jha, S

    Kwok, L. A., Singh, M., Jha, S. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02944. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02944

    2025

  41. [49]

    P., Sim, S

    Lach, F., Callan, F. P., Sim, S. A., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2022, A&A, 659, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142194

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Seitenzahl, I

    Lach, F., R¨ opke, F. K., Seitenzahl, I. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038721

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    P., Phillips, M

    Leibundgut, B., Kirshner, R. P., Phillips, M. M., et al. 1993, AJ, 105, 301, doi: 10.1086/116427

    1993 doi

  44. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.01428, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.01428

    Li, L., Wang, Z., Liu, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.01428, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.01428

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    Liu, C., & Miller, A. A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.15278, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.15278

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Polin, A., et al

    Liu, C., Miller, A. A., Polin, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb5e

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    A., Deng, J., et al

    Maeda, K., Mazzali, P. A., Deng, J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 931, doi: 10.1086/376591

    2003 doi

  48. [56]

    K., Fink, M., et al

    Maeda, K., R¨ opke, F. K., Fink, M., et al. 2010a, ApJ, 712, 624, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/624

    doi

  49. [57]

    2010b, ApJ, 708, 1703, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1703

    Maeda, K., Taubenberger, S., Sollerman, J., et al. 2010b, ApJ, 708, 1703, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1703

    doi

  50. [58]

    A., Shingles, L., et al

    Maguire, K., Sim, S. A., Shingles, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3567, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty820

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

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

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

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac —. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.16279

    2019 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    A., Iwamoto, K., & Nomoto, K

    Mazzali, P. A., Iwamoto, K., & Nomoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 545, 407, doi: 10.1086/317808

    2000 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Foley, R

    Mazzali, P. A., Foley, R. J., Deng, J., et al. 2007a, ApJ, 661, 892, doi: 10.1086/517912

    doi

  55. [63]

    A., Kawabata, K

    Mazzali, P. A., Kawabata, K. S., Maeda, K., et al. 2007b, ApJ, 670, 592, doi: 10.1086/521873

    doi

  56. [64]

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

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

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    Schneider, F. R. N. 2024, A&A, 683, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347769

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    A., et al

    Newsome, M., Farah, J., Howell, D. A., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-44, 1

    2024

  59. [67]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  60. [68]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562 30Kwok et al

    1995 doi

  61. [69]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A Guide to NumPy (USA: Trelgol Publishing)

    2006

  62. [70]

    K., et al

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 61, doi: 10.1038/nature08642

    2010 doi

  63. [71]

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

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

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    R., Ruiter, A

    Pakmor, R., Seitenzahl, I. R., Ruiter, A. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A227, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449637

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    J., Lundqvist, P., et al

    Pearson, J., Sand, D. J., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0153

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    L., & Chang, P

    Piro, A. L., & Chang, P. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1158, doi: 10.1086/529368

    2008 doi

  67. [75]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a

    Polin, A., Nugent, P., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJ, 873, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Sim, S

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    X., Hennawi, J

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

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    W., Adams, M

    Ramsey, L. W., Adams, M. T., Barnes, T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3352, Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp, 34–42, doi: 10.1117/12.319287

    1998 doi

  71. [79]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05632

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05632. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05632 Science Software Branch at STScI. 2012, PyRAF: Python alternative for IRAF, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.011. http://ascl.net/1207.011

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    R., & Townsley, D

    Seitenzahl, I. R., & Townsley, D. M. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Cham: Springer), 1955, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 87

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

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

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

    2013 doi

  74. [82]

    J., Boos, S

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2024, ApJ, 975, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7379

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

    Shen, K. J., Kasen, D., Miles, B. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8de

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    J., Fl¨ ors, A., Sim, S

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

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Sim, S

    Shingles, L. J., Sim, S. A., Kromer, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3412

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-3347, 1

    Filippenko, A. 2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-3347, 1

    2022

  79. [87]

    R., Kwok, L

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

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    M., Nugent, P

    Silverman, J. M., Nugent, P. E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/3

    2013 doi

  81. [89]

    A., Burgasser, A

    Simcoe, R. A., Burgasser, A. J., Schechter, P. L., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 270, doi: 10.1086/670241

    2013 doi

  82. [90]

    Simotas, K., Bildsten, L., & Prust, L. J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06412, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.06412

    2025 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    A., Tucker, D

    Smith, J. A., Tucker, D. L., Kent, S., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2121, doi: 10.1086/339311

    2002 doi

  84. [92]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191, doi: 10.1086/131977 —. 2000, PASP, 112, 925, doi: 10.1086/316595

    1987 doi

  85. [93]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 677, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15003.x

    Taubenberger, S., Valenti, S., Benetti, S., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 677, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15003.x

    2009

  86. [94]

    X., Brown, E

    Timmes, F. X., Brown, E. F., & Truran, J. W. 2003, ApJL, 590, L83, doi: 10.1086/376721

    2003 doi

  87. [95]

    J., Taggart, K., et al

    Tinyanont, S., Foley, R. J., Taggart, K., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 014201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1b39

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    M., Miles, B

    Townsley, D. M., Miles, B. J., Shen, K. J., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJ, 878, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab27cd

    2019 doi

  89. [97]

    A., Stritzinger, M

    Valenti, S., Howell, D. A., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw870 van Hoof, P. A. M. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 63, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6020063

    2016 doi

  90. [98]

    M., Thorp, S., Mandel, K

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

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-3322, 1

    Wiggins, P. 2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-3322, 1

    2022

  92. [100]

    D., Hillier, D

    Wilk, K. D., Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3187, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2816

    2018 doi

  93. [101]

    E., Wunsch, S., & Kuhlen, M

    Woosley, S. E., Wunsch, S., & Kuhlen, M. 2004, ApJ, 607, 921, doi: 10.1086/383530

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.