Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Radio Constraints on the Circumstellar Environment of the Type IIb Supernova SN 2024iss

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio observations of SN 2024iss show its forward shock moved about 2.4 times faster than a steady stellar wind can explain, implying the blast wave emerged from a confined, dense circumstellar shell shortly before the explosion.

desk verdict Useful new radio data on a nearby Type IIb, but the claimed conservative velocity excess does not survive the gaps in coverage. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06716 v1 pith:6BINC53Z submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.HE

Yuhei Iwata , Tomoki Matsuoka , Masanori Akimoto , Keiichi Maeda , Nozomu Tominaga , Yoshinori Yonekura , Takashi J. Moriya , Kotaro Niinuma
show 1 more author
Kenta Fujisawa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovae:generalindividual(SN2024iss)circumstellarmatterradiocontinuum:transientssynchrotronself-absorptionmass-lossTypeIIbsupernovaeVLBI
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 reports one year of Japanese VLBI Network monitoring of the Type IIb supernova SN 2024iss at 6.9 and 8.4 GHz, detecting radio emission at 10 and 23 days after explosion but not later. Interpreting the 22.9-day detection as the synchrotron self-absorption (SSA) peak, the authors derive a mean shock velocity of about $3.3\times10^4$ km/s, which is roughly 2.4 times faster than the self-similar shock velocity expected for a steady wind (and still at least 1.7 times faster under the most conservative peak-time choice). They argue that this velocity excess is the signature of a confined, dense circumstellar shell from which the shock emerged and accelerated, implying that the progenitor underwent a non-steady, enhanced mass-loss episode shortly before explosion. If correct, the result would show that even highly stripped Type IIb progenitors can eject confined shells, and it would make radio shock-velocity comparison a practical diagnostic for such shells.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ratio of the mean forward-shock velocity inferred from synchrotron self-absorption (SSA) modeling of the radio peak to the shock velocity predicted by the self-similar interaction of a steady wind with an $n=10$ outer ejecta density profile. The SSA framework uses the peak spectral luminosity $L_p$ and the frequency-scaled peak time $t_p$ to fix the emitting radius $R_p$, giving $V_{\rm sh,SSA} = R_p/t_p$; the self-similar solution gives $V_{\rm sh,theory}$ as a function of $\dot{M}$, $v_w$, $E_{\rm kin}$, $M_{\rm ej}$, and $t$. A ratio substantially above unity is read as a departure from steady-wind conditions, with a factor-of-two excess matching theoretical predictions for shock emergence from a confined CSM into a lower-density environment.

What would settle it

A radio light curve with dense sampling between 25 and 100 days that shows the 6.9 GHz flux density still rising above 3.7 mJy after 45.9 days, or a VLBI image resolving the emitting region and measuring a shock radius smaller than $9\times10^{15}$ cm at 23 days, would shift the peak epoch later or lower the SSA radius and shrink the velocity ratio toward unity, eliminating the claimed confined-CSM signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using single-baseline VLBI observations with the Hitachi and Yamaguchi 32 m telescopes, SN 2024iss was detected at 6.9 and 8.4 GHz at $t_{\rm exp}=9.98$ and 22.94 days, with 5$\sigma$ upper limits thereafter. Adopting the 6.9 GHz flux density at 22.94 days as a representative peak ($L_p \approx 8.8\times10^{26}$ erg s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$, $t_{p,5\,{\rm GHz}} \approx 31.5$ days), and applying the Chevalier-Fransson SSA formulation with $\epsilon_e = \epsilon_B = 0.1$ and wind velocity $v_w = 100$ km/s for a compact-envelope progenitor, the authors derive an emitting radius $R_p \approx 9.1\times10^{15}$ cm, a mass-loss rate $\dot{M} \approx 2.5\times10^{-6}\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, and a mean shock velocity $V_{\rm sh,SSA} \approx 3.3\times10^4$ km/s. The theoretical self-similar shock velocity for the same parameters and epoch is $V_{\rm sh,theory} \approx 1.4\times10^4$ km/s, so the observed velocity is larger by a factor of $\sim$2.4. Using the conservative upper bound on the peak time from the 45.9-day non-detection ($t_{\rm upp,5\,GHz} = 62.9$ days) and treating $L_p$ as a lower limit, the ratio remains $\gtrsim 1.7$. Free-free absorption is shown to be negligible ($\tau_{\rm FFA} \approx 9\times10^{-3}$), confirming that the peak is SSA-dominated. The paper interprets the velocity excess as evidence that the forward shock was accelerated upon emerging from a confined, dense CSM, consistent with independent early X-ray spectroscopy suggesting such a shell within $\sim1.3\times10^{14}$ cm.

Load-bearing premise

The radio light-curve peak is not directly observed; the 22.94-day detection is adopted as the peak, and the 45.9-day non-detection is used as an upper bound on the peak epoch, leaving open the possibility that the true peak occurred later and/or was brighter, which would reduce the derived shock-velocity excess.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SN 2024iss joins the compact-envelope (cIIb) class in the peak luminosity–peak time diagram, resembling SN 2008ax rather than the extended-envelope SN 1993J.
  • The progenitor's time-averaged mass-loss rate, $\dot{M} \approx 2.5\times10^{-6}\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for $v_w = 100$ km/s, is an order of magnitude below that inferred for SN 1993J and similar to SN 2008ax.
  • The SSA-derived shock velocity exceeds the steady-wind self-similar value by a factor of about 2.4 (and at least 1.7 in the conservative case), indicating shock acceleration by a confined dense CSM.
  • The confined-CSM interpretation is corroborated by early X-ray evidence for dense material within $\sim1.3\times10^{14}$ cm, and the shock radius at the radio peak ($\sim9.1\times10^{15}$ cm) is consistent with the shock having traversed that shell.
  • Comparing SSA-derived velocities with the self-similar solution can serve as a diagnostic for confined CSM in other Type IIb supernovae.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the confined-CSM picture generalizes, it suggests that late-stage mass-loss enhancement in Type IIb progenitors may be triggered by the mere presence of a thin hydrogen envelope, largely independent of its total mass; this is a testable prediction for progenitors with different residual envelope masses.
  • The sparse sampling around the radio peak is the main limitation: a denser multi-frequency radio campaign (observations every few days between 10 and 60 days) on a future nearby Type IIb could determine whether the velocity excess is common or a rare outcome of a specific mass-loss history.
  • The discrepancy between the radio-based compact classification and the multi-wavelength inference of a larger progenitor radius ($R \sim 244\,R_\odot$) echoes similar tensions seen for SN 2011dh and SN 2011hs, suggesting that radio peak properties may be governed more by CSM structure than by the stellar radius itself.
  • Extending this analysis to higher frequencies (e.g., 15–30 GHz) would probe smaller radii and earlier epochs, potentially directly resolving the dense CSM shell and the shock acceleration phase.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents Japanese VLBI Network single-baseline monitoring of the Type IIb SN 2024iss at 6.9 and 8.4 GHz over about one year. The authors report detections at approximately 10 and 23 days after explosion, non-detections at later epochs, and two supplementary flux measurements from AMI-LA and ATA. Using a synchrotron self-absorption (SSA) model with adopted peak parameters, they derive a mass-loss rate of about 2.5e-6 Msun/yr for a compact-envelope wind of 100 km/s, and a mean shock velocity of about 3.3e4 km/s. Comparing this with the self-similar steady-wind shock velocity yields an excess factor of about 2.4, and the authors further claim a conservative lower bound of about 1.7. They interpret the velocity excess as evidence for a confined, dense circumstellar medium that accelerated the shock. The nominal SSA derivation is internally consistent, and the free-free absorption check is explicit, but the robustness of the central claim depends crucially on sparse sampling around the putative radio peak.

Significance. The paper is timely and addresses an interesting diagnostic: using the ratio of SSA-derived shock velocity to the self-similar steady-wind velocity as a probe of non-steady mass loss. The strongest asset is Eq. (3), which shows that this ratio depends only on the observed peak luminosity and peak time once the model parameters are eliminated, so the comparison is not circular by construction. The FFA check in Eq. (1) is also clearly presented and shows that FFA is negligible for the adopted parameters. The observational data themselves, from a single-baseline VLBI program, are valuable and consistent with other reported radio measurements. However, the manuscript's headline robustness claim is not supported by the data: with only two detections and sparse upper limits, the peak epoch and peak luminosity are adopted rather than measured, and the alleged conservative lower bound on the velocity ratio is invalid. If the peak uncertainties are properly treated, the velocity-excess scenario remains plausible but far from securely established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (3)] The claimed conservative lower bound is invalid: the 45.9-day non-detection does not upper-bound the peak epoch. A non-detection is a flux limit, not a constraint on when the global maximum occurs. The subsequent 157.6-day limit (<4.4 mJy) permits a light curve that declines from the 22.94-day detection, falls below 3.4 mJy at 45.9 days, then re-brightens to a later peak of ~3.7 mJy (or even up to ~4.4 mJy). Such a double-peaked or late-rising light curve is fully consistent with all reported data. Using Eq. (3) with t_p,5GHz = 157.6 * (6.9/5) = 217 d and L_p = 3.7 mJy gives V_SSA/V_theory ≈ 2.4 * (31.5/217)^(5/8) ≈ 0.72, erasing the claimed excess. Therefore the statement that this is the 'most conservative value' is unsupported, and the lower bound of ~1.7 is not rigorous.
  2. [§4.1 and Abstract] The peak parameters are adopted rather than measured. Section 4.1 explicitly states 'we do not fit for the peak parameters and instead adopt the 6.9 GHz flux density at 22.94 days ... as a representative peak value.' With only two detections and a 45.9-day upper limit that is comparable to the detected flux, the true SSA peak could be later and/or brighter, which would reduce the velocity ratio. The abstract and conclusion nevertheless present the ~2.4 excess and the ~1.7 lower bound as robust results. These statements must be re-scoped to reflect the sparse sampling, or the paper should provide a quantitative exploration of the allowed peak-parameter space demonstrating that the excess survives.
  3. [§4.2, confined-CSM discussion] The confined-CSM scenario is motivated entirely by the velocity excess. Since that excess is not secure given the peak ambiguity, the conclusion should be framed as a tentative interpretation rather than a robust finding. The independent X-ray evidence from Chen et al. (2025) is supportive, but the radio data alone do not require a confined dense shell; a later unobserved radio peak could plausibly produce a lower apparent shock velocity. The diagnostic value proposed in the final paragraph is appealing, but it needs to be demonstrated on data with denser sampling before being promoted as a general method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, Figure 2 caption] The caption states 'All measurements were in the 8 GHz band,' but Figure 1 shows JVN detections at both 6.9 and 8.4 GHz. Please clarify whether the 6.9 GHz points were frequency-scaled to 8.4 GHz or whether only 8.4 GHz points are plotted for SN 2024iss.
  2. [§4.1] The choice of epsilon_e = 0.1 and epsilon_B = 0.1 is standard, but the dependence of the derived mass-loss rate on these parameters is not quantified. A sentence on the systematic range associated with plausible variations in the microphysics parameters would strengthen the mass-loss estimate.
  3. [§3, text after Table 1] The sentence 'Two radio flux densities were reported for SN 2024iss' is slightly ambiguous because it refers to the AMI-LA and ATA measurements, while the preceding sentence already reports the JVN detections. Please rephrase to avoid confusion about which measurements are being described.
  4. [Table 1] The table lists different integration times for the 6.9 and 8.4 GHz bands at the detected epochs. Adding a brief footnote explaining how the best integration time was selected for each band would improve reproducibility.
  5. [§4.2 and Conclusion] The phrase 'conservative upper-bound peak time' is misleading because the 45.9-day non-detection is not an upper bound on the peak epoch. I recommend replacing it with 'assumed upper limit' and explicitly noting that this limit is not data-derived.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the velocity-excess ratio is an internal consistency check, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The mass-loss rate is obtained from the SSA peak relations of Chevalier and Fransson (2006) using the adopted peak luminosity and peak time, and the theoretical shock velocity in Eq. (2) is evaluated at the same Mdot, v_w, E_kin, M_ej, and t_p. The velocity comparison is not an identity: eliminating Mdot and v_w between the SSA and self-similar expressions yields Eq. (3), V_SSA/V_theory proportional to L_p^(17/38) t_p^(-5/8), so the factor of about 2.4 is a genuine internal consistency check rather than a fitted input. The cIIb classification in the L_p-t_p diagram is an external comparison with published SN samples, and the microphysics choices (epsilon_e = 0.1, epsilon_B = 0.1) are standard stated assumptions, not outputs of the fit. The confined-CSM explanation is proposed after the velocity excess is measured and is supported by cited simulations by some of the same authors, but those citations are not used to construct the excess or to define the fitted quantities, so the argument does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The skeptically noted weakness that the 45.9-day non-detection does not strictly upper-bound the peak epoch is a sampling/correctness concern about the conservativeness of the lower limit, not a circularity in the derivation. No step of the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard SSA and self-similar wind models with assumed microphysics and wind-velocity parameters; none of these are fitted to SN 2024iss, but they are domain assumptions from prior literature. The only invented entity is the confined CSM shell, which has independent X-ray support. The velocity-excess ratio itself is parameter-robust (Eq 3), but the peak epoch and luminosity are weakly constrained by the sparse radio sampling.

free parameters (6)
  • microphysics efficiency eps_e = 0.1 (assumed from literature)
    Adopted in Section 4.1 for SSA modeling; affects the derived radius and mass-loss rate, though the velocity-excess ratio in Eq (3) is independent of it.
  • magnetic field efficiency eps_B = 0.1 (assumed from literature)
    Same as eps_e; adopted in Section 4.1 and Figure 3 caption.
  • compact-envelope wind velocity v_w = 100 km/s (cIIb), 20 km/s (eIIb)
    Assumed for the two progenitor scenarios in Section 4.1; scales the derived mass-loss rate.
  • electron spectral index p = 3
    Used in the SSA peak relations (Chevalier 1998; Chevalier & Fransson 2006), as stated in the caption of Figure 3.
  • outer ejecta density index n = 10
    Adopted in Eq (2) for the self-similar shock velocity; the authors state the result is not sensitive to n.
  • representative peak epoch and flux = t_exp = 22.94 d, F_6.9GHz = 3.7 mJy
    Chosen in Section 4.1 as the peak because of sparse sampling; the authors bound the effect with a conservative upper limit at t_exp = 45.87 d, but the gap to 157.6 d means the bound is soft.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The radio peak is governed by synchrotron self-absorption in a smooth wind with constant Mdot and v_w.
    Section 4.1 applies the Chevalier (1998) and Chevalier & Fransson (2006) SSA formulation; FFA is checked and found negligible in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption The forward shock evolution follows the Chevalier (1982a,b) self-similar solution for a steady wind.
    Used to compute V_sh,theory in Eq (2) of Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption Equipartition microphysics: eps_e = eps_B = 0.1 and p = 3 for the relativistic electron distribution.
    Standard assumptions; values adopted in Section 4.1 and Figure 3 caption.
  • domain assumption Ejecta kinetic energy and mass from light-curve modeling: Ekin = 0.94e51 erg, Mej = 2.8 Msun.
    Adopted from Yamanaka et al. (2025) in Section 4.2 for the FFA check and Eq (2).
  • domain assumption Distance to SN 2024iss is D = 14.1 Mpc (z = 0.003334).
    Used for luminosity scaling; from O'Neill et al. (2024) and NED.
  • domain assumption A shock emerging from a confined dense CSM into a lower-density wind accelerates by a factor of roughly two (Matsuoka et al. 2019, 2025).
    Used in Section 4.2 to interpret the velocity excess as evidence for confined CSM; not used in the derivation of the excess itself.
  • domain assumption The wind velocity distinguishes cIIb (100 km/s) from eIIb (20 km/s) SNe IIb (Chevalier & Soderberg 2010).
    Used to select the mass-loss rate scaling in Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption The single-baseline VLBI detection criterion (four consistent fringe peaks) correctly identifies real emission.
    Section 2 describes the detection criterion; it is a standard but unverified-in-the-field assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Confined dense circumstellar matter (CSM) shell around SN 2024iss independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the factor ~2.4 excess of SSA-derived shock velocity over the self-similar expectation.
    The paper cites early X-ray spectroscopy (Chen et al. 2025) suggesting a confined CSM within 1.3e14 cm, providing independent support; the shell is not directly imaged in radio.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio Constraints on the Circumstellar Environment of the Type IIb Supernova SN 2024iss." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BINC53Z

@misc{pith2026260806716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio Constraints on the Circumstellar Environment of the Type IIb Supernova SN 2024iss},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BINC53Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06716}
}
abstract

Type~IIb supernovae exhibit diverse progenitor properties, and radio observations offer a unique probe of their mass-loss histories shortly before the explosion. We present Japanese VLBI Network single-baseline monitoring of the nearby Type IIb SN 2024iss at 6.9 and 8.4 GHz, spanning approximately one year after its discovery. Our radio observations have detected its emission at 10 and 23 days after the explosion, with subsequent epochs yielding non-detections. Based on the peak radio luminosity and peak time, SN 2024iss exhibits radio properties highly comparable to those of compact-envelope events. Using a synchrotron self-absorption (SSA) modeling, we estimate a progenitor mass-loss rate of $\dot{M} \approx 2.5 \times 10^{-6}\>M_{\odot}\>{\rm yr^{-1}}$ for a compact progenitor wind velocity of $100 \>{\rm km\>s^{-1}}$. Furthermore, our SSA analysis yields a mean expansion velocity of $V_{\rm sh} \approx 3.3 \times 10^4\>{\rm km\>s^{-1}}$, which exceeds the theoretical shock velocity derived from the self-similar solution by a factor of $\sim 2.4$. Even for the conservative upper-bound peak time, the SSA-derived velocity remains larger than the theoretical expectation by a factor of $\gtrsim 1.7$. To explain this velocity excess, we propose the presence of a confined, dense circumstellar matter (CSM) surrounding the progenitor. The shock emergence from this confined CSM may have accelerated the forward shock, pointing to a highly complex and non-steady mass-loss history shortly before the explosion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06716 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Observed radio flux densities of SN 2024iss. Circles and trian￾gles indicate JVN-detected flux densities and 5 σ upper limits, respectively. Squares are the reported flux densities observed by AMI-LA at 15.5 GHz (Sfaradi et al. 2024) and by ATA at 7.0 GHz (Bright et al. 2024). Alt text: A graph showing the time evolution of flux density after a supernova explo￾sion. The x-axis represents days since the explosion fro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral luminosity evolution of SN 2024iss compared with other well-observed SNe IIb (magenta: SN 1993J from Weiler et al. 2007, orange: SN 2001ig from Ryder et al. 2004, green: SN 2003bg from Soderberg et al. 2006, purple: SN 2008ax from Roming et al. 2009 with an assumed distance of 7.77 Mpc provided by the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, grey: SN 2016gkg from Nayana et al. 2022). All measurements were in the 8… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Peak radio spectral luminosities vs. time of peak of the light curves for SNe IIb. The properties of SN 2024iss are compared with eIIb (blue circles) in the left panel, and cIIb (orange squares) in the right panel. The observed SNe are designated by the last two digits of the year and letters. The dashed lines indicate the mean velocity of the radio shell if SSA is responsible for the flux peak; a particle spectral … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., & Richmond, M

    Aldering, G., Humphreys, R. M., & Richmond, M. 1994, AJ, 107, 662,

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJL, 742, L18,

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2011, ApJL, 742, L18,

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    G., Bersten, M

    Benvenuto, O. G., Bersten, M. C., & Nomoto, K. 2013, ApJ, 762, 74,

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    C., Benvenuto, O

    Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. G., Nomoto, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 31,

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

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

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 75,

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16644, 1

    Bright, J., Farah, W., Pollak, A., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16644, 1

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 1807,

    Bufano, F., Pignata, G., Bersten, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1807,

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.22997,

    Chen, L., Wang, X., Wu, Q., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.22997,

    arXiv 2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982a, ApJ, 258, 790, —. 1982b, ApJ, 259, 302, —. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810,

    1998

  2. [10]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2006, ApJ, 651, 381,

    2006

  3. [11]

    A., & Soderberg, A

    Chevalier, R. A., & Soderberg, A. M. 2010, ApJL, 711, L40,

    2010

  4. [12]

    Claeys, J. S. W., de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., Eldridge, J. J., & Baes, M. 2011, A&A, 528, A131,

    2011

  5. [13]

    V ., Matheson, T., & Ho, L

    Filippenko, A. V ., Matheson, T., & Ho, L. C. 1993, ApJL, 415, L103,

    1993

  6. [14]

    C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al

    Folatelli, G., Bersten, M. C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 147,

    2015

  7. [15]

    C., Benvenuto, O

    Folatelli, G., Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. G., et al. 2014, ApJL, 793, L22,

    2014

  8. [16]

    Fransson, C., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 461, 993,

    1996

  9. [17]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 1415,

    Fujisawa, K., Aoki, T., Kanazawa, S., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1415,

    2022

  10. [18]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 138,

    Iwata, Y ., Akimoto, M., Matsuoka, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 138,

    2025

  11. [19]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 95,

    Maeda, K., Katsuda, S., Bamba, A., Terada, Y ., & Fukazawa, Y . 2014, ApJ, 785, 95,

    2014

  12. [20]

    2023, ApJL, 945, L3,

    Maeda, K., Michiyama, T., Chandra, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L3,

    2023

  13. [21]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 35,

    Maeda, K., Hattori, T., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 35,

    2015

  14. [22]

    2025, ApJL, 988, L53,

    Matsuoka, T., Maeda, K., & Chen, K.-J. 2025, ApJL, 988, L53,

    2025

  15. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 41,

    Matsuoka, T., Maeda, K., Lee, S.-H., & Yasuda, H. 2019, ApJ, 885, 41,

    2019

  16. [24]

    R., Fraser, M., Ergon, M., et al

    Maund, J. R., Fraser, M., Ergon, M., et al. 2011, ApJL, 739, L37,

    2011

  17. [25]

    J., Chandra, P., Krishna, A., & Anupama, G

    Nayana, A. J., Chandra, P., Krishna, A., & Anupama, G. C. 2022, ApJ, 934, 186,

    2022

  18. [26]

    1993, Nature, 364, 507,

    Nomoto, K., Suzuki, T., Shigeyama, T., et al. 1993, Nature, 364, 507,

    1993

  19. [27]

    I., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T

    Nomoto, K. I., Iwamoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 1995, Phys. Rep., 256, 173, O’Neill, D., Godson, B., Killestein, T., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 128, 1

    1995

  20. [28]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, D. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7,

    2017

  21. [29]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246,

    1992

  22. [30]

    Roming, P. W. A., Pritchard, T. A., Brown, P. J., et al. 2009, ApJL, 704, L118,

    2009

  23. [31]

    D., Sadler, E

    Ryder, S. D., Sadler, E. M., Subrahmanyan, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1093,

    2004

  24. [32]

    2012, A&A, 546, A80,

    Sasaki, M., & Ducci, L. 2012, A&A, 546, A80,

    2012

  25. [33]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16634, 1

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Bright, J., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16634, 1

    2024

  26. [34]

    Smith, N., & Conti, P. S. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1467,

    2008

  27. [35]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Soderberg, A. M., Chevalier, R. A., Kulkarni, S. R., & Frail, D. A. 2006, ApJ, 651, 1005,

    2006

  28. [36]

    M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B

    Soderberg, A. M., Margutti, R., Zauderer, B. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 78,

    2012

  29. [37]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-2046, 1 Van Dyk, S

    Srivastav, S., Fulton, M., Nicholl, M., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-2046, 1 Van Dyk, S. D., Li, W., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2011, ApJL, 741, L28, Van Dyk, S. D., Zheng, W., Clubb, K. I., et al. 2013, ApJL, 772, L32, Van Dyk, S. D., Zheng, W., Fo...

    2024

  30. [38]

    W., Panagia, N., Montes, M

    Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., Montes, M. J., & Sramek, R. A. 2002, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 40, 387,

    2002

  31. [39]

    W., Williams, C

    Weiler, K. W., Williams, C. L., Panagia, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1959,

    2007

  32. [40]

    2025, PASJ, 77, L31,

    Yamanaka, M., Nagayama, T., & Horikiri, T. 2025, PASJ, 77, L31,

    2025

  33. [41]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 74,

    Yonekura, Y ., Saito, Y ., Sugiyama, K., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 74,

    2016

  34. [42]

    E., & Langer, N

    Yoon, S.-C., Woosley, S. E., & Langer, N. 2010, ApJ, 725, 940,

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.